Newcastle University

Leave a comment Posted on February 19, 2016February 18, 2016 Diet

Ground-breaking new study finds clear nutritional differences between organic and non-organic milk and meat

Tim Field of Daylesford

A new study published today in the British Journal of Nutrition shows organic milk and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than non-organic. In addition to organic milk and meat, the nutritional differences also apply to organic dairy like butter, cream, cheese and yoghurt. The study is the largest systematic reviews of its kind and led by Newcastle University and an international team of experts.
Key findings:

Both organic milk (dairy) and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced products
Organic meat had slightly lower concentrations of two saturated fats linked to heart disease
Organic milk and dairy contains 40% more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) – CLA has been linked to a range of health benefits including reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and obesity, but evidence is mainly from animal studies
Organic milk and dairy contains slightly higher concentrations of iron, Vitamin E and some carotenoids
Organic milk contains less iodine than non-organic milk

Joining us to explain why the research and its findings are so significant is Environmental Scientist, Tim Field from Daylesford (an Organic Farm in Gloucestershire).

Patient Talk – So what does Organic actually mean and how would it apply to live

stock and dairy?

Field – Organic is a way of farming, is a way producing food and eating, Organic is actually set in European regulations so that there is a law that determines what is actually organic and what is not and in essence the philosophy of organic is that you are farming or producing food within nature rather than artificially pushing the limits within the environment with lots of artificial inputs, so its farming with nature and as a result you have got a more natural product coming out of the other end. The way it applies to live stock and dairy is one of the same thing, dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep and so on they are ruminants and they turn grass and forage into milk and or muscle very effectively, they are used to grazing the plains of wherever they might of come from and turning that into energy and so an organic system utilises that rumen of the ruminant and turns that grass and the clover into milk and meat, whereas in an non organic system there is the capacity that for lots of high energy and high protein feeds like maize or soya so be feeding the cattle or the sheep or live stock to produce that milk and protein and that is less natural than to the way it would of evolved originally.

Patient Talk – Ok and what are the nutritional differences between organic and non-organic produce?

Field – Well the outstanding nutritional difference that we see form this landmark report is the 47% omega 3 fatty acids in the meat and dairy and 40% more Conjugated acid in the dairy so that is significant difference between organic and non-organic and that is head line stuff and that is actually proving what we at Daylesford . We believe there is a difference, there is a difference in taste and that transpires into nutritional value as well.

Patient Talk – And how would a scientist account for the difference?

Field – So the difference here is that organic regulations is that you have to produce dairy and livestock with a lot of pasture , with a lot of grass and clover in their diet and it is actually the clover that they believe is accountable for this increased omega 3 fatty acid so this sort of free range to graze, a natural diet is where the benefits are seen.

Patient Talk – And could you tell us a bit about the research, how is was conducted, what were the results and are there other studies which various out the results?

Field – So the research was conducted by a team up in Newcastle University and a broad range of international scientists headed up by Professor Carlo Leifert and what they did was they took all the research that had been done, analysing the difference between organic and non-organic, all that different research and different reports from across the world and they have done some very cleaver statistics to work out what the overall difference is in a nut shell between organic and non-organic and they have come out with all sorts of different nutritional findings and the overall way to explain is more of the good stuff and less of the bad, so as I mentioned the key headline figure is 47% more omega 3 fatty acids and more linolenic acid as well.

Patient Talk – And what medical conditions might benefit from organic produce?

Field – Well there is increasing evidence to suggest that more of the omega 3 fatty acids and potentially less of the omega 6 fatty acids, so if you get a better ratio rather than dominant omega 6 in the diet, if there is a better balance of that there is beneficial implications on cardiovascular disease prevention, some cancers and dementia. There is still a lot of work being done in that area but that is the main benefits and increasingly in western diets we have been pushing up the amount of omega 6 fatty acid and reducing our intake of oily fish like sardines, mackerel and salmon and they are a great source of omega 3 fatty acid. So if you can get more omega 3 in your milk, beef, chicken, lamb and pork that is a good way of compensating to some degree the lack of oily fish that we are getting in our diets.

Patient Talk – Do they fit into the paleo diet and how does the paleo diet work?

Field – That is a very good question and I am not an advisor on nutrition parse but ,my understanding of a paleo diet is that it is a lot less processed food, there is less meat in it, fish comes before meat in that pecking order and there is a lot of fruit and vegetables and less cereals as well. Paleo is as it suggests ‘ancient, this is what our ancestors the caveman would of run around eating ‘so how this fits into the paleo diet, it fits in like a glove its very interesting so if you look at game, venison, wild game and pigeon they have a much higher omega 3 fatty acid level and that is because they are roaming, they are grazing and brazing all these different herbs and grasses and seeds and so on , and that’s how it fits in with this more natural way of rearing beef, lamb and dairy and so on. So it fits in very nicely but what’s interesting is that I heard Carlo say earlier was that this is about getting the same amount of calories, you’re eating the same amount of calories but you are getting a much bigger bang for your buck in your calories so you are getting more nutritional benefit from the same calorie intake which for my mind in the diet that works pretty well.

Patient Talk – Why is organic more expensive?

Field – Well that is a very interesting question and I would argue that actually organic is cheaper when you factor in the broad spectrum of benefits and adverse implications of the food system so on the shelf there are plenty of examples out there where organic is a bit more expensive, there are actually examples of where organic is cheaper if you are buying direct form a producer, I know that the dale organic strawberries or bagged salads, they are all sort of examples where we are very competitive with some of the supermarket conventional brands and so yes there’s a little bit of disparity in some cases. But actually when you start looking at the way organic farming is done, it’s a sort of self-sufficient model, you’re trying to use the natural energy, the sunlight, and so on, your soils, and your natural ecology on your farm to produce the food, and so you don’t waste anything and you’re not bringing lots of inputs in. that in itself is quite a good model because you’re not paying lots of money out to buy in things. But also you’re not wasting through pollution, through degradation of the soils, through excessive nitrogen into the crops and pesticides and so on. You’re not bringing in all those inputs you’ve got to pay only to watch them wash away into the rivers an cause flooding, cause the water companies to have to treat their water even more. So conventional practices don’t always factor in the knock on cost to the consumer, whether that’s insurance premiums, whether it’s the NHS bill, or whether it’s the risk to antibiotics from over using antibiotics in livestock systems were not factoring those costs. So I would argue that actually if you factored all the costs in, that organic to that average citizen is less expensive.

Patient Talk – And Tim, do you think it will really take off?

Field – I really strongly believe that it does and it will and it is taking off. This is high street stuff now, this is no longer left to the niche shops and the hippies, this is mainstream. And a lot of people are going for dairy and eggs and chicken for organic because they strongly believe that the welfare is better in the organic system and that is categorically true. And so it really is beginning to take off, but I should say that we shouldn’t be polarizing organic and non-organic because there’s an awful lot lot of very good non organic farmers out there, particularly in the UK where we’ve got very good grass and a very natural environment for producing red meat and good dairy. So there’s a lot of conventional farmers out there that are adopting a lot of organic practices but perhaps haven’t gone that final mile to get certification from the likes of the soil association but as the demand for organic grows, because people recognize the health benefits and so on, I think we’ll see this little rush of farmers, getting that premium for their produce. And actually it’s a much more stable farming economy where you’re reducing your inputs and getting a little bit of a premium from your product.

Patient Talk – Okay and Tim, do you have anywhere people can go for more information at all, a website?

Field – Absolutely, there’s some great places to find out more. Daylesford Organic has a very interesting website that’s got a lot about the way that we produce organic food, that’s venison, that’s lamb, that’s chickens, that’s laying hens, organic fruit and vegetables as well and the soil association have some very interesting sound bites from this report that they’ve condensed into a little summary and then the Newcastle University also have the full report on their website for those more academics of us.

Leave a comment Posted on January 14, 2016January 14, 2016 Diet

Coffee – what are the health benefits of coffee and how do different countries view coffee and health?

Coffee, Diet and Health- what are the health benefits of coffee and how do different countries view coffee and health?

Despite a cultural love of coffee, over a third (39%) of Europeans are uncertain about the potential health benefits of coffee. Coffee remains integrated into the European lifestyle: predominantly drunk at home, at work or in cafes, with 40% of respondents saying coffee gets their day off to a good start.

The consumer research, conducted by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee (ISIC), surveyed over 4,000 people across 10 European countries[1], to understand their beliefs, behaviours, and knowledge regarding a healthy diet.

The results show that although 70% of Europeans believe they are healthy, many still don’t know what lifestyle changes they can make to help reduce their risk of common, serious health conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular disease. Age was an important determining factor: with the youngest and oldest respondents revealing the biggest knowledge gaps.

Coffee, Diet and Health

Key findings:

European respondents told us that they are healthy. Given the overall rise in obesity and related health problems in Europe, some respondents may be over-confident about their own health[2]:

· 70% of Europeans overall described themselves as either ‘fairly healthy’ or ‘very healthy’

· The French were most likely to describe themselves as either ‘fairly healthy’ or ‘very healthy’ (83%)

· The Danes were most likely to describe themselves as either ‘fairly unhealthy’ or ‘very unhealthy’ (51%)

· Coffee drinkers were 12% more likely to report better levels of health than non-coffee drinkers

· 76% of Europeans said they need more information on maintaining a healthy lifestyle

· 46% of women and 40% of men said their New Year’s resolution was to eat more healthily in 2016

Day-to-day health anxieties are prioritised over longer-term health risks, according to the survey results, despite the fact that cancer[3], cardiovascular (heart) disease[4] and excessive alcohol consumption[5] are some of the biggest public health concerns in Europe:

· 24% of respondents wanted to better manage their stress levels (the most stressed country was Italy, with 32% of Italians worried about stress), and 28% wanted to feel more energetic and less fatigued (the most tired country was Finland, with 45% of Finns worried about fatigue); compared to just 12% overall who were concerned about getting cancer, and 10% who were concerned about their heart health

· 18-24 year olds are as likely to cut down on coffee for their New Year’s resolution as they are to cut down on alcohol (9% for both). Danes are 2% more likely to cut down on alcohol than coffee

Respondents often struggled to recognise the potential health benefits of coffee:

· 71% of Europeans believe that drinking coffee does not help to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (75% of those aged 55+ held this belief). However, scientific research suggests that drinking 3-4 cups of coffee a day is associated with an approximate 25% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes[6,7]

· 63% of Europeans believe that drinking coffee does not help to reduce the risk of mental decline in older people, for example Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (64% of those aged 55+ who answered this question held this belief). Yet research suggests that moderate, life-long consumption of coffee is associated with a reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s[8,9]

· 42% of Europeans believe that drinking coffee increases the risk of cardiovascular (heart) disease (54% of those aged 18-24 held this belief). But scientific studies have suggested an association between moderate coffee consumption and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease[10,11]

Age plays a large role in defining respondents’ awareness of coffee’s role in a healthy diet:

· On average, 18-24 year olds were the least successful at recognising the potential health benefits of coffee: for example, just over a quarter (28%) did not know that coffee can help increase concentration and alertness

· Older respondents displayed very poor knowledge of diseases that could potentially pose the highest statistical risk to them: over half (56%) of those aged 35 and above are not aware of the potential health benefits of coffee relating specifically to cognitive decline, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease risk

67% of Europeans stated that they could not imagine life without coffee. The health effects of coffee consumption have been extensively researched: moderate consumption of coffee at 3-5 cups per day[12] has been associated with a range of desirable physiological effects and fits within a healthy diet and active lifestyle. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are advised by EFSA to consume no more than 200mg of caffeine, per day, from all sources. This is equivalent to no more than two cups per day[13].

Professor Chris Seal, Professor of Food and Human Nutrition at Newcastle University, UK said: “Many Europeans enjoy a cup of coffee, but clearly some feel guilty about drinking it – and unnecessarily so. Moderate, regular coffee consumption at 3-5 cups per day has been linked to a number of positive health benefits, such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Hopefully, this means people will now enjoy their cup of coffee without the guilt.”

References

1. 4119 respondents across 10 European countries were surveyed by ISIC in November 2015

2. World Health Organization, ‘Obesity: Data and Statistics’ Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/obesity/data-and-statistics

3. World Health Organization, ‘Cancer: Data and Statistics’ Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/cancer/data-and-statistics

4. World Health Organization, ‘Cardiovascular diseases: Data and Statistics’ Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/cardiovascular-diseases/data-and-statistics

5. World Health Organization, ‘Alcohol use: Data and Statistics’ Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/data-and-statistics

6. Huxley R. et al. (2009) Coffee, Decaffeinated Coffee, and Tea Consumption in Relation to Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Arch Intern Med, 169:2053-63

7. Zhang Y. et al. (2011) Coffee consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in men and women with normal glucose tolerance: The Strong Heart Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 21(6):418-23

8. Santos C. et al. (2010) Caffeine intake and dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 20(1):187-204

9. Barranco Quintana J.L. et al. (2007) Alzheimer’s disease and coffee: a quantitative review. Neurol Res, 29:91-5

10. European Heart Network, ‘European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2012’ Available at: http://www.ehnheart.org/cvd-statistics.html

11. Ding M. et al (2014) Long-term coffee consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation. 129(6):643-59

12. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, ‘Moderate coffee drinking may lower risk of premature death’

Available at: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/moderate-coffee-drinking-may-lower-risk-of-premature-death/

13. EFSA (2015) Scientific Opinion on the Safety of Caffeine, EFSA Journal, 13(5):4102

Leave a comment Posted on July 3, 2014 Autism, Patient Talk

Autism and virtual reality – Newcastle University shows how virtual reality can help children with autism overcome their fears!

Autism Awareness Butterfly

This morning Newcastle University published the following press release . We are reposting it in full because we think that it represents a brilliant opportunity for the autism community.

“Immersive reality can help children with autism spectrum disorder overcome their fears and phobias, new research has shown.

In a study published today in PLOS ONE, experts at Newcastle University describe how, following treatment in an immersive virtual reality room, eight out of nine children were able to tackle the situation they feared. Four children were found to have completely overcome their phobias. The effect of the treatment was still in place one year later. A video show the treatment in action.

Around 150,000 children in the UK are thought to have autism spectrum disorder and it affects four times more boys than girls. A study released earlier this month found that the condition costs the UK £32bn every year. Many people with autism spectrum disorder have a fear or phobia which can be so distressing that they and their families completely avoid the situation.

Each of the nine boys, aged between seven and 13 and with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, was immersed into a virtual environment which gradually introduced them to a scene of the real-life situation they feared. This included getting on a busy bus, crossing a bridge, going shopping or talking to an avatar shop assistant.

Supported by a psychologist, they were given breathing and relaxation exercises in the controllable and safe virtual environment to help them to learn to cope with that situation.

Fears and phobias

Dr Jeremy Parr, Clinical Senior Lecturer specialising in Paediatric Neurodisability at Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience said: “Phobias have a huge impact on a child with autism and on the whole family. Parents often find themselves taking action to avoid the situation the child fears, which can impact on school and leisure activities.

“Currently the main treatment is cognitive behaviour therapy but that often doesn’t work for a child with autism as it relies on imagination. People with autism can find imagination difficult so by providing the scene in front of the child’s eyes we help them learn how to manage their fears.”

The Newcastle University team worked with company Third Eye Technologies in their unique Immersive Blue Room to create personalised scenarios. Accompanied by a psychologist, the child was completely surrounded with audio visual images representing the ‘real world’ in the 360 degree seamless screened room with no point of external reference. This meant they did not have to wear a headset or goggles. They moved around the scene using ipad controls, interacting and navigating through the scenario as they wished allowing them to fully control the environment.

Children were observed by their parents via a video-link which enabled them to watch the techniques used to help their child. This had obvious benefits as Newcastle University researcher Dr Morag Maskey explains: “One boy was so fearful shopping that he would walk behind his parents with his hood up, refusing to even speak to people he knew.

“We created a petrol station kiosk scene in the Blue Room where he picked up a newspaper. With the help of the psychologist who was in the room with him, he learnt to control his anxiety with breathing and stretching exercises. He then built up confidence over four sessions until he held a conversation with the shop assistant avatar.

“At home his parents encouraged him to do more of the shopping on his own and use the techniques they had seen him practice.

“The therapy was so successful that he is now able to go shopping with his friends.”

Another nine-year-old boy in the study had a fear of crowded buses and underground trains which meant as his family had no car, they could face a 40 minute wait for an emptier bus or experience his difficult behaviour on a crowded bus. Building up his confidence with a scene of a bus that became more crowded over the four sessions has given a new lease of life to his family who are now able to board any bus – regardless of how many people are on it.

Treating phobias

Dr Parr from Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience, added: “Parents told us that they could see the difference in their children over the course of the four session programme – their children are now much better at coping with the situations that they once found distressing. Twelve months later, the children are still able to cope.

“This treatment has led to big changes in the lives of some families. To see a child who couldn’t get on a crowded bus do so after just four weeks of treatment is amazing.”

The flexibility of the Blue Room means that scenes can be gradually built up in complexity and noise level, allowing a graded exposure and element of control that cannot be achieved in real life. However, the technology has a wide range of applications as Paul Smith, CEO of Third Eye Technologies explains: “Immersive reality environments offer a powerful tool for training as participants can navigate through scenarios at their own discretion and therefore be taken closer to reality than ever before becoming active members of a 360 degree virtual world. The work performed shows that although participants appreciate that they are in a replicated environment, within a very short period of time they start reacting and behaving as they do in the real world. ‘

“The young people in this study were able to navigate through an environment such as a street or a school and interact with objects and people, rehearsing their newly-learned skills. Because there is no point of external reference and because it’s in true perspective people genuinely think they’re in the environment – which is why it’s so effective.

“When we were approached to take part in this study, it was an area of work we had never considered but it shows how innovative use of the latest technology can help in surprising areas such as health.”

Carol Povey, Director of The National Autistic Society’s Centre for Autism, said: “Some people with autism can struggle in everyday social situations that many of us take for granted, such as boarding a bus or going to the local shop to buy a pint of milk. A chance to explore stressful scenarios in a safe, virtual environment could help those whose lives are dominated by anxiety to better manage their fears, improving their quality of life.”

Baroness Hilary Armstrong social exclusion who has been following the work said: “The Blue Room has given children with autism the opportunity to deal with their fears and anxieties in a remarkable way. This has changed their lives, and the lives of their families. This is exciting progress that has the potential to offer real opportunities to many more children and young people with autism.”

The Newcastle University team are continuing their work in this area, and will shortly begin a new project that will investigate the treatment being used in the NHS in North East England.