I know. Every time we find an article saying how good red wine is for us, we find another that says- not so fast. (The National Cancer Institute just declared that alcohol consumption is associated with 5% of all new cancer diagnoses – and about 5.8% of the deaths from cancer world wide. In particular, cancers of pharynx, larynx, colon/rectum, esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, and breast.)
What these findings mean is that there really is no universal good thing for us to do routinely. Each of us have our own limits- mine might be three glasses of wine and yours might be one. So, if you stick to one, you get the benefits desired. If you keep up with me, you find that you’re not getting that desired benefit- and suffering the consequences.
So, I will still bring up flavonols and kaempferols. And, how much of a benefit they provide us. Flavenols are a class of phytochemical compounds, the 3-hydroxy-2-phenylchromen-4-one phenolic hydroxide compounds. These are present in vegetables, fruits, wine, and tea, and are known to have positive health effects. (They may even inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus!) These antioxidants have been found to diminish, to slow down, the rate of our cognitive decline.
But, by how much? About 0.4 units (Global Cognitive Score) per decade of life.
This was determined in a study effected by Drs. TM Holland, P Agarwal, Y Wang, K Dhana, SE Leurgans, K Rajan, JA Schneider, LL Barnes [all of whom are associated with Rush Medical,Chicago], and K Shea, SL Booth (these latter two are from Tufts of Boston) entitled “Association of Dietary Intake of Flavonols With Changes in Global Cognition and Several Cognitive Abilities” and published in Neurology.
The researchers studied 961 subjects (average age of 81 [age range of 61 to 100], all with no signs of dementia at the onset of the study). The subjects filled out a food questionnaire annually for seven years and also were subject to 19 annual cognitive and memory tests (5 cognitive domains), along with determinations of their physical and mental activity.
The subjects were grouped by their flavonol intake levels- the lowest was 5 mg/d and the highest was 15 mg/d. The high level matched what would be obtained by consuming a cup of dark, leafy greens daily. (For what it’s worth, our average flavonol intake is 16 to 20 mg/d.)
The subjects were further characterized by the levels of four specific flavonols- kaempferol, quercetin, myricetin, and isorhamnetin- in their diets.Keampferol provided the largest impact- that’s where that 0.4 units of decreased decline was derived. Myricetin yielded a 0.3 unit per decade decrease, with quercetin coming in at 0.2 units per decade. (The isorhamnetin had no discernable effect.)
Now, I know this sounds pretty good. But, consider this fact. How accurate do you think this survey might have been, coalescing a whole year’s worth of eating into one form filled out in one sitting?
Yeah, I thought you’d wonder about these results, too.
But, they certainly are intriguing.
I wouldn’t trust a once a year food survey. But eating healthy is always a good idea.
I’m with you on that, Alana.
I’m save on the alcohol, neither Rich or I drink any. As for the flavonols, it’s interesting to read your information. But like you, how accurate is a filling out a form in one sitting after a year of eating.
We can only hope it’s generally accurate, Martha