Cockroach milk is apparently more nutritious than dairy milk and contains all the amino acids we need.

Recently, people have been adopting all kinds of crazy trends when it comes to food and nutrition. Among these insane trends, they have just added an alternative to milk that will likely bring shivers down your spine.

Cockroach milk is supposedly healthier, as it contains more proteins and amino acids than regular milk. Soon enough, this strange treat might enter the superfood group.

Odd New Trend that is Highly Nutritious

This odd trend became popular in 2016 when researchers conducted some studies on the milk they extracted from a specific species of cockroach in Hawaii. This way, they discovered the milk in question was a lot better than the one we drink. It had more nutrients, more proteins, and had all the amino acids we needed for a healthy development.

The species in question is called the Pacific beetle cockroach. It is strikingly different than other species as it doesn’t lay eggs but give birth to its young. Therefore, it produces cockroach milk to feed them. Researchers collected such milk from the creatures and spotted some particles inside that were incredibly nutritious.

Of course, the information got to the ears of nutrition companies. For instance, Gourmet Grubb from South Africa started breeding these cockroaches and then collected milk from them.

Afterward, they produced Entomilk, a safe and eco-friendly alternative to the dairy product. People might be reluctant about drinking cockroach milk and producing it is also a difficult process.

Is Cockroach Milk Actually Good for Humans?

Despite all this, more companies might soon exploit it as a superfood. Such foods are really rich in nutrients and can really herd off many diseases, and include blueberries, salmon, or broccoli. However, there’s no scientific base behind this list.

In this case, science might be the one that keeps cockroach milk from becoming a trend. Since it comes from an insect, drinking this milk might put you at some risks. When researchers first found out about cockroach milk, they identified it as nutritious for insects.

However, they couldn’t prove it’s safe for humans. Until we cannot prove this, it’s better to avoid turning the product into a superfood trend.

The 2016 study on cockroach milk was published in the journal of the International Union of Crystallography.

Image Source: PublicDomainPictures

Back in the 1950s, a famous worldwide ad slogan said to “go to work on an egg”. Well, as it turns out, that advice might not be that old-fashioned, even in modern times. According to a study which the journal Heart recently published, eating one egg a day could drastically reduce the risk of stroke. Moreover, people who ate about five eggs per week were also 12% less likely to develop heart disease. The teams of researchers at Peking University Health Science Centre and Oxford University wanted to analyze the connection between egg consumption, cardiovascular disease and strokes.

So, in order to do this, they analyzed the dietary habits of over 400,000 healthy Chinese people, with ages between 30 and 79. About 13.1% of the volunteers stated that they ate an egg every day while 9.1% admitted to rarely doing so. Nine years later, the teams followed up on this study and found that 83,977 of people developed cardiovascular disease. Moreover, 9,985 of them had died and 5,103 people went through some major heart-related problems such as a heart attack. The healthiest people were those who reported eating one egg each day.

Eating an egg each day can decrease the risk of stroke

The teams admitted that their study was completely observational. However, this doesn’t mean that eggs should not b part of a balanced and healthy diet. According to experts, eggs are very rich in vitamins, proteins, essential fatty acids and minerals. Eggs are also very low on saturated fat. In fact, recent evidence has proven that the saturated fat is the one that raises the cholesterol.

Experts are also saying that only eating eggs will not help you if you don’t pair this habit with a healthy lifestyle and overall diet. Eggs are very good, but they will not do all the work on their own.

Image source: pxhere

Most modern-day parents are almost obsessed with keeping their babies as clean as possible. They always carry antiseptic wipes with them and obsessively clean their homes. Overall, they are a bit too careful about what their little one touches. It’s normal to pay extra attention to those things, but a new study claims that this obsession to protect babies from everything around them might be the main cause for childhood acute leukemia. According to the study, which the journal Nature Reviews Cancer recently published, this is the most common form of childhood cancer.

According to Professor Mel Greaves, who is the leader of the study and who conducted research for it for over 30 years, it seems that cancer is often caused by a lack of childhood infection. Also, by a combination of genetic mutations. Thankfully, this can be prevented, says Greaves. Parents should make sure that their babies have social contact with others. Especially while they are under the age of one. Nowadays, lymphoblastic leukemia affects one in 2,000 children worldwide. Back in the ’50s and ‘60s, it was completely lethal. Thankfully, now, about 90% of children survive thanks to treatment.

Lack of infection causes childhood leukemia

According to Greaves, one in 20 kids is born with a risky genetic mutation. This makes them vulnerable to leukemia. However, they will not get sick if their parents have set up their immune system correctly. This is where the tricky part happens. In order for that to occur, children must encounter benign bacteria and viruses within their first year of life.

Those with not well developed immune systems will become more vulnerable to leukemia when they’ll first encounter an infection like the flu, later in life. Moreover, it seems that the story is also similar in the case of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes and allergies.

Image source: pixnio

According to some findings which have recently been presented at the Unite to Cure Fourth International Vatican Conference, a vegetarian diet might prevent a third of all early deaths. The researchers from Harvard who conducted this study are saying that unfortunately, people nowadays underestimate the benefits that a plant-based diet can have on the health. Official numbers are saying that in the United Kingdom, about 200,000 lives might be saved yearly if only more people gave up on eating meat.

Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Medical School and this study’s lead author says that their main focus point was to make calculations. Also, to find out how many lives a healthier diet could save. This doesn’t mean going completely vegan but shifting towards a more plant-based diet. Their result was that a vegetarian diet could prevent about one third of all early deaths. Moreover, what’s even more interesting is that the team did not take into account not smoking and physical activity. Also, that total number is of all deaths, not just cancer-caused ones. Moreover, it did not include obesity. Taking this into account, the number of lives that could be saved might be even higher.

Going vegetarian might save your life

According to Professor David Jenkins, who developed the glycemic index that says how much carbs impact blood sugar, the incredible benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle have been underestimated for decades. He also says that a “simian” diet might be better for humans. This is the one similar to gorillas who only eat stems, vines, leaves and fruits. On the other hand, a “paleo” diet that cuts carbs but allows meat, similar to cavemen, is not that good.

Jenkins explained that they meant this study as a way to show people that they have a choice. Taking pills to solve their health problems is not really the best way. Especially when you have an easier alternative of prevention.

Image source: pixnio

A team of researchers might have just discovered a new human organ which consists of a network of fluid-filled channels. Moreover, this network is what seems to be transporting cancer cells into the human body. Its name is “interstitium.” The team of experts made the discovery accidentally, after noticing something strange following some routine endoscopies. This involves inserting a small camera into someone’s gastrointestinal tract. Thanks to new techniques, doctors are now able to also look at the tissue that’s inside someone’s gut. Sometimes, the results can be shocking.

This team had expected to find a dense tissue wall surrounding someone’s bile duct. Instead, they found something completely unusual. Neil Theise, a pathologist at New York University School of Medicine is the leader of the study which the journal Scientific Reports recently published. According to him, when the team asked him to also take a look, he couldn’t believe his eyes. Using the exact same device, he looked under the skin of his own nose. So, this network was not only present in the bile duct, but everywhere around the body, carrying fluid through those channels.

The “interstitium”, a new human organ

According to Theisa, this could mean that every tissue in the human body is surrounded by these channels. Basically, they form a brand-new human organ which carries about one fifth of the total fluid volume of the body. What’s even more interesting about this network is that its channels might help spread cancer cells throughout the body.

After taking samples from people suffering from invasive cancers, they figured out that the cells had travelled from certain organs into these channels. In their turn, the channels took the cells to the lymphatic system. The next step is to analyze the fluid inside these channels and to figure out if it may be a way to discover cancer earlier.

Image source: wikimedia

Obesity is now linked to a loss of sensitivity in taste buds.

A new research shows that gaining weight can make your taste buds dull. To conduct this study, researchers used mice. The rodents were put on a special diet to make them gain weight as quickly as possible. After that, their taste buds were tested and compared to the ones of skinnier mice. This research tested an interesting theory that stated obese people have duller taste buds.

New Developments on the Link between Obesity and Dull Taste Buds

Several studies had had this conclusion before, but none of them managed to determine a cause and effect. This new study wanted to know the reason behind this change. Is it the excess body fat or the heavy foods that dulled the sensitivity? After the comparison was made, researchers observed that the taste buds of the mice on the fatty diet were withering.

The leader of the research, Dr. Dando, mentioned:

The obese ones have about 25 percent fewer taste buds

In order to see if the food was the problem, the researchers also had an obesity-resistant genetically engineered group of mice. They had the same fatty diet and the researchers observed that the food was not the cause of the problem. Then, the researchers tested a new theory which proposed that the inflammation is the one that causes the change in the taste buds.

This is when they tested a group of mice that couldn’t produce TNF alpha, the molecule that creates inflammation. Usually, this molecule (along with others that affect inflammation) is found in higher levels in obese mice and humans. Researchers observed that these mice were also obese but their taste sensitivity remained intact.

Inflamed Results?

Researchers concluded that the inflammation caused by obesity was the one that affects the taste buds. Although scientists were able to prove a cause-and-effect relationship, the study was only conclusive for mice. This result might not be the same when put through a human test.

A new study just found an unusual use for platypus milk.

The Australian platypus is such a bizarre creature that back in the day, some of the early European zoologists didn’t even believe in its existence. For them, this animal was like a beast from Newt Scamander’s famous fictional book.

The platypus slightly resembles a duck, it lays eggs, and is semi-aquatic. Perhaps most importantly, it possesses poisonous spurs at its feet.

However, according to a new study, which the journal Structural Biology Communications recently published, these little creatures might have something else unique about them. The chemical structure of their milk might one day help us fight off superbugs.

To reach this result, a team of molecular biologists from Australia managed to isolate the monotreme lactation protein structure. What they found amazed them. Namely, they detected a novel chemical structure that could one day help us create a new type of antibiotics.

According to Janet Newman, the study lead it actually makes sense for platypuses to have such a bizarre biochemistry. It’s interesting that back in 2010, a team from Deakin University in Geelong, Victoria, discovered a lactation protein in the platypus milk. This reportedly has huge antibacterial properties.

The Valuable and Bizarre Platypus Milk

Newman said that these antibacterial properties work against some dangerous bugs present in the environment. However, they do not work against the bacteria from the guts of babies. One hypothesis from the experts is that because platypuses don’t have teats, the milk has to protect the baby from certain infections. Once mammals evolved nipples, which is a very sterile milk delivery system, this protein lost its importance.

Th researchers now think that this novel structure could one day lead to the creation of therapies that deal with microbial infections in a different way than the antibiotics we have today. It could also be very effective against superbugs, which are bacteria that have built up resistance to antibiotics.

Image source: Flickr

A new study found that lead exposure may cause heart disease and premature deaths.

Previous research has long established that prolonged lead exposure leads to brain damage in children and increases the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease. However, a new study suggests that the threat of lead poisoning is bigger than what we’ve believed.

According to the research paper, published in the journal, Lancet Public Health, lead exposure may contribute to more than 400 thousand deaths of American adults each year. Out of all these cases, 256 thousand deaths are heart-related suggesting that lead exposure may be an overlooked risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

The study based its estimates on a national health survey that tracked 14,289 adults, whose blood had been tested for lead sometime between 1988 and 1994.

In previous studies, scientists believed that low levels of lead in people’s blood wouldn’t increase the risk of mortality. However, the new research found the even trace amounts of lead substantially increase the risk of death, specifically from heart disease.

“We saw risk down to the lowest measurable levels,” said Bruce Lanphear, lead author of the study and a lead poisoning researcher at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. “It’s a big deal and it’s largely been ignored when it comes to cardiovascular disease deaths.”

People can be exposed to lead through paint, household dust, water, food, and cigarette smoke, as well as through several industrial jobs.

Lead exposure had declined dramatically in the United States ever since the country began phasing out leaded gasoline and paint in the 1970s. However, the threat is still considered a risk factor for heart disease with the CDC and the Environmental Protection Agency warning that lead is unsafe at any level.

By the end of the study, researchers found that 4.422 of the people analyzed had died, including 1.801 from cardiovascular disease, out of which 988 deaths stemmed from coronary heart disease. Researchers accounted for several factors for the results including age, sex, alcohol consumption, smoking, and diet. They estimate that a proportion of death in adult Americans ages 44 or older could have been prevented if they hadn’t been exposed to lead.

Image Source: WikipediaCommons

Adults may reverse symptoms of childhood abuse by having close relationships, a study found.

A new study found that people with supportive relationships during their middle age can counteract adverse health risks associated with childhood abuse.

Researchers revealed that survivors of severe physical abuse were 19 percent less likely to die during the study if they had close relationships while survivors of moderate physical abuse were 12 percent less likely to die. Survivors of emotional abuse had an 11 percent lower risk of premature death, the study found.

“This is one of the first studies to provide evidence suggesting that experiences long after exposure to abuse can mitigate the mortality risks associated with early abuse,” said Jessica Chiang, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University in the US.

Chiang notes that victims of childhood abuse are not forced on a path towards poor mental and physical health in adulthood. According to her, this path is “malleable” as long as the people have strong social support in adulthood. This aspect can reverse the effects even decades after exposure to childhood abuse, she claims.

Most of the diseases linked to childhood abuse generally surface in the middle and later stages of adulthood, even decades after the abuse occurred, Chiang said.

The study was not a controlled experiment and didn’t focus on the closeness between to persons that would allow for the reversal to kick in. Researchers thus acknowledged that some people may cope better than others in that they can overcome abuse during childhood.

To reach this conclusion, Chiang and her team examined more than 6 thousand adults in the US who self-reported social support, something which was then put in contrast with each participant’s mortality risk. This correlation was then filtered through three types of childhood abuse: severe physical abuse, modest physical abuse, and emotional abuse.

The study was published in the journal, Nature Human Behaviour.

Image Source: Pixabay

1 in 14 US women smoked during pregnancy in 2016, according to a CDC report.

About one in 14 women who gave birth in the United States in 2016, admitted they smoked while they were pregnant, according to a new CDC report released Wednesday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) based their findings on data from its National Vital Statistics System. According to the CDC, approximately 7.2 percent of all expectant mothers smoked, however, the percentage of pregnant smokers varied from state to state.

The highest rates of smoking whilst pregnant were reported in West Virginia, where 25.1 percent of women reported smoking at any time during pregnancy. California was the state with the lowest rates, where 1.6 percent of women reported smoking.

West Virginia was followed by Kentucky and Montana, which were 18 percent and 16.5 percent of expecting mothers smoked respectively.

“Despite the well-understood risk to mother and child, still, about one of every 14 women in the United State smoked during pregnancy,” said Patrick Drake, senior author of the report and a demographer at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, younger mothers, as well as those less educated, tended to smoke more. This prompted the organization to suggest smoking cessation counseling for these specific populations in addition to anti-smoking ad campaigns targeted towards high-risk groups.

The 2016 report also found that Native Americans and Alaska native had a higher chance of smoking during pregnancy, with 16.7 percent of pregnant women in the two groups still smoking.

Smoking during pregnancy can lead to premature birth and triples the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. More so, CDC said that children whose mothers smoked while pregnant are also likelier to develop asthma and have heart defects after birth.

The smoking rate was 10.7 percent among women 20 to 24, followed by women 15 to 19 at 8.5 percent and 25 to 29 at 8.2 percent.

Image Source: WikipediaCommons