This fat-rich everyday snack can help you sleep like a baby. And it is not what you think
A new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association has found that eating one Hass avocado daily may improve sleep quality in adults. (Image: iStock)
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Avocados and abdominal obesity
While originally aimed at studying heart health, researchers were surprised to find sleep benefits, likely due to avocados' rich nutrient content including fiber, healthy fats, potassium, and folate. (Image: iStock)
What's inside the avocado?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Not just a millennial fad
A word of caution
That humble, creamy fruit smashed on your toast may be doing far more than just trending on brunch menus. According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association , eating one Hass avocado a day could help you sleep better — a finding that surprised even the scientists behind the research.The study, led by Dr. Kristina Petersen, associate professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, originally set out to examine the effects of daily avocado consumption on cardiovascular health . But while that outcome remained unchanged, researchers stumbled upon something unexpected: better sleep.The researchers monitored 969 adults over 25 years of age, all of whom had abdominal obesity — defined as a waistline of 35 inches or more in women and 40 inches or more in men. Over a span of 26 weeks, half of the participants were asked to eat one large Hass avocado daily , while the rest stuck to their usual low-avocado diets.While improvements in heart health were not statistically significant, researchers were intrigued to find that those who ate avocados regularly reported improved sleep patterns. This prompted a deeper dive into what makes the fruit a potential sleep-supporting powerhouse.What makes avocados a sleep-friendly snack? According to the study, the fruit is densely packed with nutrients — monounsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber , potassium, folate, vitamin K, copper, and pantothenic acid. This rich blend could be what helps promote better sleep quality Dr. Petersen emphasized, however, that avocados shouldn't be considered a standalone sleep remedy. 'Sleep is emerging as a key lifestyle factor in heart health, and this study invites us to consider how nutrition — and foods like avocado — can play a role in improving it,' she said in the report.She added, 'Cardiovascular health is influenced by many factors, and while no single food is a silver bullet, some — like avocados — offer a range of nutrients that support multiple aspects of heart health. This is an encouraging step in expanding the science around avocados and the potential benefits of consumption.'This isn't the first time the beloved fruit has impressed researchers. Earlier studies have shown that avocados may help lower 'bad' cholesterol and reduce belly fat in women, thanks to their healthy fats and high fiber content. A 2024 study even indicated that daily avocado consumption might reduce a woman's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.While the benefits are promising, experts caution against overindulgence. Eating more than one avocado per day can lead to unwanted weight gain due to its high calorie content.As part of a balanced lifestyle — which includes exercise, limited caffeine and alcohol, reduced screen time, and quitting smoking — the addition of a single avocado to your daily diet could become a surprisingly simple way to support better sleep and long-term health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
6 hours ago
- Economic Times
What is the viral 6-6-6 walking challenge, and what is this weight-loss trend really doing to you?
iStock A new fitness trend called the 6-6-6 walking challenge involves walking for 60 minutes daily with warm-up and cool-down. Experts say it is easy to remember and accessible to all fitness levels. Studies show walking improves health and reduces mortality risk. It may aid weight loss when combined with diet. (Image: iStock) If you've been anywhere near TikTok or Instagram lately, chances are you've come across a curious fitness routine dubbed the '6-6-6 walking challenge.' No, it's not what it sounds like—it's not satanic, and it's not a gym cult either. In fact, this viral challenge is surprisingly wholesome, aiming to improve physical and mental health by encouraging a structured walking habit. But does it live up to the hype? According to a report in Women's Health, the 6-6-6 challenge involves walking for 60 minutes a day at either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m., beginning with a six-minute warm-up and ending with a six-minute cool-down. It's the latest in a long line of numerical fitness trends—think 12-3-30 or 3-2-8—that simplify workouts into digestible routines. Part of the appeal lies in the ease of remembering the format. Lindsey Bomgren, CPT and founder of Nourish Move Love, told Women's Health that people naturally gravitate toward number-based challenges because they remove guesswork and offer a clear, repeatable formula. 'It's accessible to all fitness levels while still offering tangible health benefits,' she noted. Plus, the challenge encourages consistency—often the missing ingredient in long-term fitness success. While it may seem too simple to be effective, walking has long been backed by research as a powerful tool for overall health. A 2021 JAMA Network Open study found that adults who took at least 7,000 steps a day had up to a 70% lower risk of mortality than those who didn't. Since the 6-6-6 method encourages about an hour of walking (roughly 6,000 to 7,000 steps), it could have meaningful health implications if sustained. As for the specific timing—6 a.m. or 6 p.m.—Bomgren points out it's more about habit-building than magic hours. However, walking post-meal has been shown to regulate blood sugar, aid digestion, and boost heart health. If weight loss is your goal, this trend could help, but it's not a silver bullet. Janet Hamilton, CSCS and owner of Running Strong, notes that while any additional movement can aid in weight loss, it must be paired with dietary adjustments to create a calorie deficit. 'You might see your weight drop gradually over time, but it's not just about the steps,' she says. A 2023 Obesity study even observed that people who worked out early in the day had lower BMIs and smaller waistlines—though it stopped short of proving direct causation. View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Everygirl® (@theeverygirl) Beyond shedding pounds, walking strengthens bones, supports cardiovascular health, and enhances mental well-being. A PLOS One study from 2022 linked brisk walking to improved bone density, while a JAMA study tied higher step counts to reduced mortality. The mental health benefits are equally compelling. A 2024 review in JAMA Network Open found that walking reduced symptoms of depression, and a 2022 analysis in Applied Psychology revealed walking in nature significantly eased anxiety. Though six-minute warm-ups and cool-downs may seem arbitrary, they're right in line with recommendations from the American Heart Association. They help prepare your body for exertion and ease it back into rest, reducing injury risk and aiding recovery. In a sea of fleeting fitness trends, the 6-6-6 walking challenge may actually have staying power. It isn't a magic bullet, but it might be the nudge you need to get moving. Whether you're chasing a healthier heart, a trimmer waistline, or simply a bit of mental clarity—walking just might walk you there.
India.com
18 hours ago
- India.com
What will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? Chilling findings from study reveals...
While the world is still grappling with the threat of nuclear war, a new study has raised new alarm bells. The study indicated that even a small nuclear war could be a dangerous threat to humanity. It could lead to a breakdown of global supply chains and a loss of crops, resulting in famine in many parts of the world. A study led by researchers at Penn State University, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, emphasized that whether a nuclear war is regional or global, its impacts would be significant enough to plunge the planet into darkness and create catastrophic famine. According to a report from Firstpost, this study is especially important at a time of rising geopolitical instability and nuclear weapons taking on new prominence in global geopolitics. The study provides a detailed model for how a nuclear war could impact global agriculture. The study explores how the expulsion of soot from a nuclear war would block sunlight on Earth, disrupting various climatic systems, which would then produce disastrous effects for food production across the world. At the core of this study is the assumption that nuclear firestorms, in particular, those started in burning cities and industrial areas, would inject enormous concentrations of soot into the atmosphere. The soot would spread throughout the atmosphere globally. Thus, it will be a major blocking layer (essentially a dark haze) at the upper bounds of the troposphere, preventing any sunlight from penetrating the Earth's surface. Such a blocking layer could persist for a number of years. This will lead to dropping temperatures. changing weather patterns, and potentially eliminating food security for a vast portion of the world. In the event of a large nuclear conflict, such as one between Russia and the United States, the amount of light hitting Earth's surface could decrease so drastically that worldwide corn production would drop by as much as 80 percent, according to Firstpost. Such a colossal collapse in agricultural output would destroy food security for much of the planet, leading to famine and instability on a global level. To assess what the potential impacts might be, the team used a model called the Cycles agroecosystem model, a sophisticated simulation of agriculture developed at Penn State University. This model integrates climate-specific daily weather, soil chemistry, crop growth, and the movement of nitrogen and carbon to predict how crops would react to different combinations of climate and agricultural practices. For this study, the model was calibrated specifically for nuclear winter – with a diminished sunlight exposure, lower global temperature, and increased exposure to harmful UV-B radiation from ozone layer depletion. When would agriculture begin to recover—if at all? 'Using maize (Zea maize L.) as a sentinel crop, we found that annual maize production could decline from 7% after a small-scale regional nuclear war with 5 Tg soot injection, to 80% after a global nuclear war with 150 Tg soot injection, with recovery taking from 7 to 12 years. UV-B damage would peak 6–8 years post-war and can further decrease annual maize production by 7%. Over the recovery period, adaptive selection of maize maturity types to track changing temperatures could increase production by 10% compared to a no-adaptation strategy,' reads the statement in the abstract section of the study. The researchers applied the model to follow the effects over ten years, specifically to witness how maize (corn), being one of the world's most important staple food crops, would respond to the extreme and stressful conditions. The researchers analyzed six hypothetical nuclear war scenarios, and one of the more horrifying findings was that recovery of global food systems could take longer than a decade after the conflict. In essence, once a nuclear war happens, the fallout from it will last for decades. The unequivocal conclusion from the study is that a nuclear war would involve far more than military or political disaster. It would cause an ecological and humanitarian collapse. A nuclear war of any scale would create a famine across the world, with consequences that could adversely affect the future of mankind for centuries to come. Researchers analyzed six possible nuclear war scenarios corresponding to the amount of soot injected into the atmosphere. The soot injections ranged from 5 teragrams (Tg) representing a regional conflict between India and Pakistan, to a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia with soot injections of 150–165 Tg. What happens to crops if sunlight disappears? The differences are stark: the global war scenario would inject 30 to 33 times more soot than the regional one with far worse global cooling, extreme reductions in sunlight, and widespread crop failures of historic proportions. What is nuclear winter, and why is it dangerous? Probably the most astonishing aspect is how long the effects of nuclear winter would last. It is also important to note that it is not a normal incident or a transitory natural disaster in which agriculture might recover quickly. Recovery after a nuclear war will take almost a decade or longer to go back to productive agricultural conditions. The destruction occurs from the first years and after, and indeed there is still considerable and persistent damage at year 12. As such, food systems would not have time to stabilize or recover during this 'prolonged onslaught of destruction. This study shows that adaptation strategies like dynamic tailoring of maize maturity types can improve food production by 10% over a 13 year recovery period compared with static approaches under a global nuclear war scenario,' reads the statement in the conclusion section of the study.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- First Post
What happens if nuclear war strikes? Sun blocked, crops fail, famine unleashed
With nuclear war making it to geopolitical debates, a major new study warns that even a limited atomic conflict could trigger global food security and plunge the Earth into darkness for days read more It was just a coincidence that new research on how a nuclear winter could devastate agriculture appeared around the same time The New York Times published a recent review serving as a timely reminder to read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen, a gripping and sobering non-fiction narrative published last March that imagines, in minute-by-minute detail, what could happen if a nuclear missile were launched at the United States. Based entirely on real-world protocols, interviews with military and civilian experts and declassified documents, the author argues that nuclear deterrence is an illusion sustained by dangerous assumptions that technology is infallible, that decisions can be made perfectly under pressure and that all actors will behave rationally. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Through this realistic yet terrifying scenario, she urges readers and policymakers to recognise how little time stands between peace and unthinkable devastation and to reconsider the policies that make nuclear war possible with just one miscalculation. At its core, her book is a warning. And the new scientific study published in Environmental Research Letters by researchers at Penn State University too delivers a chilling warning: a nuclear war — whether regional or global — could plunge the planet into darkness, collapse food systems and unleash unprecedented global famine. As geopolitical conflicts intensify and nuclear sabre-rattling returns to the global stage, this research takes on urgent significance. It presents the most comprehensive modelling to date of how nuclear war could impact global agriculture by simulating how firestorm-generated soot would block sunlight, disrupt climate systems and devastate crop production. Soot, smoke and a shroud over the Earth At the core of the study is the projection that soot from nuclear firestorms, particularly from burning cities and industrial areas, would be lofted into the stratosphere, forming a sun-blocking layer that could linger for years. In the case of a large-scale nuclear conflict, such as one between the United States and Russia, sunlight reaching Earth's surface could decline so sharply that global corn yields would plummet by as much as 80 per cent. That level of collapse would obliterate food security for much of the world. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Should we trust this study? To understand how bad the effects could be, the researchers used a tool called the Cycles agroecosystem model. This is an advanced farming simulation developed at Penn State. It uses daily weather data, soil chemistry, how plants grow and how carbon and nitrogen interact to predict how crops will respond to different farming methods and climate conditions. For this study, the model was adjusted to show what would happen during a nuclear winter—a time with less sunlight, colder global temperatures and more harmful UV-B rays due to damage to the ozone layer. The researchers ran the model over ten years to see how maize (corn), one of the world's main crops, would do under these extreme conditions. What all could happen in nuclear wars The researchers examined six potential nuclear war scenarios, each modelled according to the amount of soot that would be released. These ranged from a 5-teragram (Tg) soot injection—representative of a regional India-Pakistan conflict—to a 150–165 Tg scenario, representing a full-scale US-Russia nuclear exchange. The difference is vast: the global war scenario would inject 30 to 33 times more soot than the regional conflict, drastically intensifying global cooling and crop failures. Food may become scarce Even in the smallest modelled scenario, where about 5 Tg of soot is introduced into the atmosphere, the results are alarming. Corn yields decline globally by approximately 7 per cent, enough to strain food supply chains and cause spikes in food prices, especially in vulnerable countries with high import dependence. The regional war scenario would still block 20 to 35 per cent of incoming sunlight and reduce global surface temperatures by 2°C to 5°C — enough to disrupt climate systems such as the South Asian monsoon, with serious consequences for rice and wheat harvests. Under the full-scale global nuclear war scenario, however, the damage becomes existential. With 150–165 Tg of soot darkening the skies, the study predicts a catastrophic 80 per cent global decline in corn production. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This would not be a temporary setback. Nuclear winter conditions would persist for seven to twelve years, with global temperatures plunging and crop-growing seasons shortened to the point where staple crops could not mature. The sun would be blocked to such a degree that most agricultural regions would become temporarily unviable. It could be a perfect storm The Cycles model simulated not only cooling and sunlight reduction but also the intensification of UV-B radiation, due to ozone layer destruction from soot-induced atmospheric changes. UV-B is known to damage plant tissues and impair growth. In the scenarios studied, UV-B peaks six to eight years after detonation, during which time even recovering climate conditions would be undermined by elevated radiation. This further reduces potential yields and delays the recovery of agricultural systems. Why this all matters While the seven per cent drop in corn under the India-Pakistan war model may appear modest, the global food system is tightly interconnected. A shortfall in one region — particularly in maize, wheat or rice — can ripple across continents through disrupted trade networks, hoarding, price inflation and access inequality. In the regional scenario, billions could face hunger, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The 80 per cent yield loss in the full global war model, however, represents nothing short of a planetary food collapse. If other staple crops like wheat, rice and soybeans experience similar declines (as past nuclear winter studies suggest), widespread famine would become nearly inevitable. Such an outcome would overwhelm international aid systems, incite civil unrest and result in deaths numbering in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Seven to 12 years of darkness and hunger One of the most startling findings is the duration of the nuclear winter effects. Unlike a temporary natural disaster, the recovery of agricultural conditions after a nuclear war would take close to a decade — or more. The damage peaks in the early years but remains significant through year 12, meaning food systems would not have time to stabilise or self-correct. Recovery is not linear and the compound stresses of sunlight loss, UV-B radiation and global trade breakdown would delay return to normalcy. How we can survive The study also explores adaptation strategies that could provide some degree of protection. One approach is the use of short-season crop varieties, particularly maize types that mature quickly and are less dependent on long, warm growing seasons. Adjusting planting calendars, improving nutrient management and selecting crop types more tolerant of cold and UV-B radiation are other possibilities. In model simulations, such adaptive measures resulted in up to 10 per cent higher yields compared to non-adaptive scenarios, especially in the post-peak years of the nuclear winter. However, these adaptations face significant real-world barriers. Most notably, access to seeds of shorter-maturity crops and the infrastructure to distribute them would likely be disrupted in a post-nuclear world. Recognising this, the study recommends the creation of 'agricultural resilience kits' which means pre-stocked packages of adaptive seeds, tools and guidance tailored for different regions. These kits could be distributed preemptively or stored for rapid deployment after a disaster, providing a lifeline to struggling farming communities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Maybe, it's time for real action The conclusion of the study is unequivocal. A nuclear war would be far more than a military or political catastrophe. It would be an ecological and humanitarian collapse. Even a limited regional exchange could trigger dangerous global agricultural shocks. A full-scale nuclear conflict would bring about a planetary famine, with long-term consequences for civilisation itself. The Penn State researchers emphasise the importance of preparedness and diplomacy, noting that the current level of planning for such a scenario is vastly inadequate. This study deepens our understanding of the far-reaching impacts of nuclear weapons not just in terms of immediate loss of life, but through the slow, cruel scenario of starvation and ecological collapse. It serves as a scientific imperative to reduce the risk of nuclear war and to invest in climate-resilient agricultural systems that can withstand global-scale disruptions. People refer to Hiroshima or Nagasaki as nuclear catastrophe in wars. But that happened 80 years ago. Nuclear technology has vastly improved, and bombs become a thousand times more powerful. While some intensify nuclear sabre-rattling, the rest of the world hopes that sanity prevails as geopolitical games look increasingly chaotic.
