Features
Calgary scientist Bonnie Kaplan publishes new book stressing the importance of nutrition on mental health
By IRENA KARSHENBAUM What people have known for centuries – that good nutrition is positively correlated to good mental health has, in the last 60 years, been largely abandoned as a precept within Western society. Instead, it’s become standard belief that mental illness can only be helped through prescription medication.
As a result, something as basic as good nutrition is not only overlooked as being key to mental health, it’s regarded as somewhat controversial.
Scientist, medical researcher, and Calgarian, Dr. Bonnie J. Kaplan has dedicated her career to researching, writing and talking about the importance of micronutrients in mental health. Now, while being semi-retired, she has written a book titled “The Better Brain”, along with her former student, Dr. Julia J. Rucklidge. The book is an achievement in itself and a sort of vindication for Kaplan, who says that her career was derailed in its early years because of her ideas, and who witnessed young scientists leaving the field because they were unable to obtain funding for their research work.
Born in Canton, Ohio, and educated at the University of Chicago and Brandeis University, with postdoctoral training and faculty research in neurophysiology at Yale University, Kaplan moved to Calgary with her husband, Richard, in 1979.
She explains that she spent most of her career in research and supervising students, and did not do a lot of regular classroom teaching. As she was going into retirement in 2016, Kaplan was considering what she would do next.
“I came up with two things,” she says. “I wanted to raise funds for my two charitable funds to help fund research by my junior colleagues on treating mental health with micronutrients in studies in Canada, US and New
Zealand.” (To date, Kaplan says, she has raised almost $900,000 for her charitable funds, one of which is held with the Calgary Foundation.)
“My second focus was knowledge translation to the public” she says. “This is why I decided to write this book.”
Written for the general reader, “The Better Brain” found a home with a major US publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, in New York. Through stories and references to studies Kaplan argues that a diet of real, nutritious — not ultra-processed — food is the foundation for one’s mental health.
Mental illness has been growing exponentially. Researchers Dr. E. Fuller Torrey and Judy Miller in a book called “The Invisible Plague: The Rise of Mental Illness from 1750 to the Present” (published in 2001 by Rutgers University Press), suggested that mental disorders occurred at a rate of three in 10,000 between 1750 and 1960. The World Health Organization currently estimates the rate at over 2,000 in 10,000.
“The Better Brain” does acknowledge that the roots of mental disorders — listed as anxiety disorders, depression, mood disorders, personality disorders like narcissism, psychotic disorders like schizophrenia, neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, and medication-induced movement disorders — are varied and complex, but Kaplan and Rucklidge ask the reader to consider diet as a primary cause for mental disorders. Eating nutritious, whole foods that are rich with micronutrients – in other words, vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, is what your brain needs to function optimally, they argue
Kaplan and Rucklidge write that the brain hungers for a variety of micronutrients; there are about 30 of them, ranging from Vitamins B and D, calcium, zinc, magnesium, iodine, and others. However, promoting the notion that mental health is linked to diet is still seen as controversial, Kaplan admits.
As well, advancing that notion had proven to be a barrier to her receiving research funding, with granting agencies telling her that if she would only confine her studies to a single micronutrient, then funding could be available.
Kaplan and Rucklidge argue, however, that when it comes to the brain there is no “magic bullet” and that the brain is not akin to, for example, a disease such as scurvy, which can be cured with a single vitamin: Vitamin C. The brain needs a broad spectrum of micronutrients – vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, like Omega-3. These micronutrients are found in real unprocessed foods, such as fruits and vegetables of all colours of the rainbow, plain yogurt, fish, chicken, meat, and nuts. The best source of good food can be found in a Mediterranean diet, the authors write. In contrast, a Western diet consisting of ultra-processed food is full of macronutrients like proteins, carbs, saturated fats and sodium, but lacks micronutrients, for which the brain hungers.
“The Better Brain” contains an entire chapter of helpful tips on how to shop for healthy food (which is actually cheaper than ultra-processed food, Kaplan and Rucklidge maintain) and recipes for healthy breakfasts, soups, salads, main courses and even desserts. Another chapter delves into what not to eat which, not surprisingly, includes suchg things as pop, sugar and ultra-processed food. The book says: “It’s not just the presence of healthy food but also the absence of unhealthy food that contributes to a good outcome.”
Kaplan and Rucklidge suggest that it is best to get your essential nutrients from whole foods, but if mental health issues persist, you ought to consider adding nutritional supplements. An entire chapter is dedicated to this topic.
The book says: “All the minerals and vitamins are needed for your enzymes to allow for proper brain function. Some people have inherited ‘sluggish pathways’ because their enzymes are not efficient, resulting in the need to flood their brains with even more micronutrients than usual.”
In plain English, the scientists are saying that many people with mental illnesses have brains that have been starved of essential micronutrients or their particular biochemical makeup is preventing them from absorbing the micronutrients efficiently and in such instances they need large doses of micronutrients that can only be obtained through taking supplements. These supplements are not store-bought brands that contain doses too small to make a difference, but are from supplement companies, which they list in the book. Kaplan and Rucklidge consistently state they do not have financial ties to any supplement companies.
It must be noted that the authors also make clear that they are not advising individuals to go off their meds: “It is absolutely crucial that you do not stop taking meds for your psychiatric condition. We suggest you discuss options with your prescribing physician first.”
Kaplan is seeing a complete turnaround from the opposition she experienced in her early career to the poin twhere she now receives numerous speaking invitations in Alberta and across Canada. “I am doing a webinar in Alberta that has over 1,000 registrations,” she says, “something very unusual for the organizers of the webinar. “Previously the interest for this topic was largely in Western Europe and the US.”
Co-author Julia J. Rucklidge is currently at the University of Canterbury, in Christchurch, New Zealand. Together the two women – after selling the idea to their publisher, wrote the book in just four months. Now, aided by modern technology, they are currently busy doing podcasts and interviews all over the world.
Kaplan says the book is receiving a lot of good feedback from people who have read it. “The medical system is a longer road. It would be advantageous in mental health clinics to teach a class on nutrition and Mediterranean-style cooking.”
She notes that she and her husband rarely eat out. “We cook from scratch and eat a Mediterranean-style diet. Before the pandemic, we were eating out only as a social thing to meet with friends.”
Kaplan stresses the importance of learning to cook, but also to follow the 80/20 rule. “If you’re eating a healthy diet 80 percent of the time, don’t beat yourself up if you’re eating a cookie that is not so healthy.”
“The Better Brain”
By Bonnie J. Kaplan, PhD
and Julia J. Rucklidge, PhD
Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Released April, 2021
Irena Karshenbaum writes in Calgary.
The opinions expressed here are the author’s own.
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
