Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign

The Benefits of Wakame Seaweed Salad on Blood Pressure

The Benefits of Wakame Seaweed Salad on Blood Pressure

I used to think of seaweed as just a beneficial whole-food source of minerals like iodine, for which it is the most concentrated dietary source. Indeed, just a daily half-teaspoon of mild seaweeds, like arame or dulse, or two sheets of nori should net you all the iodine you need for the day. But, the intake of seaweeds is advised not only as a whole-food source of iodine, but also, evidently, “for the prevention of lifestyle-related diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease….” Based on what?

As I discuss in my video Wakame Seaweed Salad May Lower Blood Pressure, the reasoning is that the Japanese live long and eat seaweed, so there is speculation that seaweed might have “influence on life expectancy,” based on suggestive reports. But when we see long lists of the supposed benefits a particular food is purported to have, such as “compounds found in [seaweed] have various biological activities including anticoagulant, anti-viral, antioxidant, anti-allergic, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, anti-obesity, and neuroprotective properties,” we need to know if they are based on clinical data, meaning studies with actual people, or so-called preclinical data, that is, from test tubes and lab animals. I mean, what are we supposed to do with a study talking about the effects of “seaweed-restructured pork diets” on rats? Those researchers tried to use seaweed, as well as other ingredients, to “improv[e] the ‘image’ of meat product.” Researchers also tried to add grape seeds to meat, they tried flaxseeds, they tried walnuts, they tried purple rice, and they even tried “thong-weed.”

When you look at epidemiological studies, where you compare the diets and disease rates within a population, you see that Japanese pre-schoolers who eat seaweed tend to have lower blood pressures, suggesting “seaweed might have beneficial effects on blood pressure among children.” That could make sense given all the minerals and fiber in seaweed, but cause and effect can’t be proven with this kind of study. Perhaps other components of the diet that went along with seaweed eating that made the difference.

It’s even harder to do these kinds of studies on adults, since so many people are on high blood pressure medications. University of Tokyo researchers took an innovative approach by comparing the diets of people on different intensities of medication: low-dose of a single blood pressure drug, high-dose of a single drug, and multiple drugs. And, although they all had artificially normalized blood pressure “as a result of effective medication,” those who ate the most fruits and sea vegetables tended to be the ones on the lower dose of a single drug, supporting a dietary role for seaweed. An interesting finding, but why not just put it to the test?

A double-blind, crossover trial found that seaweed fiber lowered blood pressure, apparently by pulling sodium out of the system. Real seaweed couldn’t be used in the study, because the subjects wouldn’t be able to be fooled with a placebo, but why not just put whole powdered seaweed into pills? That was finally attempted ten years later. Compared to doing nothing, subjects receiving a daily dose of dried wakame powder in capsules had beautiful drops in blood pressure. The researchers, however, desalinized the seaweed, taking out about two-thirds of the sodium naturally found in it. So, we still don’t know if eating seaweed salad is actually going to help with blood pressure. What we need is a randomized, controlled trial with plain, straight seaweed. No one had ever done that research, until…they did!

Six grams of wakame, with all of its natural sodium, led to a significant drop in blood pressure, especially in those who started out with high pressure. The subjects experienced only minor side effects and ones that could be expected with increasing fiber intake. A nice thing about whole-food, plant-based interventions is that we sometimes get good side effects, such as the resolution of gastritis (stomach inflammation) some subject had been having, as well as the disappearance of chronic headaches. 


What other foods might help with high blood pressure? See:

For more on preventing and treating hypertension, one of our leading killers, see:

Want more on seaweed and iodine? Check out:

My video Salt of the Earth: Sodium and Plant-Based Diets further addresses the sodium question.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

Is Milk Lowering Uric Acid a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Is Milk Lowering Uric Acid a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Parkinson’s disease, the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer’s, is characterized by a slowness of movement, rigidity, tremor, and stooping posture, all of which worsen over time. Non-movement symptoms such as cognitive impairment and sleep, smell, and mood disturbances occur as the disease spreads to other areas of the brain. The cause of Parkinson’s is perhaps “one of the important questions posed by the neurobiology [science] of aging.” For example, why is the consumption of dairy products associated with increased risk of Parkinson’s? Perhaps because they contribute to our exposure to pesticides and other neurotoxins like dieldrin, which continues to be found in the autopsied brains of Parkinson’s victims. Even though dieldrin was banned decades ago, it lingers in the environment and we “continue to be exposed to the pesticide through contaminated dairy and meats…”

The cause of Parkinson’s “is unlikely to be due to milk compounds such as calcium, vitamin D, total fat, or total protein as these compounds are not associated with [the disease] when derived from other sources.” However, it could be lactose, the milk sugar, perhaps accounting for the increased associated risk of death and bone fractures, as well as Parkinson’s. Earlier onset of Huntington’s disease has also been identified. There is, however, a third possibility.

As I discuss in my video Parkinson’s Disease and the Uric Acid Sweet Spot, milk lowers uric acid levels, and uric acid may be protective against Huntington’s and also slow the decline caused by Parkinson’s. More importantly, it may lower the risk of getting Parkinson’s in the first place. Why? Perhaps because uric acid is an important antioxidant in the brain, something we’ve known for more than 30 years. We can demonstrate uric acid’s importance directly on human nerve cells in a petri dish. When the pesticide rotenone is added, oxidative stress goes up. Add the pro-oxidant homocysteine, and it goes up even more. But, when uric acid is added, it completely suppresses the oxidative stress caused by the pesticide.

Drinking milk, however, has a uric acid-lowering effect. In the paper making this assertion, a study they cited was “A cute effect of milk on serum urate concentrations,” but that was just a cute typothey meant Acute effect. Indeed, drink cow’s milk, and, within hours, uric acid levels drop 10 percent. Drink soymilk, and, within hours, they go up 10 percent. Now, for gout, a painful arthritic disease caused by too much uric acid, the uric acid-lowering effect of dairy is a good thing—but uric acid is “a double-edged sword.”

If our uric acid levels are too high, we can get gout, but, if they’re too low, it may increase our risk of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis.

Incidence rates of gouty arthritis over five years indicate that if our uric acid is over 10.0 mg/dl, we have a 30 percent chance of suffering an attack of gout within the next 5 years. However, at levels under 7.0 mg/dl, our risk is less than 1 percent, so it might make sense to have levels as high as possible without going over 7.0 to protect the brain without risking our joints. But having excessive uric acid in the blood puts more than just our joints in jeopardy. Yes, having levels that are too low may increase our risk of MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer, but having levels that are too high may increase our risk of gout, kidney disease, and heart disease.

In fact, having a uric acid level over 7.0 mg/dl isn’t only associated with an increased risk of gout, but also an increased risk of dying from all causes. However, having a low uric acid level may also shorten our lifespan by increasing mortality. High uric acid levels are associated with increased risk of death from heart disease, but low uric acid levels are associated with increased risk of fatal stroke. So, keeping uric acid at optimum levels, the sweet spot between 5.0 and 7.0 mg/dl, may protect the brain in more ways than one.

If we measure the uric acid levels in patients with Parkinson’s, they come in around 4.6 mg/dl, which may help explain why dairy consumption may increase risk for Parkinson’s since milk pushes down uric acid levels. Dairy intake may also explain the differences in uric acid levels among meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. In the graph in my video, you can see that vegan men have significantly higher uric acid levels at 5.7 mg/dl than vegetarians, presumably because vegans don’t drink milk, and those who both eat meat and consume milk fall between the vegans and vegetarians.


For more on Parkinson’s see:

Uric acid as an antioxidant? I’ve touched on that before in Miocene Meteorites and Uric Acid.

If uric acid levels are too high consider cutting down on Flesh and Fructose and eating cherries. (See Gout Treatment with a Cherry on Top and Treating Gout with Cherry Juice for more information.) Also, check out Preventing Gout Attacks with Diet.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

How to Achieve Food Synergy

How to Achieve Food Synergy

There are thousands of phytochemicals that will never make it onto the side of a cereal box but may play a role in reducing the risk of chronic diseases—and those are just the ones we know about. Whole plant foods have consistently been found to be protective, so it’s reasonable for scientists to try to find the “magic bullet” active ingredient that can be sold in a pill, but “[p]ills or tablets simply cannot mimic this balanced natural combination of phytochemicals present in fruits and vegetables.” When isolated out, the compound may lose its activity or behave differently. The antioxidant and anticancer activities of plant foods are thought to derive from the “additive and synergistic effects of phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables,” meaning the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. This helps explain why a pill can’t replace the complex combination of phytochemicals present in whole plant foods.

As T. Colin Campbell has pointed out, more than a hundred trials “overwhelmingly show no long-term benefit for vitamin supplements, along with worrisome findings that certain vitamins may even increase disease occurrence for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.” Supplementation with fish oil, for example, appears useless or, even worse, “posing increased risk for diabetes,” yet the science doesn’t seem to matter. People continue to buy them. “The public desire for quick fixes through pills…is overwhelming, especially when money can be made.”

Each plant has thousands of different phytochemicals, as well as entirely different phytonutrient profiles. So, there may be synergistic effects when eating different foods together, too. Eating beta-carotene in carrot form is more beneficial than in pill form. because of all the other compounds in the carrot that may synergize with the beta-carotene. Well, when we dip that carrot in hummus, we suddenly have the thousands of carrot compounds mixing with the thousands of chickpea compounds. So what happens if we mix different fruits with different vegetables or different beans?

As you can see in my video Food Synergy, combining foods across different categories increased the likelihood of synergy. For example, a study showed the antioxidant powers of raspberries and adzuki beans. If there were a strictly additive effect, the expected combined antioxidant power would simply be that of the raspberries plus that of the adzuki beans. However, the observed combined antioxidant power was actually greater than the sum of one plus the other.

What about cancer-fighting effects? The study was repeated, but, this time, different combinations of food were dripped on breast cancer cells growing in a petri dish. For some foods, the same synergistic effects were found. Grapes, for example, can suppress the growth of breast cancer cells about 30 percent, but onions worked even better, cutting breast cancer cell growth in half. One would assume that if we added half the grapes with half the onion, we’d get a result somewhere in the middle between the two. Instead, the researchers found that cancer cell growth was suppressed by up to 70 percent with that combination. The whole plus the whole was greater than the sum of the whole parts. Given these findings, did the researchers recommend people eat a variety of foods? Perhaps adding some raisins along with chopped red onions to our next salad? Where’s the money in that? No, the reason the researchers were investigating the different types of interactions was “to identify mixtures that hold synergistic interactions that can ultimately lead to the development of functional foods”—maybe something like grape-flavored Funyuns.


Why should we care about the antioxidant power of foods? See

If you’re not familiar with this concept of reductionism, be sure to check out some of these other videos: Industry Response to Plants Not Pills, Why Is Nutrition So Commercialized?, and Reductionism and the Deficiency Mentality.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

Why Hasn’t Bisphenol A (BPA) Been Banned Completely?

Why Hasn’t Bisphenol A (BPA) Been Banned Completely?

“The number of new chemicals is increasing exponentially, with approximately 12,000 new substances added daily…”—yet data aren’t available on the hazards of even some of the high-volume chemicals. Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the highest volume chemicals, with billions of pounds produced each year. Studies have raised concerns about its possible implication in the cause of certain chronic diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, reproductive disorders, cardiovascular diseases, birth defects, chronic respiratory diseases, kidney diseases, and breast cancer. Given this, BPA is the topic of my video Why BPA Hasn’t Been Banned.

A new study on the health implications of BPA comes out nearly every week. BPA was first developed over a hundred years ago as a synthetic estrogen, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that industry realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic, and “BPA rapidly became one of the most produced and used chemicals worldwide, even though it was a recognized synthetic estrogen” with hormonal effects. About a billion pounds are also used to line food and beverage cans, especially for tuna and condensed soups.

Today, nearly all of us, including our children, have BPA in our bodies, but not to worry: The government says up to 50 µg/kg per day is safe. Even those working in Chinese BPA factories don’t get exposed to more than 70 times lower than that so-called safety limit. Why then did exposure seem to affect male workers’ sperm counts? In the United States, the general population gets less than a thousand times lower than the safety limit, yet, even at those incredibly low doses, we still seem to be seeing adverse effects on thyroid function, weight control, blood sugar control, cardiovascular disease, liver function, and immune function. Indeed, “[t]he fact that there are significant adverse effects in populations exposed to BPA at concentrations [thousands of] times lower than the TDI [tolerable daily limit]…indicates that the safe exposure to BPA may be much lower than previously thought in humans.” Despite this, the limit hasn’t been changed. BPA has been banned from “baby bottles and sippy cups,” but nearly unlimited doses are still apparently okay for everyone else. What’s the disconnect?

It has to do with the fascinating world of low-dose effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. “For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of ‘the dose makes the poison’”—that is, the concept “that lower exposures to a hazardous compound will therefore always generate lower risks.” Indeed, that is the core assumption underlying our system of chemical safety testing. Researchers start giving animals in laboratories a super-high dose and then keep lowering the dosage until whatever adverse effects that had occurred disappear. Then, they add a safety buffer and assume everything below that dose should be okay, assuming a straight line showing the higher the dose, the higher the effect. However, hormone-disrupting chemicals can have all sorts of curious curves. How is it possible that something could have more of an effect at a lower dose?

A study was done to see whether BPA suppressed an obesity-protective hormone in fat samples taken from breast reduction and tummy tuck patients. At 100 nanomoles of BPA, hormone levels were no lower than they were at 0nM of BPA. And, since most people have levels between 1 and 20, BPA was considered to be safe. But, although there was no suppression at 0 and no suppression at 100, at the levels actually found in people’s bodies, BPA appeared to cut hormone release nearly in half.

As the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones concluded, “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure—indeed, any level of exposure at all—may cause [problems].” In fact, it may come to nearly $3 billion in problems every year, counting the estimated effects of BPA on childhood obesity and heart disease alone. There are alternatives the industry can use. The problem, though, is that they may cost companies two cents more.


Related videos about BPA include BPA on Receipts: Getting Under Our Skin and Are the BPA-Free Alternatives Safe?

 BPA isn’t the only problem with canned tuna. Check out:

What can we do to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals? See, for example, Avoiding Adult Exposure to Phthalates and How to Avoid the Obesity-Related Plastic Chemical BPA.

Alkylphenols are another group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. To learn more about them, see:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

Morning Sickness Can Be Beneficial

Morning Sickness Can Be Beneficial

“Since the beginning of time, pregnant women have been reported to suffer from a syndrome variously known as morning sickness, pregnancy sickness, or nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.” The term “morning sickness” is actually misleading, as women can feel sick all day long. Sometimes, it can get so serious that women have to be hospitalized.

Researchers at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital found that saturated fat seemed to be a primary dietary risk factor for severe sickness, with five times the odds for every 15 grams intake of saturated fat, “equivalent to one quarter-pound cheeseburger.” The reason saturated fat intake may be such a strong risk factor could be through its effects on estrogen, as “[s]aturated fat has been shown to increase circulating levels of estrogen.”

Why would we evolve to have such a negative reaction to saturated fat? Why would we evolve to get sick at all? As I discuss in my video Morning Sickness May Protect Mother and Child, “[p]regnancy sickness is a universal phenomenon, affecting 70% to 85% of all pregnant women.” If food aversions are included in the criteria, along with nausea and vomiting, the incidence is more like 100 percent. “Because pregnancy sickness is such a common phenomenon, one must question why is this so? Is there a purpose for such a potentially devastating condition?” In the past, pregnancy sickness was dismissed as just being in women’s heads, but recent “studies have reconsidered pregnancy sickness as an embryo-protective mechanism, an evolutionary adaptation to protect the embryo.”

Protect the baby from what? From meat. “Meat is the principal source of pathogens for humans. Meat is also the most common type of food avoided by pregnant women.” So, the development of an aversion to meat during pregnancy could be protective because “meat may have toxins that are mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic,” meaning causing birth defects, and tainted meat may also be contaminated by pathogens. “Pregnancy is a time of relative immunosuppression.” Normally, we can fend off most meat pathogens. “However, by biological design from evolutionary pressures, pregnant women are immunosuppressed to not reject the developing embryo”––as half the baby (from the father’s side) is foreign. So, morning sickness may have evolved as a way to get us to stay away from meat during this vulnerable time. This would be consistent with a “profound overrepresentation of meat taboos” in sample societies around the world.

If this theory is true, then we should be able to make five predictions. First, if nausea and vomiting in pregnancy are meant to be protective, women who experience them should have better pregnancy outcomes. Indeed, women who suffer from nausea and vomiting are significantly less likely to miscarry or have a stillbirth.

Second, the foods that trigger nausea and vomiting should contain things that can be particularly harmful to the baby, and, in fact, “[o]f all food types, animal protein (including meat, poultry, eggs, and seafood…) is the most dangerous. Meat is the source of a wide range of pathogens that pose a grave threat to pregnant women and developing organisms” that is, their developing embryos.

Third, nausea and vomiting in pregnancy should also coincide with the time when the embryo is most vulnerable, which is approximately weeks 5 through 15, when all the critical organ structures are being formed. And, indeed, that period is right when nausea and vomiting are in fact peaking.

Fourth, pregnant women should find meat and eggs most aversive during this time of heightened embryo sensitivity, and that, too, is the case. And finally, if this theory is true, one should expect a lower frequency of morning sickness among plant-based populations, and, yes, the few societies in which we don’t see such morning sickness problems are the ones that tend to have only plants as dietary staples, rather than meat.


What can you do if you suffer from morning sickness? See Natural Treatments for Morning Sickness.

What other effects can diet have on a healthy pregnancy? See, for example,

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

How to Increase Gut Bacterial Richness

How to Increase Gut Bacterial Richness

We live in an “obesogenic environment,” with cheap junk food everywhere, thanks in part to subsidies going to the “‘food industrial complex,’ which manufactures obesogenic foods that foster addiction…The root causes…[may] make obesity difficult to escape,” but a lot of people do. If it were simply the external environment, why isn’t everyone obese?

“Some individuals seem to be more susceptible to the obesogenic environment…than others,” which suggests a genetic component, supported by studies of twins and adopted kids, but the genes that have been identified so far account for only 6 to 11 percent of the genetic variation in body mass index between individuals. Perhaps variation in our “other genome”—that is, all the different microbes that inhabit our body, known as the microbiome—may be playing a role. We have a hundred times more bacterial genes inside us than human genes.

As I discuss in my video Gut Microbiome: Strike It Rich with Whole Grains, a study found that people tend to fall into one of two groups: those who have lots of different types of bacteria in their gut (high “gut bacterial richness”) and those with relatively few types. Those with low bacterial richness had more overall body fat, insulin resistance, which is the cause of type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides, and higher levels of inflammatory markers, like C-reactive protein, compared to those with high bacterial richness. Not only did people with lower bacterial richness start out heavier, but the obese individuals with lower bacterial richness also gained more weight over time.

The question then becomes: Can a dietary intervention have any impact “A number of studies have associated increased microbial richness…with diets higher in fruits, vegetables, and fiber.”

Just giving fiber-type supplements doesn’t seem to boost richness, however, but the “compositional complexity” of a whole food, like whole grains, “could potentially support a wider scope of bacterial taxa,” types of bacteria, “thereby leading to an increase in diversity.” Human studies to investigate the effects of whole grains had been neglected, though…until now.

Subjects were given whole-grain barley, brown rice, or a mixture of both for a month, and all three caused an increase in bacterial community diversity. Therefore, it may take a broad range of substrates to increase bacterial diversity, and this can be achieved by eating whole plant foods.

Moreover, the alterations of gut bacteria in the study coincided with a drop in systemic inflammation in the body. We used to think that the way fiber in whole grains helped us was by gelling in our small intestine right off of our stomach, slowing the rate at which sugars were absorbed and blunting the spike in blood sugars one might get from refined carbs. We now know, however, that fiber is broken down in our colon by our friendly flora, which release all sorts of beneficial substances into our bloodstream that can have anti-inflammatory effects, as well. So, perhaps what’s happening in our large intestine helps explain the protective effects of whole grain foods against type 2 diabetes.

Interestingly, the combination of both barley and brown rice worked better than either grain alone, suggesting a synergistic effect. This may help explain “the discrepancy of the health effects of whole grains obtained in epidemiological [population-based] and interventional studies.”

Observational studies “strongly suggest” that those who consume three or more servings of whole grains a day tend to have a lower body mass index, less belly fat, and less tendency to gain weight, but recent clinical trials, where researchers randomized subjects to eat white bread rolls versus whole-wheat rolls, failed to provide evidence of a beneficial effect on body weight. Of course, whole grains are so superior nutritionally that they should continue to be encouraged. However, the “[i]nterventional trials might have failed to show [weight] benefits because they focused on a limited selection of whole grains, while in epidemiological trials [or the population studies], subjects are likely to consume a diverse set of whole grains which might have synergistic activities.”


Until recently, we knew very little about how powerfully our gut bacteria can affect our health. Catch up on the latest science with these related videos:

When it comes to rice, even white rice can be better than many choices, but brown rice is better and pigmented rice is probably the best. See my videos Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape and Is It Worth Switching from White Rice to Brown? for more.

But what about the arsenic in rice? Learn more:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

The Benefits of Sesame Seeds for Knee Osteoarthritis

The Benefits of Sesame Seeds for Knee Osteoarthritis

Doctors have been injecting arthritis patients with gold since the 1920s. In fact, “[g]old-based medicines have been in use for thousands of years…and remarkably…are still in clinical use as DMARDs,” or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, meaning they can slow the progression of rheumatoid arthritis. Unfortunately, such drugs can be toxic and even fatal, causing conditions such as gold lung, a gold-induced lung disease. “Although its use can be limited by the incidence of serious toxicity,” injectable gold has been shown to be beneficial to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. But maybe, as some researchers have suspected, some of that benefit comes from the sesame oil that’s injected, which is used as the liquid carrier for the gold.

As I discuss in my video Sesame Seeds for Knee Osteoarthritis, sesame seeds contain anti-inflammatory compounds with names such as sesamin and sesamol, which researchers suggest “may serve as a potential treatment for various inflammatory diseases.” Those observations, however, came from in vitro (test tube) studies. First, we have to see if sesame seeds have an anti-inflammatory effect in people, not just in cells in a petri dish, but there haven’t been any studies on the effects of sesame seeds on inflammatory markers in people with arthritis, for example…until now.

The abstract states: “Considering the high prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) and since until now there had not been any human studies to evaluate the effect of sesame in OA patients, this study was designed to assess the effect of administration of sesame on inflammation…” Indeed, researchers found a significant drop in inflammatory markers, but what effect did sesame seeds have on the patients’ actual disease?

Fifty patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were split into two groups. Both received standard treatment, but the sesame group also received about a quarter cup of sesame seeds a day for two months. Before they started, the patients described their pain as about nine out of ten, where zero is no pain and ten is the maximum tolerable pain. After two months, the control group felt a little better and reported their pain was down to seven, but the sesame group dropped down to three and a half, significantly lower than the control group. The researchers concluded that sesame appeared to have a “positive effect…improving clinical signs and symptoms in patients with knee OA…”

The main problem with the study, though, is that the control group hadn’t been given a placebo. It’s hard to come up with a fake sesame seed, but without a placebo, researchers basically compared doing nothing to doing something, and any time you have patients do something, you can’t discount the placebo effect. That said, what are the downsides? That’s the nice thing about using food as medicine—only good side effects. Though the results are mixed, there have been studies using placebo controls that found that adding sesame seeds to our diet may improve our cholesterol and antioxidant status, and the amount of sesamin found in as little as about one tablespoon of sesame seeds can modestly lower blood pressure a few points within a month, enough, perhaps, to lower fatal stroke and heart attack risk by about 5 percent, potentially saving thousands of lives.


What other dietary interventions can help with arthritis? Check out:

If the placebo effect is really that powerful, should doctors prescribe them? They already do! Check out The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos? for more on this.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

Sparkling or Still Water for Stomach Upset and Constipation?

Sparkling or Still Water for Stomach Upset and Constipation?

“Natural bubbling or sparkling mineral waters have been popular for thousands of years,” but manufactured sparkling water was first “‘invented’ in the mid to late 1700s” when a clergyman suspended water over a vat of fermenting beer. “For centuries, carbonated water has been considered capable of relieving gastrointestinal symptoms, including dyspepsia,” or tummy aches. But we didn’t have good data until a study was published in 2002, which I discuss in my video Club Soda for Stomach Pain and Constipation. Twenty-one people with dyspepsia, which was defined in the study as “pain or discomfort located in the upper abdomen” including bloating, nausea, and constipation were randomized to drink one and a half quarts of either carbonated or tap water every day for two weeks.

Carbonated water improved both dyspepsia and constipation compared to tap water. “Drink more water” is a common recommendation for constipation, but researchers didn’t observe a clear benefit of the added tap water. It seems you need to increase fiber and water rather than just water alone, but sparkling water did appear to help on its own. The study used a sparkling mineral water, though, so we can’t tell whether these effects were due to the bubbles or the minerals.

There’s been a concern that carbonated beverages may increase heartburn and GERD, acid reflux disease, but that was based on studies that compared water to Pepsi cola. Soda may put the pepsi in dyspepsia and contribute to heartburn, but so may tea and coffee in those who suffer from heartburn. That may be partly from the cream and sugar, though, since milk is another common contributor to heartburn. Carbonated water alone, though, shouldn’t be a problem.

Similarly, while flavored sparkling drinks can erode our enamel, it’s not the carbonation, but the added juices and acids. Sparkling water alone appears 100 times less erosive than citrus or soda. So, a sparkling mineral water may successfully help treat a stomach ache and constipation without adverse effects, unless you’re the teenage boy who opened a bottle of sparkling wine with his teeth or the nine-year-old boy who tried to do so on a hot day after he’d shaken it up, actions placing them at risk for a pneumatic rupture of the esophagus.


For more on combating acid reflux, see Diet and GERD Acid Reflux Heartburn and Diet and Hiatal Hernia.

Some of my other videos on beverages include:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

How Not to Die from Heart Disease

How Not to Die from Heart Disease

The most likely reason most of our loved ones will die is heart disease. It’s up to each of us to make our own decisions about what to eat and how to live, but we should make these choices consciously by educating ourselves about the predictable consequences of our actions.

Atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries, begins in childhood. The arteries of nearly all kids raised on the standard American diet already have fatty streaks marking the first stage of the disease—by the time they are ten years old. After that, the plaques start forming in our 20s, get worse in our 30s, and then can start killing us off. In our heart, it’s called a heart attack, and in our brain, it can manifest as a stroke. So for anyone  reading this who is older than ten years old, the choice isn’t whether or not to eat healthfully to prevent heart disease—it’s whether or not you want to reverse the heart disease you likely already have.

Is that even possible? When researchers took people with heart disease and put them on the kind of plant-based diet followed by populations who did not get epidemic heart disease, their hope was that it might slow down the disease process or maybe even stop it. Instead, something miraculous happened. The disease actually started to reverse. It started to get better. As I show in my video How Not to Die from Heart Disease, as soon as patients stopped eating artery-clogging diets, their bodies were able to start dissolving away some of the plaque, opening up arteries without drugs and without surgery, suggesting their bodies wanted to heal all along but just were never given the chance. That improvement in blood flow to the heart muscle itself was after only three weeks of eating healthfully.

Let me share with you what’s been called the best-kept secret in medicine: Sometimes, given the right conditions, the body can heal itself. Take, for instance, what happens when you accidentally whack your shin really hard on a coffee table. It gets red, hot, painful, swollen, and inflamed, but it’ll heal naturally if you just stand back and let your body work its magic. What would happen, though, if you kept whacking your shin in the same place, day after day, or three times a day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner)? It would never heal! You might turn to your doctor, complaining of shin pain, and would probably limp out of the office with a prescription for painkillers. You’d still be whacking your shin three times a day, but the pain would be a little duller, thanks to those pills you’d be popping.

It’s similar to people taking nitroglycerine for crushing chest pain. They may get tremendous relief, but they’re not doing anything to treat the underlying cause. Our body wants to come back to health if we let it, but if we keep re-damaging ourselves three times a day, we may never heal.

One of the most amazing things I learned in all my medical training was that within about 15 years after you stop smoking, your lung cancer risk approaches that of a lifelong nonsmoker. Isn’t that amazing? Your lungs can clear out all that tar, and, eventually, it’s almost as if you never smoked at all. Just think, every morning of your smoking life, your body started on that path to healing, until…wham!…you inhaled on that first cigarette of the day, reinjuring your lungs with every puff. In the same way, we can reinjure our arteries with every bite. But, all we have to do all along—the miracle cure—is just stand back, get out of the way, stop re-damaging ourselves, and let our body’s natural healing processes bring us back towards health. The human body is a self-healing machine.

Sure, you could choose moderation and hit yourself with a smaller hammer, but why beat yourself up at all? I don’t tell my smoking patients to cut down to half-a-pack a day. I tell them to quit. Sure, smoking a half pack is better than two packs, but we should try to put only healthy things into our mouths.

We’ve known about this for decades. Take the case of Mr. F.W., for example, as published in 1977 in the American Heart Journal. He had such bad heart disease he couldn’t even make it to the mailbox without crushing chest pain. But he started eating strictly plant-based and a few months later he was climbing mountains without pain.

There are fancy new anti-angina  drugs out now. They cost thousands of dollars a year, but at the highest dose, they may only be able to prolong exercise duration for as long as… 33.5 seconds. It doesn’t seem as though patients choosing the drug route will be climbing mountains anytime soon.

Plant-based diets aren’t just safer and cheaper. They can work better because they let us treat the actual cause of the disease.


The first time someone visits NutritionFacts.org can be overwhelming. With videos on more than 2,000 health topics, where do you even begin? Imagine stumbling onto the site not knowing what to expect and the new video-of-the-day is about how a particular spice can be effective in treating a particular form of arthritis. It would be easy to miss the forest for the trees, which is precisely why I created this series of overview videos that are essentially taken straight from my live, hour-long 2016 presentation How Not to Die: Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

And don’t miss these other videos in this overview series:

Inspired to learn more about the role diet may play in preventing and treating heart disease? Check out these other popular videos on the topic:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article

How Not to Die from Cancer

How Not to Die from Cancer

After Dr. Dean Ornish conquered our number-one killer, heart disease, he moved on to killer number-two. What happens if cancer is put on a plant-based diet? Ornish and colleagues found that the progression of early-stage prostate cancer could be reversed with a plant-based diet and other healthy lifestyle behaviors.

If the blood of those eating the Standard American Diet is dripped onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, cancer growth is cut down about 9 percent. And if they’ve followed a plant-based diet for a year? Their blood can slash cancer growth by 70 percent. So the blood circulating throughout the bodies of those eating plant-based diets had nearly eight times the stopping power when it came to suppressing cancer cell growth.

That was for cell growth of prostate cancer, the leading cancer-killer specific to men. In younger women, breast cancer is the top cancer-killer. Researchers wanted to repeat the study with women using breast cancer cells, but they didn’t want to wait a whole year to get the results. Women are dying now. So they figured they’d see what a plant-based diet could do after just two weeks against three different types of human breast cancer.

As you can see in my video How Not to Die from Cancer, the study showed cancer growth started out at 100 percent, but then dropped after the subjects ate a plant-based diet for 14 days. A layer of breast cancer cells was laid down in a petri dish, and then blood from women eating the Standard American Diet was dripped on it. As you can see in the video, even the blood of women eating pretty poor diets had some ability to break down cancer. After just two weeks of eating healthfully, though, blood was drawn from those same women—so they effectively acted as their own controls—and was dripped on a new carpet of breast cancer cells. You can see for yourself that only a few individual cancer cells remained. Their bodies cleaned up. After only 14 days on a plant-based diet, their bloodstream became that much more hostile to cancer.

Slowing down the growth of cancer cells is nice, but getting rid of them all together is even better. This is what’s called apoptosis, programmed cell death. After eating healthfully, the women’s own bodies were able to somehow reprogram the cancer cells, forcing them into early retirement.

In my video, you can see what’s called TUNEL imaging, which allows researchers to measure DNA fragmentation, or cell death. With this technology, dying cancer cells appear as little white spots. From the start of the study, you can see one small white speck in the upper left of the image, showing that the blood of an average woman on a typical American diet can knock off a few breast cancer cells. After 14 days of healthy, plant-based living, however, her blood turned that one small white speck into a multitude of white spots. It’s as if she’s an entirely different woman inside! The same blood now coursing through these women’s bodies gained the power to significantly slow down and even stop breast cancer cell growth after just two weeks of eating a plant-based diet.

What kind of blood do we want in our body? What kind of immune system? Do we want blood that just rolls over when new cancer cells pop up, or do we want blood circulating to every nook and cranny of our body with the power to slow down and stop them?

The dramatic strengthening of cancer defenses shown in the study was after 14 days of a plant-based diet—and exercise.The researchers had the women walking 30 to 60 minutes a day. Given there were two factors, how do we know what role the diet played? Researchers decided to put it to the test.

In my video, you can see a chart that first shows how blood taken from those who ate a plant-based diet and had a routine of mild exercise, such as walking every day, over an average of 14 years, exhibited significant cancer cell clearance. The researchers then compared the substantial cancer-stopping power of plant eaters to that of an average sedentary American, which you can see is basically nonexistent.

The researchers also analyzed a third group. Instead of 14 years on a plant-based diet, they had 14 years on a Standard American Diet, but they also had 14 years of daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise, like calisthenics. They wanted to know if you exercised hard enough and long enough could you rival some strolling plant eaters.

The answer? There’s no question that exercise helped, but literally 5,000 hours in the gym was no match for a plant-based diet.

Once again using TUNEL imaging to analyze cancer cell death, the researchers found that even if you are a couch potato eating fried potatoes, your body isn’t totally defenseless. Your bloodstream can kill off some cancer cells, which you can see in my video as a couple white spots in the first image of that series. If you exercise for 5,000 hours, you can kill many more cancer cells, evidenced by the many more white specks appearing throughout that image. But nothing appears to kick more cancer tush than a plant-based diet, as that image is filled with white spots indicating cancer cells killed off.

Why is this the case? We think it’s because animal proteins, such as meat, egg white, and dairy protein, increase the level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer-promoting growth hormone involved in the “acquisition or progress of malignant tumors.”

In my video, you can see the results of a study that nailed IGF-1 as the villain. Just as in the previous studies, subjects went on a plant-based diet and cancer-cell growth dropped, while cancer-cell death shot up. This experiment, however, had a kicker: It added back to the cancer just the amount of IGF-1 that had been banished from your body as a result of eating and living healthier. In doing so, it effectively erased the “diet and exercise” effect. It’s as if the subjects had never started eating healthfully at all, with the cancer-cell growth rates and death rates returning to the same levels as before the plant-based diet intervention.

The reason one of the largest prospective studies on diet and cancer found “the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters” may be because they eat less animal protein, and thereby end up with less IGF-1, which means less cancer growth.

How much less cancer growth? A study found that middle-aged men and women with high protein intakes had a 75 percent increase in overall mortality and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying specifically from cancer. Does the protein source matter? Yes. It was specifically animal protein, which makes sense, given their higher IGF-1 levels.

The academic institution where the study was done sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette.” It went on to explain that “eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer…—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.”

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? One nutrition scientist replied it was “‘potentially even dangerous’ to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese,” but why? Because, they argued, a smoker might think “‘why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?’”

This reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks of second-hand smoke. The ad included a chart with “everyday activities” and “reported relative risk,” in an attempt to say second-hand smoke wasn’t all that bad. The chart showed that while it increases the risk of lung cancer by 19 percent, drinking one or two glasses of milk every day may be three times as bad with a 62 percent higher risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk could be doubled if you frequently cook with oil, and heart disease risk tripled if you eat non-vegetarian or multiplied six-fold by eating lots of meat and dairy. Philip Morris’s conclusion? “Let’s keep a sense of perspective.” The “risk of lung cancer from second-hand tobacco smoke [was put] well below the risk reported by other studies for many everyday items and activities.”

That’s like saying, “Don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse.” Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once it purchased Kraft Foods.


The first time someone visits NutritionFacts.org can be overwhelming. With videos on more than 2,000 health topics, where do you even begin? Imagine stumbling onto the site not knowing what to expect and the new video-of-the-day is about how a particular spice can be effective in treating a particular form of arthritis. It would be easy to miss the forest for the trees, which is precisely why I created a series of overview videos that are essentially taken straight from my live, hour-long 2016 presentation How Not to Die: Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

The other videos in this overview series are:

Inspired to learn more about the role diet may play in preventing and treating cancer? Check out these other popular videos on the topic:

I’ve also produced an entire series on mammograms. You can find all of those videos here.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

————

The content for this post was sourced from www.NutritionFacts.org

View the Original Article