Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign

How Can Animal Protein Intake Increase Childhood Obesity Risk?

How Can Animal Protein Intake Increase Childhood Obesity Risk?

If pregnant crickets are exposed to a predatory wolf spider, their babies will hatch, exhibiting increased antipredator behavior and, as a consequence, improved survival from wolf spider attack. The mother cricket appears to be able to forewarn her babies about the threat when they are still inside her, so they would be pre-adapted to their external environment. This even happens in plants. If you grow two genetically identical plants—one in the sun, one in the shade—the sun-grown plant will produce seeds that grow better in the sun, and the shaded plant will produce seeds that grow better in the shade—even though they’re genetically identical.

What’s happening is called epigenetics, external factors changing gene expression.

Vole pups born in the winter come out growing thicker coats. Vole mothers are able to communicate the season to their babies in utero and tell them to put a coat on even before they’re born. We’re no different. You know how some people have different temperature tolerances, resulting in “battles of the bedroom”? Do you turn the AC on or off? Open the windows? It’s not just genetics. Whether we’re born in the tropics or in a cold environment determines how many active sweat glands we have in our skin.

What does this have to do with diet? As I discuss in my video Animal Protein, Pregnancy, and Childhood Obesity, can what a pregnant woman eats—or doesn’t eat—permanently alter the biology of her children in terms of what genes are turned on or off throughout life?

What happened to the children born during the 1944 – 1945 Dutch famine imposed by the Nazis? They had higher rates of obesity 50 years later. The baby’s DNA gene expression was reprogrammed before birth to expect to be born into a world of famine and conserve calories at all cost. But when the war ended, this propensity to store fat became a disadvantage. What pregnant women eat and don’t eat doesn’t just help determine the birth weight of the child, but the future adult weight of the child.

For example, maternal protein intake during pregnancy may play a role in the obesity epidemic—but not just protein in general. “Protein from animal sources, primarily meat products, consumed during pregnancy may increase risk of overweight in offspring…” Originally, researchers thought it might be the IGF-1, a growth hormone boosted by animal product consumption, that may increase the production of fatty tissue, but weight gain was tied more to meat intake than dairy. Every daily portion of meat intake during the third trimester of pregnancy resulted in about an extra 1 percent of body fat mass in their children by their 16th birthday, potentially increasing their risk of becoming obese later in life, independent of how many calories they ate or how much they exercised.  But no such link was found with cow’s milk intake, which would presumably boost IGF-1 levels just as high.

Given that, perhaps instead of IGF-1, it’s the obesogens in meat, chemicals that stimulate the growth of fatty tissue. “[E]merging evidence demonstrates that environmental factors can predispose exposed individuals to gain weight, irrespective of diet and exercise.” After all, even our infants are fatter, and we can’t blame that on diet and exercise. Animals are fatter, too, and not just our pampered pets—even rats in laboratories and subways are bigger. “The likelihood of 24 animal populations from eight different species all showing a positive trend in weight over the past few decades by chance was estimated at about 1 in 10 million” so it appears something else is going on—something like obesogenic chemicals.

One such candidate is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are found in cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, and grilled meat. A nationwide study of thousands found that the more children were exposed to PAHs, the fatter they tended to be. The researchers could measure the level of these chemicals right out of their urine. Exposure can start in the womb. Indeed, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may cause increased fat mass gained during childhood and a higher risk of childhood obesity.

If these pollutants sound familiar, I’ve covered them before in relation to increasing breast cancer risk in the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. So, perhaps they aren’t just obesogens, but carcinogens, as well, which may help explain the 47 percent increase in breast cancer risk among older women in relation to a lifetime average of grilled and smoked foods.

If we look at one of the most common of these toxins, smokers get about half from food and half from cigarettes. For nonsmokers, however, 99 percent comes from diet. The highest levels of PAHs are found in meat, with pork apparently worse than beef. Even dark green leafies like kale can get contaminated by pollutants in the air, though, so don’t forage for dandelion greens next to the highway and make sure to wash your greens under running water.

These are fat-soluble pollutants, so they need lots of fat to be absorbed. It’s possible that even heavily contaminated plant-based sources may be safer, unless you pour lots of oil on your food, in which case the toxins would presumably become as readily absorbed as the toxins in meat.

The good news is they don’t build up in our body. As I show in my video, if we expose people to barbecued chicken, they get a big spike in these chemicals—up to a hundred-fold increase—but our body can get rid of them within about 20 hours. The problem, of course, is that people who eat these kinds of foods every day could be constantly exposing themselves, which may not only affect their health and their children’s health, but maybe even their grandchildren’s health.

Being pregnant during the Dutch famine of the mid-1940s didn’t just lead to an increase in diseases among their kids, but even apparently their grandkids. What a pregnant woman eats now may affect future generations. “The issue of generation-spanning effects of poor conditions during [pregnancy]…may shed light on the epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease,” which is associated with the transition towards Western lifestyles.


Epigenetics is the science of altering the expression of our genes. No matter our family history, some genes can be effectively turned on and off by the lifestyle choices we make. See, for example:

For more on “obesogenic” chemicals, see:

I previously touched on PAHs in Meat Fumes: Dietary Secondhand Smoke.

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

Vitamin D Supplements for Reducing Cancer Mortality

Vitamin D Supplements for Reducing Cancer Mortality

It all started with a famous study entitled “Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer?” that was published in 1980. Johns Hopkins University researchers were trying to figure out why states like New Mexico and Arizona have only about half the colon cancer rates of states like New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Could it be because New Mexicans and Arizonans get so much more sun? The researchers proposed that perhaps vitamin D, known as the sunshine vitamin, is a protective factor against colon cancer. Since then, sun exposure has also been associated with lower rates of 14 other types of cancer.

As I discuss in my video Do Vitamin D Supplements Reduce the Risk of Dying from Cancer?, vitamin D may also affect cancer survival. Higher blood levels of vitamin D were associated with lower mortality of patients with colorectal cancer. How much lower? Nearly half the mortality. And, the higher the vitamin D levels, the lower the death rate appeared to fall. This may explain why the survival rate from colon cancer may depend in part “on the season of diagnosis.” The risk of rapid death is lowest if you’re diagnosed in the fall after you’ve spent the summer building up your vitamin D stores. Other risk factors could be seasonal, too. For example, perhaps people are taking advantage of the fall harvest and eating healthier, which might explain lower risk in the autumn. Additionally, “[a]lcohol intake is a risk factor and may be highest in the winter season…” What about physical activity? In the summer, we may be more likely to be outside running around, not only getting more sun, but also getting more exercise, which may itself be protective.

These kinds of studies just provide circumstantial evidence. Establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between colon cancer and vitamin D deficiency using observational studies is challenging because of confounding factors, such as exercise habits—so-called lurking variables. For example, there may be a tight correlation between ice cream sales and drowning deaths, but that doesn’t mean ice cream causes drowning. A more likely explanation is that there is a lurking third variable, like hot weather in summertime, that explains why drowning deaths are highest when ice cream consumption is also at its highest.

This actually happened with hormone replacement therapy. Women taking drugs like Premarin appeared to have 50 percent less risk of heart disease, so doctors prescribed it to women by the millions. But, if we dig a little deeper into the data, we find that, indeed, women taking estrogen had 50 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease, but they also had a 50 percent lower risk of dying from accidents and homicide, so it probably wasn’t the drug. The only way to know for sure is to put it to the test in a randomized, clinical trial, where half the women are given the drug and we see what happens. A decade later, such a study was done. Instead of having a 50 percent drop in risk, within a year of being given the hormone pills, heart attack and death rates shot up 50 percent. In retrospect, the lurking variable was likely socioeconomic class. Poor women are less likely to be prescribed hormone replacement therapy and more likely to be murdered and die of heart disease. Because of the lurking variable, a drug we now know to be dangerous had initially appeared to be protective.

Besides lurking variables, there’s also the possibility of reverse causation. Perhaps low vitamin D levels didn’t worsen the cancer. Instead, maybe the cancer worsened the vitamin D levels. This may be unlikely, since tumors don’t appear to directly affect vitamin D levels, but cancer treatment might. Even simple knee surgery can cause vitamin D levels to drop dramatically within hours, thought to be due simply to the inflammatory insult of cutting into someone. So, maybe that could help explain the link between lower vitamin D and lower survival. And, cancer patients may be spending less time running around the beach. So, yes: Higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved survival in colorectal cancer, and the same has been found for breast cancer. In fact, there is about double the risk of breast cancer recurrence and death in women with the lowest vitamin D levels. What’s more, higher vitamin D levels are associated with longer survival with ovarian cancer, as well as having better outcomes for other cancers like lymphoma. But, the bottom-line, as we learned with hormone replacement, is that we have to put it to the test. There weren’t a lot of randomized controlled trials on vitamin D supplements and cancer, however…until now.

We now have a few randomized controlled trials, and vitamin D supplements do indeed appear to reduce the risk of dying from cancer! What dose? Researchers suggest getting blood levels up to at least about 75 nanomoles per liter. These levels are not reached by as many as three-quarters of women with breast cancer nor achieved by a striking 97 percent of colon cancer patients .

Getting up to these kinds of levels—75 or, perhaps even better, 100 nanomoles—might require about 2000 to 4000 IU of vitamin D a day, levels of intake for which there appear to be no credible evidence of harm. Regardless of what the exact level is, the findings of these kinds of studies may have a profound influence on future cancer treatment.


What about just getting sun instead? Be sure to check out my six-part video series:

It’s better, of course, to prevent colon cancer in the first place. See, for example:

For more on that extraordinary story about Premarin and hormone replacement therapy, see How Did Doctors Not Know About the Risks of Hormone Therapy?

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

Dairy Industry Responds to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer

Dairy Industry Responds to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer

What was the response to the revelation that as many as 37 percent of breast cancer cases may be attributed to exposure to bovine leukemia virus (BLV), a cancer-causing cow virus found in the milk of nearly every dairy herd in the United States? I discuss this issue in my video Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer. The industry pointed out that some women without breast cancer harbored the virus, too. Indeed, BLV was found in the tissues of 29 percent of women who didn’t have breast cancer, a finding the researchers replied “is not surprising considering the long latency period of breast cancer…” In other words, they may not have breast cancer yet.

It can take decades before a breast tumor can be picked up on mammography. So, even though people may be harboring this virus in their breast and feeling perfectly fine, the cancer may still be on its way. That’s how other cancer-causing deltaretroviruses appear to work. These viruses can make proteins that interfere with our DNA repair mechanisms. Infected cells are then more susceptible to carcinogens and slowly accumulate mutations over time. “Therefore, evidence of BLV in normal breast tissues prior to premalignant and malignant changes would be expected.” This pattern is what we see with cervical cancer, “in which the causative virus (HPV) is found not only in the malignant [cancerous] tissue, but also in premalignant dysplastic areas [the precancerous tissue] and in normal tissue adjacent to the malignant tumor.”

If BLV, a retrovirus, is really causing thousands of cases of breast cancer every year, wouldn’t some of the anti-retroviral therapies like some of the AIDS drugs be able to counter it? Perhaps, but it’s best not to get infected in the first place.

However, the agriculture industry appeared to be more concerned about consumer confidence in U.S. dairy than consumer cancer. Indeed, the “U.S. dairy industry face[d] a brewing public-relations brouhaha,” and it became “concerned about the possibility of eventual mandatory control of these diseases in dairy cattle along with public perception and an impact on the consumption of dairy products.” What would control look like? BLV is a blood-borne virus, but how is it spread? Is Bessie sharing dirty needles? In a sense, yes: “[B]lood (and BLV virus) is readily spread from animal to animal with blood contaminated needles and/or syringes, obstetrical sleeves, saw or gouge dehorners, tattoo pliers, ear taggers, hoof knives, nose tongs,” and other instruments that aren’t disinfected between animals. So, for example, when farmers are gouging or sawing at the cows’ heads during dehorning, “they are likely to drive blood into the next animal during the subsequent dehorning process.” Or, when they’re sticking their arms into cows’ rectums for artificial insemination, it’s not uncommon for there to be rectal bleeding—then they just go from one cow to the next.

More than 20 countries have successfully eradicated BLV from their herds by changing their practices, whereas it remains an epidemic in the United States in part because we’re not cleaning and disinfecting blood-contaminated equipment for things like “supernumerary teat removal,” which is done because “the presence of extra teats detracts from the beauty of the cow.” Supernumerary teats are removed by pulling them from the udder and cutting them off with a pair of scissors. Those scissors had better be clean—otherwise they could spread BLV from calf to calf and ultimately to someone’s breakfast, lunch, or dinner. Of course, we could just not slice off their teats at all, but then how would we “improve udder appearance?”


Up to 37 percent of breast cancer cases are attributable to exposure to bovine leukemia virus? See my video The Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer and its prequel, Is Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk Infectious?.

The meat and dairy industries’ intransigence in the face of a human health threat reminds me of the antibiotics and steroids issues—continuing to place the public at risk to save a few bucks. See, for example, Antibiotics: Agribusinesses’ Pound of Flesh and Zeranol Use in Meat and Breast Cancer.

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

Cow Cancer Virus Implicated in Breast Cancer

Cow Cancer Virus Implicated in Breast Cancer

Up to 20 percent of all cancers in general are linked to infections, particularly viruses, and the list of potentially carcinogenic infectious agents is growing. It would be great if we could find a virus that contributed to breast cancer risk, because then we might have new ways to prevent and treat it. Currently, the dietary link between breast cancer and consumption of meat and dairy is considered a saturated fat effect, but there is a cancer-causing bovine virus that infects the mammary gland cells of cows. The infectious virus is then released into the milk supply. Since most U.S. dairy herds are infected, scientists posit that Americans are often exposed to this bovine leukemia virus (BLV), which I discuss in my video The Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.

We didn’t have proof of this until 2003, 34 years after the virus was first identified. Early on, our best available tests failed to find antibodies to BLV in human blood. When our immune system is exposed to a virus, it creates antibodies to attack it. No antibodies, no exposure. “This led to the prevailing opinion that…the virus is not a public health hazard.” Though those tests “were state of the art at that time, they are extremely insensitive compared to more modern techniques.” As a result, researchers decided to re-examine the issue now that we have better tests. They took blood from about 250 people simply to address the question: “Do any humans have antibodies to BLV?” The answer? Yes, 191 of them did––74 percent. That shouldn’t have come as a surprise, however: By then, nearly 90 percent of American dairy herds were infected, and, according to the latest national survey, 100 percent of the big factory dairy farms were infected, as determined by testing the milk coming from those operations. Given this, why isn’t there an epidemic of cancer of the udder? Dairy cattle are slaughtered so young that there isn’t a lot of time for them to develop gross tumors, but that’s how most women may be getting infected. Although pasteurization should knock out the virus, who hasn’t eaten a rare, pink-in-the-middle burger at some point?

The bottom line is that the “long-held assumption that BLV is not a public health hazard…is no longer tenable…” This whole field of investigation needs to be reopened, with the next step determining whether humans are actually infected. “The presence of antibodies to particular viruses in human sera is generally interpreted as an indicator of a present or past infection with the virus.” But, theoretically, we might have developed antibodies to the dead viruses we ate, viruses that had been killed by cooking or pasteurization. Just because three-quarters of us have been exposed doesn’t mean we were actively infected by the virus.

How do we prove this? We would need to find the retrovirus actively stitched into our own DNA. Well, millions of women have had breast surgery, so why not just look at the tissue? Researchers finally did just that and published their findings in the Centers for Disease Control and Protection’s emerging infectious diseases journal: Forty-four percent of samples tested positive for BLV, proving for the first time that humans can be infected with bovine leukemia virus. The final step? Determine whether the virus is actually contributing to disease. In other words, are the bovine leukemia viruses we’re finding in human breast tissue cancer-causing or just “harmless passengers”?

One way to make that determination is to see whether the virus is more often present in those with breast cancer. No one had ever looked for the virus in breast tissue from people with cancer…until now. The “[p]resence of BLV-DNA in breast tissues was strongly associated with diagnosed and histologically confirmed breast cancer…” As many as 37 percent of human breast cancer cases may be attributable to exposure to bovine leukemia virus.


For some historical background leading up to these shocking findings, see my video Is Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk Infectious?.

I couldn’t wait to read the meat and dairy industry journals to see how they’d try to spin this. Find out what I discovered in my final video in this series Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.

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

Should You Be Concerned about Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk?

Should You Be Concerned about Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk?

Decades ago, concern was raised that the milk of dairy cows frequently contains a leukemia-causing virus—more specifically, bovine leukemia virus (BLV), the leading cancer killer among dairy cattle. Most U.S. dairy herds are infected with the cancer virus. “Thus the question of whether dairy cows naturally infected with BLV release infectious virus into milk is an important public health consideration” and the subject of my video Is Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk Infectious?.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania decided to put it to the test. And indeed, infectious virus was demonstrated in the milk of 17 of the 24 cows tested, indicating that “humans are often orally exposed to BLV.” Just because we’re exposed to it doesn’t mean it’s causing human disease, though. How do we know BLV can even infect human cells? We didn’t until 1976 when it was discovered that BLV can indeed infect human, chimpanzee, and rhesus monkey cells. Nevertheless, that still doesn’t mean BLV necessarily causes cancer in other species.

Researchers can’t lock human infants in a cage and feed them infected milk, but they can cage infant chimpanzees. Chimps Bois and Roger were fed infected milk, developed leukemia, and died. Until then, we didn’t even know chimps could get leukemia. The fact that BLV-infected milk appeared to transmit or induce leukemia in our closest living relatives certainly did raise the stakes, but human beings are not chimpanzees. Yes, our DNA may be 98 percent identical, but we may share 60 percent of our DNA with a banana. We need human studies.

We can’t do interventional trials in this case, thanks to those pesky Nuremberg principles, but what about observational studies? Do cattle farmers have higher rates of cancer? Apparently so. This finding led some to suggest that “milk- and egg-borne viruses may be highly important in the pathogenesis [or development] of human leukemia and lymphoma,” but farmers may be exposed to all sorts of potential carcinogens, such as pesticides. Large animal veterinarians may also have more leukemia and lymphoma, but some are also “particularly lax in the use of X-ray protective equipment,” so it didn’t necessarily have anything to do with viruses.

We needed so-called serology studies, testing people’s blood for antibodies against the virus, which would prove human exposure, and we got them. Ten different studies looked for BLV antibodies in cancer patients and non-cancer patients, creamery employees versus office employees, veterinarians, unpasteurized milk drinkers, and more. “Not one of these studies found a single individual with antibodies to BLV…” As a result, in 1981, the case was closed: “Therefore, there is strong serological evidence to indicate that BLV is not transmissible to man.” However, the strength of the evidence is only as strong as the strength of the test. Chimpanzees Bois and Roger didn’t develop detectable antibodies either, and they died from BLV.

The tests available a handful of decades ago were not really sensitive. “Clearly, the question of whether BLV poses a public health hazard deserves thorough investigation” using highly sensitive molecular probes. It would take a few decades for us to get such an examination, and I discuss those landmark findings in my videos The Role of Bovine Leukemia in Breast Cancer and Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.


Thankfully, feline leukemia virus does not appear to be transmissible. See Pets and Human Lymphoma.

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

Vegans Should Consider Taking DHA Supplements

Vegans Should Consider Taking DHA Supplements

We are all fatheads.

Indeed, about half the dry weight of our brain is fat. Lower levels of the long-chain omega-3 fat DHA in some areas of Alzheimer’s brains got people thinking that perhaps DHA is protective. Since the level of DHA in the brain tends to correlate with the level of DHA in the blood, cross-sectional studies of dementia and pre-dementia patients have been done. The result? The dementia and pre-dementia subjects do tend to have lower levels of both long-chain omega-3s, EPA and DHA, circulating in their bloodstream. This doesn’t necessarily mean that lower omega-3 levels cause cognitive impairment, however. It was just a snapshot in time, so we don’t know which came first. As I discuss in my video Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?, maybe the dementia led to a dietary deficiency, rather than a dietary deficiency leading to dementia.

What we need is to measure long-chain omega-3 levels at the beginning and then follow people over time, and, indeed, there may be a slower rate of cognitive decline in those who start out with higher levels. We can actually see the difference on MRI. Thousands of older men and women had their levels checked and were scanned and then re-scanned. The brains of those with higher levels looked noticeably healthier five years later.

The size of our brain actually shrinks as we get older, starting around age 20. Between ages 16 and 80, our brain loses about 1 percent of its volume every two to three years, such that by the time we’re in our 70s, our brain has lost 26 percent of its size and ends up smaller than that of 2- to 3-year-old children.

As we age, our ability to make long-chain omega-3s like DHA from short-chain omega-3s in plant foods, such as flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and greens, may decline. Researchers compared DHA levels to brain volumes in the famed Framingham Study and found that lower DHA levels were associated with smaller brain volumes, but this was just from a snapshot in time, so more information was needed. A subsequent study was published that found that higher EPA and DHA levels correlated with larger brain volume eight years later. While normal aging results in overall brain shrinkage, having lower levels of long-chain omega-3s may signal increased risk. The only thing we’d now need to prove cause and effect is a randomized controlled trial showing we can actually slow brain loss by giving people extra long-chain omega-3s, but the trials to date showed no cognitive benefits from supplementation…until now.

A “double-blind randomized interventional study provide[d] first-time evidence that [extra long-chain omega-3s] exert positive effects on brain functions in healthy older adults,” a significant improvement in executive function after six and a half months of supplementation, and significantly less brain shrinkage compared to placebo. This kind of gray matter shrinkage in the placebo might be considered just normal brain aging, but it was significantly slowed in the supplementation group. The researchers also described changes in the white matter of the brain, increased fractional anisotropy, and decreases in mean and radial diffusivity—terms I’ve never heard before but evidently imply greater structural integrity.

So, we know that having sufficient long-chain omega-3s EPA and DHA may be important for preserving brain function and structure, but what’s “sufficient” and how do we get there? The Framingham Study found what appears to be a threshold value around an omega-3 index of 4.4, which is a measure of our EPA and DHA levels. Having more or much more than 4.4 didn’t seem to matter, but having less was associated with accelerated brain loss equivalent to about an extra two years of brain aging, which comes out to about a teaspoon less of brain matter, so it’s probably good to have an omega-3 index over 4.4.

The problem is that people who don’t eat fish may be under 4.4. Nearly two-thirds of vegans may fall below 4.0, suggesting a substantial number of vegans have an omega-3 status associated with accelerated brain aging. The average American just exceeds the threshold at about 4.5, though if we age- and gender-match with the vegans, ironically, the omnivores do just as bad. There aren’t a lot of long-chain omega-3s in Big Macs either, but having a nutrient status no worse than those eating the Standard American Diet is not saying much.

What we need is a study that gives those with such low levels some pollutant-free EPA and DHA, and then sees how much it takes to push people past the threshold…and here we go: Phase 2 of the study gave algae-derived EPA and DHA to those eating vegan diets with levels under 4.0. About 250mg a day took them from an average of 3.1 over the threshold to 4.8 within four months. This is why I recommend everyone consider eating a plant-based diet along with contaminant-free EPA and DHA to get the best of both worlds—omega-3 levels associated with brain preservation while minimizing exposure to toxic pollutants.


A list of my recommendations can be found here: Optimum Nutrition Recommendations.

Why not just eat fish or take fish oil? I explain why in these videos:

How else can we protect our brains? 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

Do DHA Supplements Improve Brain Function?

Do DHA Supplements Improve Brain Function?

The concept of vitamins was first described by none other than Dr. Funk. In his landmark paper in 1912, he discussed the notion that there were complex compounds our body couldn’t make from scratch, so we had to get them from our diet. By the mid-20th century, all the vitamins had been discovered and isolated, but it wasn’t until the 1960s that we realized that certain fats were essential, too.

In 1929, the necessity for fat was definitively settled… “in the diet (of the rat),” but when one of the researchers tried a 99 percent fat-free diet on himself for six months, ironically, he felt better. His high blood pressure went away, he felt more energetic, and his migraines disappeared. This one-man experiment “fortif[ied] the medical profession’s doubt that essential fatty acids had any relevance to humans,” until TPN—Total Parenteral Nutrition, meaning feeding someone exclusively through an IV—was developed in the 1960s. TPN was initially developed for babies born without working intestines. Because we didn’t think humans needed fat, “the first preparations were fat free, and they rapidly induced severe EFA [essential fatty acid] deficiencies, ultimately convincing the medical community” that some fats are indeed essential. They started out using safflower oil, but, as they discovered in a young girl given the oil after an abdominal gunshot wound, we don’t just need fat—we need specific fats like omega-3s. So, when they switched from safflower oil to soybean oil, she was restored to normal.

The fact it took so long and under such extreme circumstances to demonstrate the essential nature of omega-3s illustrates how hard it is to develop overt omega-3 deficiency. Of course, the amount required to avoid deficiency is not necessarily the optimal amount for health. The vitamin C in a spoonful of orange juice would be enough to avoid scurvy (the overt vitamin C deficiency disease), but no one considers that enough vitamin C for optimal health.

As I discuss in my video Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function?, what would optimal omega-3 status look like? Well, doubt has been cast on its role in heart health (see Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil?), which appears to have been based on a faulty premise in the first place (see Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale), so taking extra omega-3s for our heart might not make any sense (see Should We Take EPA and DHA Omega-3 for Our Heart?). But what about for our baby’s brain (see Should Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women Take DHA?)? Extra DHA may not help pregnant or breast-feeding fish-eaters, but those who want to avoid the contaminants in fishes can take supplements of pollutant-free algae oil to get the best of both worlds for their babies (see Should Vegan Women Supplement with DHA During Pregnancy?). What about adults? There doesn’t appear to be any apparent psychological (see Fish Consumption and Suicide) or neurological (see Is Fish “Brain Food” for Older Adults?) benefit of DHA supplementation for the general public, but what about in those who don’t eat fish?

The famous Alpha Omega Trial randomized thousands of people over three years to get either long-chain omega-3s from fish, short-chain omega-3s from plants, or placebo. The result? The study found no significant benefits for any kind of omega-3 supplementation on global cognitive decline. However, most of the subjects were eating fish, thereby already getting pre-formed DHA in their diets. General population studies like this, that find no benefit, can’t fully inform us about the role of DHA in brain health. It would be akin to giving half these people oranges, finding no difference in scurvy rates (zero in both groups), and concluding vitamin C plays no role in scurvy.

In 2013, for the first time, DHA supplementation was found to improve memory and reaction time among young adults who rarely ate fish. Previous randomized, controlled trials failed to find such a benefit among18- to 45-year-olds, but they only lasted a few months at most, whereas the 2013 study lasted for six months. If all the studies showed either no effect or a positive effect, one might give it a try. But in one of those shorter trials, DHA supplementation didn’t just fail to show benefit—it appeared to make things worse. After 50 days, those who consumed the DHA had worse memory than those taking the placebo. So, out of the six randomized controlled trials for DHA supplementation, four showed nothing, one showed a benefit, and one showed a harm. If it were just about boosting brain function in the short term, I’d err on the side of caution and spend my money elsewhere.


What about the long term though? See Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?.

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 Did Doctors Keep Prescribing Cancer?

Why Did Doctors Keep Prescribing Cancer?

We’ve known about the role of estrogen in breast cancer going back to the 1800s, when surgical removal of the ovaries seemed to help in some cases. Ovaries were said to send out “mysterious” influences to the rest of the body, which were identified as estrogen in 1923. The medical profession jumped on this discovery and started injecting menopausal women by the thousands, and it was said that “[t]he ‘shot’ gives a ‘respectable’ hook on which to hang the visit to the doctor…” Soon, there were pills and patches, and medical journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association regaled doctors with ads I feature in my video How Did Doctors Not Know About the Risks of Hormone Therapy? on how they can “help the women to happiness by simply prescribing estrogen” and, “[w]hen women outlive their ovaries…,” there is Premarin.

As far back as the 1940s, concerns were raised that this practice might cause breast cancer, noting it would have been nice to figure this out before we started dosing women en masse. But breast cancer risk didn’t seem to matter as much, because heart disease was the number-one killer of women, reviews concluded, and because women taking hormones appeared to have lower heart attack rates, which would outweigh any additional breast cancer. However, women taking estrogen tended to be of a higher socioeconomic class, exercised more, and engaged in other healthy lifestyle changes like consuming more dietary fiber and getting their cholesterol checked. So, maybe that’s why women taking estrogen appeared to be protected from heart disease. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the drugs themselves. Despite the medical profession’s “enthusiasm for estrogen replacement therapy,” only a randomized clinical trial could really resolve this question. We would need to divide women into two groups, with half getting the hormones and half getting a placebo, and follow them out for a few years. There was no such study…until the 1990s, when the Women’s Health Initiative study was designed.

Wait a second. Why did it take the bulk of a century to decide to definitively study the safety of something prescribed to millions of women? Perhaps because there had never been a female director of the National Institutes of Health until then. “Just three weeks after being named NIH Director in 1991, [Bernadine Healy] went before Congress to announce, ‘We need a moon walk for women.’ That ‘moon walk’ took the form of the Women’s Health Initiative, the most definitive, far-reaching clinical trial of women’s health ever undertaken in the United States.”

The bombshell landed in summer 2002. There was so much more invasive breast cancer in the hormone users that they were forced to stop the study prematurely. What about heart disease? Wasn’t that supposed to balance things out? The women didn’t just have more breast cancer—they had more heart attacks, more strokes, and more blood clots to their lungs.

The news that women treated with hormone replacement therapy “experienced higher rates of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and overall harm has rocked women and physicians across the country.” Estrogen started out as the most prescribed drug in America before the study, but, after, the number of prescriptions dropped immediately and, within a year, so did the incidence of breast cancer in the United States.

The most important question about this story is why were we all so surprised? There had been “decades of repeated warnings” about the risks of cancer. In fact, the reason breast cancer patients had so much trouble suing the pharmaceutical company was that “the drugs have contained warning labels for decades.” And, with that disclosure, surely any reasonable physician would have included it in their risk and benefit discussions with their patients, right? It’s like the warning labels on packs of cigarettes. If you get lung cancer now, you should have known better. And, so, if you were on hormone replacement therapy and got breast cancer, don’t blame the drug company. They warned you about the risks, right there in the fine print.

Why didn’t more doctors warn their patients? Even after the study came out, millions of prescriptions continued to be dispensed. That’s a lot of cancer in our patients we caused, wrote one doctor. “How long will it take us to discard the financial gains, to admit that we are harming many of our patients, and to start changing our prescription habits?”

“Why did this practice continue in the face of mounting evidence of harm?” Well, it is a multibillion-dollar industry. “Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, many physicians still believe that estrogenic hormones have overall health benefits,” a “non-evidence-based perception [that] may be the result of decades of carefully orchestrated corporate influence on medical literature.” Indeed, “[d]ozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements were used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms of menopausal hormone therapy…” PR companies were paid to write the articles that were then passed off as having been written by some expert.

What now? “Gynecologists must switch allegiance from eminence-based to evidence-based medicine.” In other words, they must consider what the science says and not just what some so-called expert says. It’s been said that the “current culture of gynecology encourages the dissemination of health advice based on advertising rather than science.”

“Women were placed in the way of harm by their physicians, who acted as unsuspecting patsies for the pharmaceutical companies.” If we really wanted to prevent heart attacks in women, simple lifestyle behaviors can eliminate more than 90 percent of heart attack risk. So, instead of being Big Pharma’s pawns, “recommending a healthful diet, increased exercise, and smoking cessation would truly benefit women’s health.”


The whole Premarin debacle speaks to the importance of putting purported therapies to the test (see, for example, Do Vitamin D Supplements Help with Diabetes, Weight Loss, and Blood Pressure?), as well as to the power of Big Pharma (Eliminating Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research), medical community collusion (American Medical Association Complicity with Big Tobacco), and my most recent series on mammograms.

What about Plant-Based Bioidentical Hormones and Soy Phytoestrogens for Menopause Hot Flashes? Check out the videos to find out.

In general, patients (and doctors) tend to wildly overestimate the efficacy of pills and procedures. See Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure and The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs.

Medical care, in general, may be the third leading cause of death in the United States. See How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer.

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

Preorder How Not to Diet Now!

Preorder How Not to Diet Now!

My new book How Not to Diet is now available for pre-order! 

It’s hard to express how excited I am that it’s finally coming out. It’s the biggest single research project I’ve ever taken on. There are more than a half million papers published in the medical literature on obesity with 100 new ones every day. It’s no wonder no one has yet pulled together all the best science…until now!

In Part 1, I explain the cause of the obesity epidemic. What exactly happened in the late 1970’s that triggered the global crisis? In Part 2, I construct the ideal weight loss diet from the ground up, identifying 17 different ingredients for optimal weight control with a chapter on each. Then, in Part 3, I go through specific foods proven in randomized, controlled trials to enhance weight loss by acting as everything from fat blockers and burners to appetite suppressants and metabolic boosters. And it’s not just what you eat, but how and when. In the last twenty chapters, I dive into optimal meal and exercise timing and frequency, habit formation, negative calorie preloading, and more—all immortalized in my Twenty-One Tweaks to accelerate weight loss that will complement my Daily Dozen

Why Pre-Order?

The book comes out on December 10, 2019, in time for the holidays and the burst of New Year resolutions. We’re hoping to get on all the major media outlets so we can spread the idea of evidence-based nutrition far and wide, but that depends in part on whether I can get on the New York Times Best Seller List. The list is decided based on the number of sales we get in the first week—including all of the pre-order sales. Thanks to so many of you, when How Not to Die launched, there were already tens of thousands of orders queued up, so it debuted as an instant New York Times Best Seller starting out at #6 on the list. Ready to help me shoot for #1? Pre-order it now at https://nutritionfacts.org/how-not-to-diet.

I don’t receive a penny from the book. It’s right in my contract that all the money I would normally receive from the advance and sales and royalties instead goes to charity. But the faster the book sells, the more opportunity I may have to broadcast this message of dietary sanity to the world. Wouldn’t it be amazing if I could get on some of the big morning shows? With your help, we can reach many more millions. So please pre-order a copy for yourself, and however many copies you think you may be able to gift to friends and family to get them on the right track for the new year (and the rest of their long, healthy life!). And if you’re active on social media, help me get the word out by directing folks to the pre-order page. I’ll be using the hashtag #HowNotToDiet.

And Don’t Forget Your Signed Bookplates!

By pre-ordering the book now, not only will you help launch How Not to Diet onto the New York Times Best Seller list, but you’ll also be able to get a bookplate signed by me to insert in the book. Just make a donation of any amount with this form, and we’ll send you a signed bookplate in appreciation. It makes a great gift or a keepsake for yourself. Your tax-deductible donation helps keep NutritionFacts.org going and growing. There’s only 3,000 bookplates available, so don’t delay!

I end the Preface with these words:

“This has been a mammoth but joyful undertaking. People sometimes ask me why I don’t go on vacations or even ever take a day off. I have to explain that I feel as though my entire life is a holiday. I feel so blessed to be able to dedicate my time to helping people while doing what I love, learning and sharing. I can’t imagine doing anything else.”

New Webinar: Fasting for Disease Reversal

Last month, thousands of people joined me for my first webinar on fasting, something I knew next to nothing about… until I did this deep dive into the medical literature. By my count, there are 1,527 articles on fasting in English-language peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I read every single one of them so you… don’t have to!

I’ve compiled all the best science into 41 videos which I will drip out on NutritionFacts.org over the next few years, but for those who don’t want to wait, we have a series of webinars so I can share the information all at once and answer questions throughout.

Last month I had a blast covering all the latest and greatest research on intermittent fasting and time-restricted eating. You can stream all the videos I covered here. I also covered the safety and efficacy of water-only fasting for weight loss, but what about the use of fasting for the reversal of disease? That’s the focus of my next fasting webinar, where I will spend three hours covering fasting for blood pressure, diabetes, depression, autoimmune diseases, and more. To get the full list of topics and titles, visit the webinar page.

Webinar Date & Time: September 29th at 1pm ET

Registration Closes: Midnight on September 22nd

There was so much research regarding fasting and cancer, that we made its own separate webinar as the third and final installation of the webinar series. This 3-hour webinar will be October 25th (on my birthday!) and focus on fasting for cancer reversal and during chemotherapy. Make sure to mark your calendars now—registration will begin in September.

To join: Make a donation through this form and we will send you a link to register for the September 29th Fasting for Disease Reversal webinar as a gift. Your support helps keep NutritionFacts.org alive and thriving!

 

Seeking Spanish Volunteers

Spanish volunteers neededOur Spanish team is looking for a few experienced translators to work on translating and editing transcripts, blog posts, and video subtitles. Applicants should be proficient in both Spanish and English, with previous translation experience and a basic understanding of NutritionFacts.org content and medical terms. To apply, go to https://nutritionfacts.org/volunteer.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

Eating Guide Survey

Have you used our Evidence-Based Eating Guide? If so, please consider taking two minutes to complete our brief survey to help guide the future direction of our health resources. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plant-Based Diets Recognized by Diabetes Associations

Plant-based diets as the single most important, yet underutilized, opportunity to reverse the pending obesity and diabetes-induced epidemic of disease and death.

 

 

How to Stop Tooth Decay

If sugar consumption is considered the one and only cause of cavities, how much is too much?

 

 

 

The Best Diet for Colon Cancer Prevention

What would happen within just two weeks if you swapped the diets of Americans with that of healthier eaters?

 

 

 

Live Q&As – Sept 19

Live Q&AI won’t have a live Q&A this month, but I’ll be back at it on Sept 19:

  • Facebook Live: At 12:00 p.m. ET go to our Facebook page to watch live and ask questions.
  • YouTube Live Stream: At 1:00 p.m. ET go here to watch live and ask even more questions! 

You can now find links to all of my past live YouTube and Facebook Q&As right here on NutritionFacts.org. If that’s not enough, remember I have an audio podcast to keep you company at http://nutritionfacts.org/audio.

 

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 Best Source of Resistant Starch

The Best Source of Resistant Starch

Resistant starch wasn’t discovered until 1982. Before that, we thought all starch could be digested by the digestive enzymes in our small intestine. Subsequent studies confirmed that there are indeed starches that resist digestion and end up in our large intestine, where they can feed our good bacteria, just like fiber does. Resistant starch is found naturally in many common foods, including grains, vegetables, beans, seeds, and some nuts, but in small quantities, just a few percent of the total. As I discuss in my video Getting Starch to Take the Path of Most Resistance, there are a few ways, though, to get some of the rest of the starch to join the resistance.

When regular starches are cooked and then cooled, some of the starch recrystallizes into resistant starch. For this reason, pasta salad can be healthier than hot pasta and potato salad can be healthier than a baked potato, but the effect isn’t huge. The resistant starch goes from about 3 percent up to 4 percent. The best source of resistant starch is not from eating cold starches, but from eating beans, which start at 4 or 5 percent and go up from there.

If you mix cooked black beans with a “fresh fecal” sample, there’s so much fiber and resistant starch in the beans that the pH drops as good bacteria churn out beneficial short-chain fatty acids, which are associated both directly and indirectly with lower colon cancer risk. (See Stool pH and Colon Cancer.) The more of this poopy black bean mixture you smear on human colon cancer, the fewer cancer cells survive.

Better yet, we can eat berries with our meals that act as starch blockers. Raspberries, for example, completely inhibit the enzyme that we use to digest starch, leaving more for our friendly flora. So, putting raspberry jam on your toast, strawberries on your corn flakes, or making blueberry pancakes may allow your good bacteria to share in some of the breakfast bounty.

Another way to feed our good bacteria is to eat intact grains, beans, nuts, and seeds. In one study, researchers split people into two groups and had them eat the same food, but in one group, the seeds, grains, beans, and chickpeas were eaten more or less in a whole form, while they were ground up for the other group. For example, for breakfast, the whole-grain group got muesli, and the ground-grain group had the same muesli, but it was blended into a porridge. Similarly, beans were added to salads for the whole-grain group, whereas they were blended into hummus for the ground-grain group. Note that both groups were eating whole grains—not refined—that is, they were eating whole foods. In the ground-grain group, though, those whole grains, beans, and seeds were made into flour or blended up.

What happened? Those on the intact whole-grain diet “resulted in a doubling of the amount excreted compared to the usual diet and produced an additional and statistically significant increase in stool mass” compared with those on the ground whole-grain diet, even though they were eating the same food and the same amount of food. Why? On the whole-grain diet, there was so much more for our good bacteria to eat that they grew so well and appeared to bulk up the stool. Even though people chewed their food, “[l]arge amounts of apparently whole seeds were recovered from stools,” but on closer inspection, they weren’t whole at all. Our bacteria were having a smorgasbord. The little bits and pieces left after chewing transport all this wonderful starch straight down to our good bacteria. As a result, stool pH dropped as our bacteria were able to churn out so many of those short-chain fatty acids. Whole grains are great, but intact whole grains may be even better, allowing us to feed our good gut bacteria with the leftovers.

Once in our colon, resistant starches have been found to have the same benefits as fiber: softening and bulking stools, reducing colon cancer risk by decreasing pH, increasing short-chain fatty acid production, reducing products of protein fermentation (also known as products of putrefaction), and decreasing secondary bile products.

Well, if resistant starch is so great, why not just take resistant starch pills? It should come as no surprise that commercial preparations of resistant starch are now available and “food scientists have developed a number of RS-enriched products.” After all, some find it “difficult to recommend a high-fiber diet to the general public.” Wouldn’t be easier to just enrich some junk food? And, indeed, you now can buy pop tarts bragging they contain “resistant corn starch.”

Just taking resistant starch supplements does not work, however. There have been two trials so far trying to prevent cancer in people with genetic disorders that put them at extremely high risk, with virtually a 100-percent chance of getting cancer, and resistant starch supplements didn’t help. A similar result was found in another study. So, we’re either barking up the wrong tree, the development of hereditary colon cancer is somehow different than regular colon cancer, or you simply can’t emulate the effects of naturally occurring dietary fiber in plant-rich diets just by giving people some resistant starch supplements.

For resistant starch to work, it has to get all the way to the end of the colon, which is where most tumors form. But, if the bacteria higher up eat it all, then resistant starch may not be protective. So, we also may have to eat fiber to push it along. Thus, we either eat huge amounts of resistant starch—up near the level consumed in Africa, which is twice as much as were tried in the two cancer trials—or we consume foods rich in both resistant starch and fiber. In other words, “[f]rom a public health perspective, eating more of a variety of food rich in dietary fibre including wholegrains, vegetables, fruits, and pulses [such as chickpeas and lentils] is a preferable strategy for reducing cancer risk.”


What’s so great about resistant starch? See my video Resistant Starch and Colon Cancer.

I first broached the subject of intact grains in Are Green Smoothies Bad for You?.

Why should we care about what our gut flora eats? See Gut Dysbiosis: Starving Our Microbial Self.

Did I say putrefaction? See Putrefying Protein and “Toxifying” Enzymes.

Berries don’t just help block starch digestion, but sugar digestion as well. See If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?.

The whole attitude that we can just stuff the effects into a pill is a perfect example of reductionism at work. See Reductionism and the Deficiency Mentality and Why is Nutrition So Commercialized? 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