ReportWire

Tag: animal products

  • Foods That Disrupt Our Microbiome | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Eating a diet filled with animal products can disrupt our microbiome faster than taking an antibiotic.

    If you search online for “Crohn’s disease and diet” or “ulcerative colitis and diet,” the top results are a hodgepodge of conflicting advice, as you can see below and at 0:15 in my video Preventing Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Diet. 

    What does science say? A systematic review of the medical literature on dietary intake and the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease finds that Crohn’s disease is associated with the intake of fat and meat, whereas dietary fiber and fruits appear protective. The same associations are seen with ulcerative colitis, the other major inflammatory bowel disease—namely, increased risk with fat and meat, and a protective association with vegetable intake. 

    Why, according to this meta-analysis of nine separate studies, do meat consumers have about a 50 percent greater risk for inflammatory bowel disease? One possibility is that meat may be a vehicle for bacteria that play a role in the development of such diseases. For instance, meat contains “huge amounts of Yersinia.” It’s possible that antibiotic residues in the meat itself could be theoretically mucking with our microbiome, but Yersinia are so-called psychotropic bacteria, meaning they’re able to grow at refrigerator temperatures, and they’ve been found to be significantly associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This supports the concept that Yersinia infection may be a trigger of chronic IBD.

    Animal protein is associated with triple the risk of inflammatory bowel disease, but plant protein is not, as you can see below and at 1:39 in my video. Why? One reason is that animal protein can lead to the formation of toxic bacterial end products, such as hydrogen sulfide, the rotten egg gas. Hydrogen sulfide is not just “one of the main malodorous compounds in human flatus”; it is a “poison that has been implicated in ulcerative colitis.” So, if you go on a meat-heavy, low-carb diet, we aren’t talking just about some “malodorous rectal flatus,” but increased risk of irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel syndrome (ulcerative colitis), and eventually, colorectal cancer. 

    Hydrogen sulfide in the colon comes from sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine, that are concentrated in animal proteins. There are also sulfites added as preservatives to some nonorganic wine and nonorganic dried fruit, but the sulfur-containing amino acids may be the more important of the two. When researchers gave people increasing quantities of meat, there was an exponential rise in fecal sulfides, as seen here and at 2:37 in my video. 

    Specific bacteria, like Biophilia wadsworthia, can take this sulfur that ends up in our colon and produce hydrogen sulfide. Eating a diet based on animal products, packed with meat, eggs, and dairy, can specifically increase the growth of this bacteria. People underestimate the dramatic effect diet can have on our gut bacteria. As shown below and at 3:12 in my video, when people are given a fecal transplant, it can take three days for their microbiome to shift. Take a powerful antibiotic like Cipro, and it can take a week. But if we start eating a diet heavy in meat and eggs, within a single day, our microbiome can change—and not for the better. The bad bacterial machinery that churns out hydrogen sulfide can more than double, and this is consistent with the thinking that “diet-induced changes to the gut microbiota [flora] may contribute to the development of inflammatory bowel disease.” In other words, the increase in sulfur compounds in the colon when we eat meat “is not only of interest in the field of flatology”—the study of human farts—“but may also be of importance in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis…” 

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the first in a three-part video series. Stay tuned for The Best Diet for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment and The Best Diet for Crohn’s Disease Treatment. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating an Anti-Inflammatory Diet for Lupus  | NutritionFacts.org

    Eating an Anti-Inflammatory Diet for Lupus  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Green smoothies are put to the test for the autoimmune disease lupus.

    There are dozens and dozens of journals I try to stay on top of every month, and one I always anticipate is The International Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention, a peer-reviewed medical “journal created to document the science of nutrition and lifestyle to prevent, suspend and reverse disease,” with an editor-in-chief no less prestigious than Dr. Kim Williams, past president of the American College of Cardiology. I was honored to join its editorial advisory board, along with so many of my heroes. The best part? It’s free. Go to IJDRP.org and put in your email to subscribe at no cost, and you’ll be alerted when new issues are out, which you can download in full in PDF form. (Did I mention it’s free?)

    When it comes to chronic lifestyle diseases, wrote Dr. Williams, “Instead of preventing chronic lifestyle diseases, we [doctors] manage. Never cure, just mitigate. Why? Because of finance, culture, habit, and tradition.” There are many of us, though, who “envision a world where trillions of dollars are not spent on medical care that should never have been necessary, but rather on infrastructure, environment, education, and advancing science. For this reason, comes The International Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention (IJDRP).” After all, wrote the journal’s co-founder, “Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.”

    To give you a taste of the journal: How about pitting plants against one of the most inflammatory diseases out there—lupus, an autoimmune disease in which your body can start attacking your DNA? Kidney inflammation is a common consequence, and even with our armamentarium of immunosuppressant drugs and steroids, lupus-induced kidney inflammation can lead to end-stage renal disease, which means dialysis, and even death. That is, unless you pack your diet with some of the most anti-inflammatory foods out there and your kidney function improves so much you no longer need dialysis or a kidney transplant. Another similar case was presented with a resolution in symptoms and normal kidney function, unless the patient deviated from the diet and his symptoms then reappeared.

    As I discuss in my video Anti-Inflammatory Diet for Lupus, even just cutting out animal products can make a difference. Researchers randomized people to remove meat, eggs, and dairy from their diets without significantly increasing fruit and vegetable intake and found that doing just that can lower C-reactive protein levels by nearly a third within eight weeks, as you can see below and at 2:21 in my video. (Our C-reactive protein level is a sensitive indicator of whole-body inflammation.)

    But with lupus, the researchers didn’t mess around. Each day, the study subjects were to eat a pound of leafy greens and cruciferous vegetables like kale, fruits like berries, and lots of chia or flax, and drink a gallon of water. We’re talking about a green smoothie diet to extinguish lupus flares. (Note, though, that if your kidneys are already compromised, this should be done under physician supervision so they can monitor your electrolytes like potassium and make sure you don’t get overloaded with fluid.) Bottom line? With such remarkable improvements due to dietary changes alone, the hope is that researchers will take up the mantle and formally put it to the test. 

    Reversals of autoimmune inflammatory skin disease can be particularly striking visually. A woman with a 35-year history of psoriasis that had been unsuccessfully managed for 19 years with drugs suffered from other autoimmune conditions, including Sjogren’s syndrome. She was put on an extraordinarily healthy diet packed with greens and other vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, avocados, and some whole grains, and boom! Within one year, she went from 40 percent of her entire body surface area inflamed and affected down to 0 percent, completely clear, and, as a bonus, her Sjogren’s symptoms resolved, too, while helping to normalize her weight and cholesterol. You can see before and after photos below and at 3:39 in my video. 

    I think I only have one other video on lupus: Fighting Lupus with Turmeric: Good as Gold. It’s not for lack of trying, though. There just hasn’t been much research out there.

    I talk about another autoimmune disease, type 1 diabetes, in Type 1 Diabetes Treatment: A Plant-Based Diet.

    To read and subscribe—for free—to The International Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention, visit www.IJDRP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What’s the Best Weight-Loss and Disease-Prevention Diet?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What’s the Best Weight-Loss and Disease-Prevention Diet?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The most effective diet for weight loss may also be the most healthful.

    Why are vegetarian diets so effective in preventing and treating diabetes? Maybe it is because of the weight loss. As I discuss in my video The Best Diet for Weight Loss and Disease Prevention, those eating more plant-based tend to be significantly slimmer. That isn’t based on looking at a cross-section of the population either. You can perform an interventional trial and put it to the test in a randomized, controlled community-based trial of a whole food, plant-based diet.

    “The key difference between this trial [of plant-based nutrition] and other approaches to weight loss was that participants were informed to eat the WFPB [whole food, plant-based] diet ad libitum and to focus efforts on diet, rather than increasing exercise.” Ad libitum means they could eat as much as they want; there was no calorie counting or portion control. They just ate. It was about improving the quality of the food rather than restricting the quantity of food. In the study, the researchers had participants focus just on a diet rather than exercising more exercise because they wanted to isolate the effects of eating more healthfully.

    So, what happened? At the start of the study, the participants were, on average, obese at nearly 210 pounds (95 kg) with an average height of about 5’5” (165 cm). Three months into the trial, they were down about 18 pounds (8 kg)—without portion restrictions and eating all the healthy foods they wanted. At six months in, they were closer to 26 pounds (12 kg) lighter. You know how these weight-loss trials usually go, though. However, this wasn’t an institutional study where the participants were locked up and fed. In this trial, no meals were provided. The researchers just informed them about the benefits of plant-based eating and encouraged them to eat that way on their own, with their own families, and in their own homes, in their own communities. What you typically see in these “free-living” studies is weight loss at six months, with the weight creeping back or even getting worse by the end of a year. But, in this study, the participants were able to maintain that weight loss all year, as you can see below and at 1:57 in my video.

    What’s more, their cholesterol got better, too, but the claim to fame is that they “achieved greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months than any other trial that does not limit energy [caloric] intake or mandate regular exercise.” That’s worth repeating. A whole food, plant-based diet achieved the greatest weight loss ever recorded at 6 and 12 months compared to any other such intervention published in the medical literature. Now, obviously, with very low-calorie starvation diets, you can drop down to any weight. “However, medically supervised liquid ‘meal replacements’ are not intended for ongoing use”—obviously, they’re just short-term fixes—“and are associated with ‘high costs, high attrition rates, and a high probability of regaining 50% or more of lost weight in 1 to 2 years.’” In contrast, the whole point of whole food, plant-based nutrition is to maximize long-term health and longevity.

    What about low-carb diets? “Studies on the effects of low-carbohydrate diets have shown higher rates of all-cause mortality”—meaning a shorter lifespan—“decreased peripheral flow-mediated dilation [artery function], worsening of coronary artery disease, and increased rates of constipation, headache, halitosis [bad breath], muscle cramps, general weakness, and rash.”

    The point of weight loss is not to fit into a smaller casket. A whole food, plant-based diet is more effective than low-carb diets for weight loss and has the bonus of having all good side effects, such as decreasing the risk of diabetes beyond just weight loss.

    “The lower risk of type 2 diabetes among vegetarians may be explained in part by improved weight status (i.e., lower BMI). However, the lower risk also may be explained by higher amounts of ingested dietary fiber and plant protein, the absence of meat- and egg-derived protein and heme iron, and a lower intake of saturated fat. Most studies report the lowest risk of type 2 diabetes among individuals who adhere to vegan diets. This may be explained by the fact that vegans, in contrast to ovo- and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, do not ingest eggs. Two separate meta-analyses linked egg consumption with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes.”

    Maybe it’s eating lower on the food chain, thereby avoiding the highest levels of persistent organic pollutants, like dioxins, PCBs, and DDT in animal products. Those have been implicated as a diabetes risk factor. Or maybe it has to do with the gut microbiome. With all that fiber in a plant-based diet, it’s no surprise there would be fewer disease-causing bugs and more protective gut flora, which can lead to less inflammation throughout the body that “may be the key feature linking the vegan gut microbiota with protective health effects”—including the metabolic dysfunction you can see in type 2 diabetes.

    The multiplicity of benefits from eating plant-based can help with compliance and family buy-in. “Whereas a household that includes people who do not have diabetes may be unlikely to enthusiastically follow a ‘diabetic diet,’ a low-fat plant-based approach is not disease-specific and has been shown to improve other chronic conditions. While the patient [with diabetes] will likely see improvement in A1C [blood sugar control], a spouse suffering from constipation or high blood pressure may also see improvements, as may children with weight issues,” if you make healthy eating a family affair.

    This is just a taste of my New York Times best-selling book, How Not to Diet. (As with all of my books, all proceeds I received went to charity.) Watch the book trailer. You may also be interested in its companion, The How Not to Diet Cookbook.

    Check out my hour-long Evidence-Based Weight Loss lecture for more. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What is the best type of pots and pans to use?

    In my last video, I expressed concerns about the use of aluminum cookware. So, what’s the best type of pots and pans to use? As I discuss in my video Stainless Steel or Cast Iron: Which Cookware Is Best? Is Teflon Safe?, stainless steel is an excellent option. It’s the metal chosen for use “in applications where safety and hygiene are considered to be of the utmost importance, such as kitchenware.” But what about studies showing that the nickel and chromium in stainless steel, which keeps the iron in stainless unstained by rust, can leach into foods during cooking? The leaching only seems to occur when the cookware is brand new. “Metal leaching decreases with sequential cooking cycles and stabilizes after the sixth cooking cycle,” after the sixth time you cook with it. Under more common day-to-day conditions, the use of stainless steel pots is considered to be safe even for most people who are acutely sensitive to those metals. 

    A little leaching metal can even be a good thing in the case of straight iron, like a cast iron skillet, which can have the “beneficial effect” of helping to improve iron status and potentially reduce the incidence of iron deficiency anemia among children and women of reproductive age. The only caveat is that you don’t want to fry in cast iron. Frying isn’t healthy regardless of cookware type, but, at hot temperatures, vegetable oil can react with the iron to create trans fats. 

    What about using nonstick pans? Teflon, also known as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), “is used as an inner coating material in nonstick cookware.” Teflon’s dark history was the subject of a 2019 movie called Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo and Anne Hathaway. Employees in DuPont’s Teflon division started giving birth to babies with deformities before “DuPont removed all female staff” from the unit. Of course, the corporation buried it all, hiding it from regulators and the public. “Despite this significant history of industry knowledge” about how toxic some of the chemicals used to make Teflon were, it was able to keep it hidden until, eventually, it was forced to settle for more than half a billion dollars after one of the chemicals was linked to “kidney and testicular cancers, pregnancy-induced hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and high cholesterol.”

    “At normal cooking temperatures, PTFE-coated cookware releases various gases and chemicals that present mild to severe toxicity.” As you can see below and at 2:38 in my video, different gases are released at different temperatures, and their toxic effects have been documented. 

    You’ve heard of “canaries in the coal mine”? This is more like “canaries in the kitchen, as cooking with Teflon cookware is well known to kill pet birds,” and Teflon-coated heat lamp bulbs can wipe out half a flock of chickens. 

    “Apart from the gases released during heating the cooking pans, the coating itself starts damaging after a certain period. It is normally advised to use slow heating when cooking in Teflon-coated pans,” but you can imagine how consumers might ignore that. And, if you aren’t careful, some of the Teflon can start chipping off and make its way into the food, though the effects of ingestion are unknown.

    I could find only one study that looks at the potential human health effects of cooking with nonstick pots and pans. Researchers found that the use of nonstick cookware was associated with about a 50 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer, but that may be because of what they were cooking. “Non-stick cookware is used in hazardous cooking methods (i.e. broiling, frying, grilling or barbecuing) at high temperatures mainly for meat, poultry or fish,” in which carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCA) are formed from the animal protein. Then, the animal fat can produce another class of carcinogens called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Though it’s possible it was the Teflon itself, which contains suspected carcinogens like that C8 compound from the movie Dark Waters, also known as PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid.

    “Due to toxicity concerns, PFOA has been replaced with other chemicals such as GenX, but these new alternatives are also suspected to have similar toxicity.” We’ve already so contaminated the Earth with it, though, that we can get it prepackaged in food before it’s even cooked, particularly in dairy products, fish, and other meat; now, “meat is the main source of human exposure” to these toxic pollutants. Of those, seafood is the worst. In a study of diets from around the world, fish and other seafood were “major contributors” of the perfluoroalkyl substances, as expected, given that everything eventually flows into the sea. Though the aquatic food chain is the “primary transfer mechanism” for these toxins into the human diet, “food stored or prepared in greaseproof packaging materials,” like microwave popcorn, may also be a source. 

    In 2019, Oral-B Glide dental floss was tested. Six out of 18 dental floss products researchers tested showed evidence of Teflon-type compounds. Did those who used those kinds of floss end up with higher levels in their bloodstream? Yes, apparently so. Higher levels of perfluorohexanesulfonic acid were found in Oral-B Glide flossers, as you can see below and at 5:28 in my video.

    There are a lot of environmental exposures in the modern world we can’t avoid, but we shouldn’t make things worse by adding them to consumer products. At least we have some power to “lower [our] personal exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

    This is the second in a three-video series on cookware. The first was Are Aluminum Pots, Bottles, and Foil Safe?, and the next is Are Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils Safe?.

    What about pressure cooking? I covered that in Does Pressure Cooking Preserve Nutrients?.

    So, what is the safest way to prepare meat? See Carcinogens in Meat. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Homocysteine, Vitamin B12, and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Homocysteine, Vitamin B12, and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Not taking vitamin B12 supplements or regularly eating B12-fortified foods may explain the higher stroke risk found among vegetarians.

    Leonardo da Vinci had a stroke. Might his vegetarian diet have been to blame? “His stroke…may have been related to an increase in homocysteine level because of the long duration of his vegetarian diet.” A suboptimal intake of vitamin B12 is common in those eating plant-based diets (unless they take B12 supplements or regularly eat B12-fortified foods) and can lead to an increased level of homocysteine in the blood, which “is accepted as an important risk factor for stroke.”

    “Accepted” may be overstating it as there is still “a great controversy” surrounding the connection between homocysteine and stroke risk. But, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:57 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Vitamin B12 and Homocysteine?, those with higher homocysteine levels do seem to have more atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries that lead up to the brain, compared to those with single-digit homocysteine levels, and they also seem to be at higher risk for clotting ischemic strokes in observational studies and, more recently, bleeding hemorrhagic strokes, as well as increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and all causes put together. 

    Even more convincing are the genetic data. About 10 percent of the population has a gene that increases homocysteine levels by about 2 points, and they appear to have significantly higher odds of having a stroke. Most convincing would be randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to prove that lowering homocysteine with B vitamins can lower strokes, and, indeed, that appears to be the case for clotting strokes: Strokes with homocysteine-lowering interventions were more than five times as likely to reduce stroke compared with placebo.

    Ironically, one of the arguments against the role of homocysteine in strokes is that, “assuming that vegetarians have lower vitamin B12 concentrations than meat-eaters and that low vitamin B12 concentrations cause ischaemic stroke, then the incidence of stroke should be increased among vegetarians…but this is not the case.” However, it has never been studied until now.

    As you can see in the graph below and at 2:16 in my video, the EPIC-Oxford study researchers found that vegetarians do appear to be at higher risk.

    And no wonder, as about a quarter of the vegetarians and nearly three-quarters of the vegans studied were vitamin B12-depleted or B12-deficient, as you can see below and at 2:23, and that resulted in extraordinarily high homocysteine levels.

    Why was there so much B12 deficiency? Because only a small minority were taking a dedicated B12 supplement. And, unlike in the United States, B12 fortification of organic foods isn’t allowed in the United Kingdom. So, while U.S. soymilk and other products may be fortified with B12, UK products may not. We don’t see the same problem among U.S. vegans in the Adventist study, presumably because of the B12 fortification of commonly eaten foods in the United States. It may be no coincidence that the only study I was able to find that showed a significantly lower stroke mortality risk among vegetarians was an Adventist study.

    Start eating strictly plant-based without B12-fortified foods or supplements, and B12 deficiency can develop. However, that was only for those not eating sufficient foods fortified with B12. Those eating plant-based who weren’t careful about getting a regular reliable source of B12 had lower B12 levels and, consequently, higher homocysteine levels, as you can see below and at 3:27 in my video.

    The only way to prove vitamin B12 deficiency is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in vegetarians is to put it to the test. When researchers measured the amount of atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries, the main arteries supplying the brain, “no significant difference” was found between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. They both looked just as bad even though vegetarians tend to have better risk factors, such as lower cholesterol and blood pressure. The researchers suggest that B12 deficiency plays a role, but how do they know? Some measures of artery function weren’t any better either. Again, they surmised that vitamin B12 deficiency was overwhelming the natural plant-based benefits. “The beneficial effects of vegetarian diets on lipids and blood glucose [cholesterol and blood sugars] need to be advocated, and efforts to correct vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarian diets can never be overestimated.”

    Sometimes vegetarians did even worse. Worse artery wall thickness and worse artery wall function, “raising concern, for the first time, about the vascular health of vegetarians”—more than a decade before the new stroke study. Yes, their B12 was low, and, yes, their homocysteine was high, “suggest[ing] that vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarians might have adverse effects on their vascular health.” What we need, though, is an interventional study, where participants are given B12 to see if that fixes it, and here we go. The title of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover study gives it away: “Vitamin B-12 Supplementation Improves Arterial Function in Vegetarians with Subnormal Vitamin B-12 Status.” So, compromised vitamin B12 status among those eating more plant-based diets due to not taking B12 supplements or regularly eating vitamin B12-fortified foods may explain the higher stroke risk found among vegetarians.

    Unfortunately, many vegetarians resist taking vitamin B12 supplements due to “misconceptions,” like “hold[ing] on to the old myth that deficiency of this vitamin is rare and occurs only in a small proportion of vegans.” “A common mistake is to think that the presence of dairy products and eggs in the diet, as in LOV [a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet], can still ensure a proper intake [of B12]…despite excluding animal flesh.”

    Now that we may have nailed the cause, maybe “future studies with vegetarians should focus on identifying ways to convince vegetarians to take vitamin B12 supplements to prevent a deficiency routinely.” 

    I have updated my recommendation for B12 supplementation. I now suggest at least 2,000 mcg (µg) of cyanocobalamin once weekly, ideally as a chewable, sublingual, or liquid supplement taken on an empty stomach, or at least 50 mcg daily of supplemental cyanocobalamin. (You needn’t worry about taking too much.) You can also have servings of B12-fortified foods three times a day (at each meal), each containing at least 190% of the Daily Value listed on the nutrition facts label. (Based on the new labeling mandate that started on January 1, 2020, the target is 4.5 mcg three times a day.) Please note, though, that those older than the age of 65 have only one option: to take 1,000 micrograms a day. 

    We started this series on what to eat and not eat for stroke prevention, and whether vegetarians really have a higher stroke risk. Check related posts for the last few videos that looked at specific factors.

    Stay tuned for: 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Saturated Fat and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Saturated Fat and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How can we explain the drop in stroke risk as the Japanese diet became westernized with more meat and dairy?

    As Japan westernized, the country’s stroke rate plummeted, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:15 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Saturated Fat?. 

    Stroke had been a leading cause of death in Japan, but the mortality rate decreased sharply as they moved away from their traditional diets and started eating more like those in the West. Did the consumption of all that extra meat and dairy have a protective effect? After all, their intake of animal fat and animal protein was going up at the same time their stroke rates were going down, as shown below and at 0:35 in my video. 

    Commented a noted Loma Linda cardiology professor, “Protection from stroke by eating animal foods? Surely not!…Many vegetarians, like myself, have almost come to expect the data to indicate that they have an advantage, whatever the disease that is being considered. Thus, it is disquieting to find evidence in a quite different direction for at least one subtype of stroke.” 

    Can dietary saturated fat, like that found in meat and dairy, be beneficial in preventing stroke risk? There appeared to be a protective association—but only in East Asian populations, as you can see below and at 1:11 in my video. 

    High dietary saturated fat was found to be associated with a lower risk of stroke in Japanese but not in non-Japanese. So, what was it about the traditional Japanese diet that the westernization of their eating habits made things better when it came to stroke risk? Well, at the same time, their meat and dairy intake was going up, and their salt intake was going down, as you can see below and at 1:40. 

    The traditional Japanese diet was packed with salt. They had some of the highest salt intakes in the world, about a dozen spoonsful of salt a day. Before refrigeration became widely available, they ate all sorts of salted, pickled, and fermented foods from soy sauce to salted fish. In the areas with twice the salt intake, they had twice the stroke mortality, but when the salt intake dropped, so did the stroke death rates, because when the salt consumption went down, their blood pressure went down, too. High blood pressure is perhaps “the single most important potentially modifiable risk factor for stroke,” so it’s no big mystery why the westernization of the Japanese diet led to a drop in stroke risk.  

    When they abandoned their more traditional diets, their obesity rates went up and so did their diabetes and coronary artery disease, but, as they gave up the insanely high salt intake, their insanely high stroke rates correspondingly fell. 

    Stomach cancer is closely associated with excess salt intake. When you look at their stomach cancer rates, they came down beautifully as they westernized their diets away from salt-preserved foods, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:50 in my video. 

    But, of course, as they started eating more animal foods like dairy, their rates of fatal prostate cancer, for example, shot through the roof. Compared to Japan, the United States has 7 times more deaths from prostate cancer, 5 times more deadly breast cancer, 3 times more colon cancer and lymphoma mortality, and 6 to 12 times the death rate from heart disease, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:15 in my video. Yes, Japanese stroke and stomach cancer rates were higher, but they were also eating up to a quarter cup of salt a day. 

    That would seem to be the most likely explanation, rather than some protective role of animal fat. And, indeed, it was eventually acknowledged in the official Japanese guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: “Refrain from the consumption of large amounts of fatty meat, animal fat, eggs, and processed foods…”

    Now, one of the Harvard cohorts found a protective association between hemorrhagic strokes and both saturated fat and trans fat, prompting a “sigh of relief…heard throughout the cattle-producing Midwestern states,” even though the researchers concluded that, of course, we all have to cut down on animal fat and trans fat for the heart disease benefit. Looking at another major Harvard cohort, however, they found no such protective association for any kind of stroke, and when they put all the studies together, zero protection was found across the board, as you can see below and at 4:07 in my video. 

    Observational studies have found that higher LDL cholesterol seems to be associated with a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke, raising the possibility that cholesterol may be “a double-edged sword,” by decreasing the risk of ischemic stroke but increasing the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. But low cholesterol levels in the aged “may be a surrogate for nutritional deficiencies…or a sign of debilitating diseases,” or perhaps the individuals were on a combination of cholesterol-lowering drugs and blood thinners, and that’s why we tend to see more brain bleeds in those with low cholesterol. You don’t know until you put it to the test.

    Researchers put together about two dozen randomized controlled trials and found that the lower your cholesterol, the better when it comes to overall stroke risk, with “no significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke risk with lower achieved low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol levels.”

    The genetic data appear mixed, with some suggesting a lifetime of elevated LDL would give you a higher hemorrhagic stroke risk, while other data suggest more of that double-edged sword effect. However, with lower cholesterol, “any possible excess of hemorrhagic [bleeding] stroke is greatly outweighed by the protective effect against ischaemic stroke,” the much more common clotting type of stroke, not to mention heart disease. It may be on the order of 18 fewer clotting strokes for every 1 extra bleeding stroke with cholesterol-lowering. 

    Does this explain the increased stroke risk found among vegetarians? Hemorrhagic stroke is the type of stroke that appeared higher in vegetarians, but the cholesterol levels in vegans were even lower, and, if anything, vegans trended towards a higher clotting stroke risk, so it doesn’t make sense. If there is some protective factor in animal foods, it is to be hoped that a diet can be found that still protects against the killer number one, heart disease, without increasing the risk of the killer number five, stroke. But, first, we have to figure out what that factor is, and the hunt continues. 

    Aren’t there studies suggesting that saturated fat isn’t as bad as we used to think? Check out: 

    Just like the traditional Japanese diet had a lot going for it despite having high sodium as the fatal flaw, what might be the Achilles’ heel of plant-based diets when it comes to stroke risk? 

    This is the seventh video in this stroke series. See the related posts below for the others.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Stroke Risk of Vegetarians  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Stroke Risk of Vegetarians  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The first study in history on the incidence of stroke in vegetarians and vegans suggests they may be at higher risk.

    “When ranked in order of importance, among the interventions available to prevent stroke, the three most important are probably diet, smoking cessation, and blood pressure control.” Most of us these days are doing pretty good about not smoking, but less than half of us exercise enough. And, according to the American Heart Association, only 1 in 1,000 Americans is eating a healthy diet and less than 1 in 10 is even eating a moderately healthy diet, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:41 in my video Do Vegetarians Really Have Higher Stroke Risk?. Why does it matter? It matters because “diet is an important part of stroke prevention. Reducing sodium intake, avoiding egg yolks, limiting the intake of animal flesh (particularly red meat), and increasing the intake of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and lentils….Like the sugar industry, the meat and egg industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda, unfortunately with great success.” 

    The paper goes on to say, “Box 1 provides links to information about the issue.” I was excited to click on the hyperlink for “Box 1” and was so honored to see four links to my videos on egg industry propaganda, as you can see below and at 1:08 in my video. 

    The strongest evidence for stroke protection lies in increasing fruit and vegetable intake, with more uncertainty regarding “the role of whole grains, animal products, and dietary patterns,” such as vegetarian diets. One would expect meat-free diets would do great. Meta-analyses have found that vegetarian diets lower cholesterol and blood pressure, as well as enhance weight loss and blood sugar control, and vegan diets may work even better. All the key biomarkers are going in the right direction. Given this, you may be surprised to learn that there hadn’t been any studies on the incidence of stroke in vegetarians and vegans until now. And if you think that is surprising, wait until you hear the results. 

    “Risks of Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke in Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters, and Vegetarians Over 18 Years of Follow-Up: Results from the Prospective EPIC-Oxford Study”: There was less heart disease among vegetarians (by which the researchers meant vegetarians and vegans combined). No surprise. Been there, done that. But there was more stroke, as you can see below, and at 2:14 in my video. 

    An understandable knee-jerk reaction might be: Wait a second, who did this study? Was there a conflict of interest? This is EPIC-Oxford, world-class researchers whose conflicts of interest may be more likely to read: “I am a member of the Vegan Society.”

    What about overadjustment? When the numbers over ten years were crunched, the researchers found 15 strokes for every 1,000 meat eaters, compared to only 9 strokes for every 1,000 vegetarians and vegans, as you can see below and at 2:41 in my video. In that case, how can they say there were more strokes in the vegetarians? This was after adjusting for a variety of factors. The vegetarians were less likely to smoke, for example, so you’d want to cancel that out by adjusting for smoking to effectively compare the stroke risk of nonsmoking vegetarians to nonsmoking meat eaters. If you want to know how a vegetarian diet itself affects stroke rates, you want to cancel out these non-diet-related factors. Sometimes, though, you can overadjust. 

    The sugar industry does this all the time. This is how it works: Imagine you just got a grant from the soda industry to study the effect of soda on the childhood obesity epidemic. What could you possibly do after putting all the studies together to conclude that there was a “near zero” effect of sugary beverage consumption on body weight? Well, since you know that drinking liquid candy can lead to excess calories that can lead to obesity, if you control for calories, if you control for a factor that’s in the causal chain, effectively only comparing soda drinkers who take in the same number of calories as non-soda-drinkers, then you could undermine the soda-to-obesity effect, and that’s exactly what they did. That introduces “over adjustment bias.” Instead of just controlling for some unrelated factor, you control for an intermediate variable on the cause-and-effect pathway between exposure and outcome.

    Overadjustment is how meat and dairy industry-funded researchers have been accused of “obscuring true associations” between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. We know that saturated fat increases cholesterol, which increases heart disease risk. Therefore, if you control for cholesterol, effectively only comparing saturated fat eaters with the same cholesterol levels as non-saturated-fat eaters, that could undermine the saturated fat-to-heart disease effect.

    Let’s get back to the EPIC-Oxford study. Since vegetarian eating lowers blood pressure and a lowered blood pressure leads to less stroke, controlling for blood pressure would be an overadjustment, effectively only comparing vegetarians to meat eaters with the same low blood pressure. That’s not fair, since lower blood pressure is one of the benefits of vegetarian eating, not some unrelated factor like smoking. So, that would undermine the afforded protection. Did the researchers do that? No. They only adjusted for unrelated factors, like education, socioeconomic class, smoking, exercise, and alcohol. That’s what you want. You want to tease out the effects of a vegetarian diet on stroke risk. You want to try to equalize everything else to tease out the effects of just the dietary choice. And, since the meat eaters in the study were an average of ten years older than the vegetarians, you can see how vegetarians could come out worse after adjusting for that. Since stroke risk can increase exponentially with age, you can see how 9 strokes among 1,000 vegetarians in their 40s could be worse than 15 strokes among 1,000 meat-eaters in their 50s. 

    The fact that vegetarians had greater stroke risk despite their lower blood pressure suggests there’s something about meat-free diets that so increases stroke risk it’s enough to cancel out the blood pressure benefits. But, even if that’s true, you would still want to eat that way. As you can see in the graph below and at 6:16 in my video, stroke is our fifth leading cause of death, whereas heart disease is number one. 

    So, yes, in the study, there were more cases of stroke in vegetarians, but there were fewer cases of heart disease, as you can see below and at 6:29. If there is something increasing stroke risk in vegetarians, it would be nice to know what it is in hopes of figuring out how to get the best of both worlds. This is the question we will turn to next. 

    I called it 21 years ago. There’s an old video of me on YouTube where I air my concerns about stroke risk in vegetarians and vegans. (You can tell it’s from 2003 by my cutting-edge use of advanced whiteboard technology and the fact that I still had hair.) The good news is that I think there’s an easy fix.

    This is the third in a 12-video series on stroke risk. Links to the others are in the related posts below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating to Lower Lp(a)  | NutritionFacts.org

    Eating to Lower Lp(a)  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What should we eat—and not eat—to lower the cardiovascular disease risk factor lipoprotein(a)?

    Lipoprotein A, also known as Lp(a), is an independent, genetic, and causal factor for cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. At any level of LDL cholesterol, our risk of heart attack and stroke is two- to three-fold higher when our Lp(a) is elevated. With a high enough Lp(a) level, atherosclerosis continues to progress even if we get our LDL cholesterol way down, which may help explain why so many people continue to have heart attacks and strokes even under treatment for high cholesterol. It’s been suggested that “it would be worthwhile to check Lp(a) levels in a patient who has suffered an event but has no traditional risk factors to explain it.” What’s the point of checking it, though, if there isn’t much we can do about it? “To date, no drug to reduce circulating Lp(a) levels has been approved for clinical use.”

    Some researchers blame our lack of knowledge on the fact that Lp(a) is not found in typical lab animals, like rats and mice. It’s only found in two places in nature: primates and hedgehogs. Hedgehogs? How strange is that? No wonder Lp(a) is “an enigmatic protein that has mystified medical scientists ever since” it was first discovered more than half a century ago. But who needs mice when you have men? The level in our bloodstream is “primarily determined” by genetics. For the longest time, Lp(a) was not thought to be significantly influenced by factors such as diet. Given its similarity to LDL, though, one might assume lifestyle changes, “such as increased physical activity or the adoption of a healthy diet,” would help. “However, the effects of these interventions on Lp(a) concentrations are so far either only marginal or lacking in evidence,” but might that be because they have not tried a plant-based diet yet?

    As I discuss in my video How to Lower Lp(a) with Diet, when it comes to raising LDL cholesterol, we’ve known for years that the trans fats found in meat and dairy are just as bad as the industrially produced trans fats found in partially hydrogenated oil and junk food. But, when it comes to Lp(a), as you can see below and at 2:05 in my video, trans fats from meat and dairy appear to be even worse. 

    Just cutting out meat and following a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet did not appear to help, but, as you can see below and at 2:19 in my video, when study participants were put on a whole food, plant-based diet packed with a dozen servings of fruits and vegetables a day, their Lp(a) levels dropped by 16 percent within four weeks. 

    Of course, in those 30 days, the study subjects also lost about 15 pounds, as you can see below and at 2:28, but weight loss does not appear to affect Lp(a) levels, so you figure that it must have been due to the diet. 

    If you’re already eating a healthy plant-based diet and your Lp(a) levels are still too high, are there any particular foods that can help? As with cholesterol, even if the average total cholesterol of those eating strictly plant-based may be right on target at less than 150, with an LDL under 70, there’s a bell curve with plus or minus 30 points that fall on either side, as you can see below and at 2:45 in my video. 

    Enter the “Portfolio Diet,” which is not only plant-based, but also adds specific cholesterol-lowing foods—so, think nuts, beans, oatmeal, and berries to drag cholesterol down even further. The infographic is below and at 3:11 in my video.  

    What about Lp(a)? Nuts have been put to the test. Two and a half ounces of almonds every day dropped levels, but only by about 8 percent. That is better than another nut study, though, that found no effect at all, as you can see below and at 3:29 in my video. An additional study found “no significant changes,” and researchers reported that subjects in their study “did not experience a change in Lp(a).” Ah, nuts.  

    There is one plant that appears to drop Lp(a) levels by 20 percent, which is enough to take people exceeding the U.S. cut-off down to a more optimum level. And that plant is a fruit: Emblica officinalis, otherwise known as amla or Indian gooseberry. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study asked smokers before and after the trial about their “mouth hygiene, cough with expectoration, shortness of breath on exertion, loss of appetite, feelings of impending doom, palpitation, sleep deprivation, irritability, heartburn and tiredness,” as well as such objective measurements as their blood count, cholesterol, DNA damage, antioxidant status, and lung function. The amla extract used “showed a significant improvement compared to the placebo group in all the subjective and objective parameters tested with no reports of adverse events.” No side effects at all. That’s unbelievable! No, that’s unbelievable. And indeed, it’s completely not true.  

    Yes, subjective complaints got better in the amla group, but they got better in the placebo group, too, with arbitrary scoring systems and no statistical analysis whatsoever. And, of the two dozen objective measures, only half could be said to reach any kind of before-and-after statistical significance and only three were significant enough to account for the fact that if you measure two dozen things, a few might pop up as positive if only by chance. Any time you see this kind of spin in the abstract, which is sometimes the only part of a study people read, you should suspect some kind of conflict of interest. However, no conflicts of interest were declared by the researchers, but that’s bullsh*t, as the study was funded by the very company selling those amla supplements! Sigh.

    Anyway, one of those three significant findings was the Lp(a), so it might be worth a try in the context of a plant-based diet, which, in addition to helping with weight loss, can dramatically improve blood pressure (even after cutting down on blood pressure medications) and contribute to a 25-point drop in LDL cholesterol. Also, it may contribute to a 30 percent drop in C-reactive protein and significant reductions in other inflammatory markers for “a systemic, cardio-protective effect”—all thanks to this single dietary approach.

    You may be interested in my video on Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy. Did you know that animal products are exempted from the ban? See Banning Trans Fat in Processed Foods but Not Animal Fat.

    For more on amla and what else it can do, check out the related posts below.

    If you missed my previous video on Lp(a), watch Treating High Lp(a)—A Risk Factor for Atherosclerosis. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why are U.S. taxpayers giving billions of dollars to support the likes of the sugar and meat industries?

    The rise in calorie surplus sufficient to explain the obesity epidemic was less a change in food quantity than in food quality. Access to cheap, high-calorie, low-quality convenience foods exploded, and the federal government very much played a role in making this happen. U.S. taxpayers give billions of dollars in subsidies to prop up the likes of the sugar industry, the corn industry and its high-fructose syrup, and the production of soybeans, about half of which is processed into vegetable oil and the other half is used as cheap feed to help make dollar-menu meat. You can see a table of subsidy recipients below and at 0:49 in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic. Why do taxpayers give nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year to the sorghum industry? When was the last time you sat down to some sorghum? It’s almost all fed to cattle and other livestock. “We have created a food price structure that favors relatively animal source foods, sweets, and fats”—animal products, sugars, and oils.

    The Farm Bill started out as an emergency measure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to protect small farmers but was weaponized by Big Ag into a cash cow with pork barrel politics—including said producers of beef and pork. From 1970 to 1994, global beef prices dropped by more than 60 percent. And, if it weren’t for taxpayers “sweetening the pot” with billions of dollars a year, high-fructose corn syrup would cost the soda industry about 12 percent more. Then we hand Big Soda billions more through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, to give sugary drinks to low-income individuals. Why is chicken so cheap? After one Farm Bill, corn and soy were subsidized below the cost of production for cheap animal fodder. We effectively handed the poultry and pork industries about $10 billion each. That’s not chicken feed—or rather, it is! 

    This is changing what we eat. 

    As you can see below and at 2:03 in my video, thanks in part to subsidies, dairy, meats, sweets, eggs, oils, and soda were all getting relatively cheaper compared to the overall consumer food price index as the obesity epidemic took off, whereas the relative cost of fresh fruits and vegetables doubled. This may help explain why, during about the same period, the percentage of Americans getting five servings of fruits and vegetables a day dropped from 42 percent to 26 percent. Why not just subsidize produce instead? Because that’s not where the money is. 

    “To understand what is shaping our foodscape today, it is important to understand the significance of differential profit.” Whole foods or minimally processed foods, such as canned beans or tomato paste, are what the food business refers to as “commodities.” They have such slim profit margins that “some are typically sold at or below cost, as ‘loss leaders,’ to attract customers to the store” in the hopes that they’ll also buy the “value-added” products. Some of the most profitable products for producers and vendors alike are the ultra-processed, fatty, sugary, and salty concoctions of artificially flavored, artificially colored, and artificially cheap ingredients—thanks to taxpayer subsidies. 

    Different foods reap different returns. Measured in “profit per square foot of selling space” in the supermarket, confectionaries like candy bars consistently rank among the most lucrative. The markups are the only healthy thing about them. Fried snacks like potato chips and corn chips are also highly profitable. PepsiCo’s subsidiary Frito-Lay brags that while its products represented only about 1 percent of total supermarket sales, they may account for more than 10 percent of operating profits for supermarkets and 40 percent of profit growth. 

    It’s no surprise, then, that the entire system is geared towards garbage. The rise in the calorie supply wasn’t just more food but a different kind of food. There’s a dumb dichotomy about the drivers of the obesity epidemic: Is it the sugar or the fat? They’re both highly subsidized, and they both took off. As you can see below and at 4:29 and 4:35 in my video, along with a significant rise in refined grain products that is difficult to quantify, the rise in obesity was accompanied by about a 20 percent increase in per capita pounds of added sugars and a 38 percent increase in added fats. 

     

    More than half of all calories consumed by most adults in the United States were found to originate from these subsidized foods, and they appear to be worse off for it. Those eating the most had significantly higher levels of chronic disease risk factors, including elevated cholesterol, inflammation, and body weight. 

    If it really were a government of, by, and for the people, we’d be subsidizing healthy foods, if anything, to make fruits and vegetables cheap or even free. Instead, our tax dollars are shoveled to the likes of the sugar industry or to livestock feed to make cheap, fast-food meat. 

    Speaking of sorghum, I had never had it before and it’s delicious! In fact, I wish I had discovered it before How Not to Diet was published. I now add sorghum and finger millet to my BROL bowl which used to just include purple barley groats, rye groats, oat groats, and black lentils, so the acronym has become an unpronounceable BROLMS. Anyway, sorghum is a great rice substitute for those who saw my rice and arsenic video series and were as convinced as I am that we need to diversify our grains. 

    We now turn to marketing. After all of the taxpayer-subsidized glut of calories in the market, the food industry had to find a way to get it into people’s mouths. So, next: The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic. 

    We’re about halfway through this series on the obesity epidemic. If you missed any so far, check out the related videos below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Cutting the Calorie-Rich-And-Processed Foods  | NutritionFacts.org

    Cutting the Calorie-Rich-And-Processed Foods  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    We have an uncanny ability to pick out the subtle distinctions in calorie density of foods, but only within the natural range.

    The traditional medical view on obesity, as summed up nearly a century ago: “All obese persons are, alike in one fundamental respect,—they literally overeat.” While this may be true in a technical sense, it is in reference to overeating calories, not food. Our primitive urge to overindulge is selective. People don’t tend to lust for lettuce. We have a natural inborn preference for sweet, starchy, or fatty foods because that’s where the calories are concentrated.

    Think about hunting and gathering efficiency. We used to have to work hard for our food. Prehistorically, it didn’t make sense to spend all day collecting types of food that on average don’t provide at least a day’s worth of calories. You would have been better off staying back at the cave. So, we evolved to crave foods with the biggest caloric bang for their buck.

    If you were able to steadily forage a pound of food an hour and it had 250 calories per pound, it might take you ten hours just to break even on your calories for the day. But if you were gathering something with 500 calories a pound, you could be done in five hours and spend the next five working on your cave paintings. So, the greater the energy density—that is, the more calories per pound—the more efficient the foraging. We developed an acute ability to discriminate foods based on calorie density and to instinctively desire the densest.

    If you study the fruit and vegetable preferences of four-year-old children, what they like correlates with calorie density. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:52 in my video Friday Favorites: Cut the Calorie-Rich-And-Processed Foods, they prefer bananas over berries and carrots over cucumbers. Isn’t that just a preference for sweetness? No, they also prefer potatoes over peaches and green beans over melon, just like monkeys prefer avocados over bananas. We appear to have an inborn drive to maximize calories per mouthful. 

    All the foods the researchers tested in the study with four-year-old kids naturally had less than 500 calories per pound. (Bananas topped the chart at about 400.) Something funny happens when you start going above that: We lose our ability to differentiate. Over the natural range of calorie densities, we have an uncanny aptitude to pick out the subtle distinctions. However, once you start heading towards bacon, cheese, and chocolate territory, which can reach thousands of calories per pound, our perceptions become relatively numb to the differences. It’s no wonder since these foods were unknown to our prehistoric brains. It’s like the dodo bird failing to evolve a fear response because they had no natural predators—and we all know how that turned out—or sea turtle hatchlings crawling in the wrong direction towards artificial light rather than the moon. It is aberrant behavior explained by an “evolutionary mismatch.”

    The food industry exploits our innate biological vulnerabilities by stripping crops down into almost pure calories—straight sugar, oil (which is pretty much pure fat), and white flour (which is mostly refined starch). It also removes the fiber, because that effectively has zero calories. Run brown rice through a mill to make white rice, and you lose about two-thirds of the fiber. Turn whole-wheat flour into white flour, and lose 75 percent. Or you can run crops through animals (to make meat, dairy, and eggs) and remove 100 percent of the fiber. What you’re left with is CRAP—an acronym used by one of my favorite dieticians, Jeff Novick, for Calorie-Rich And Processed food.

    Calories are condensed in the same way plants are turned into addictive drugs like opiates and cocaine: “distillation, crystallization, concentration, and extraction.” They even appear to activate the same reward pathways in the brain. Put people with “food addiction” in an MRI scanner and show them a picture of a chocolate milkshake, and the areas that light up in their brains (as you can see below and at 4:15 in my video) are the same as when cocaine addicts are shown a video of crack smoking. (See those images below and at 4:18 in my video.) 

    “Food addiction” is a misnomer. People don’t suffer out-of-control eating behaviors to food in general. We don’t tend to compulsively crave carrots. Milkshakes are packed with sugar and fat, two of the signals to our brain of calorie density. When people are asked to rate different foods in terms of cravings and loss of control, most incriminated was a load of CRAP—highly processed foods like donuts, along with cheese and meat. Those least related to problematic eating behaviors? Fruits and vegetables. Calorie density may be the reason people don’t get up in the middle of the night and binge on broccoli.

    Animals don’t tend to get fat when they are eating the foods they were designed to eat. There is a confirmed report of free-living primates becoming obese, but that was a troop of baboons who stumbled across the garbage dump at a tourist lodge. The garbage-feeding animals weighed 50 percent more than their wild-feeding counterparts. Sadly, we can suffer the same mismatched fate and become obese by eating garbage, too. For millions of years, before we learned how to hunt, our biology evolved largely on “leaves, roots, fruits, and nuts.” Maybe it would help if we went back to our roots and cut out the CRAP. 

    A key insight I want to emphasize here is the concept of animal products as the ultimate processed food. Basically, all nutrition grows from the ground: seeds, sunlight, and soil. That’s where all our vitamins come from, all our minerals, all the protein, all the essential amino acids. The only reason there are essential amino acids in a steak is because the cow ate them all from plants. Those amino acids are essential—no animals can make them, including us. We have to eat plants to get them. But we can cut out the middlemoo and get nutrition directly from the Earth, and, in doing so, get all the phytonutrients and fiber that are lost when plants are processed through animals. Even ultraprocessed junk foods may have a tiny bit of fiber remaining, but all is lost when plants are ultra-ultraprocessed through animals.

    Having said that, there was also a big jump in what one would traditionally think of as processed foods, and that’s the video we turn to next: The Role of Processed Foods in the Obesity Epidemic.

    We’re making our way through a series on the cause of the obesity epidemic. So far, we’ve looked at exercise (The Role of Diet vs. Exercise in the Obesity Epidemic) and genes (The Role of Genes in the Obesity Epidemic and The Thrifty Gene Theory: Survival of the Fattest), but, really, it’s the food.

    If you’re familiar with my work, you know that I recommend eating a variety of whole plant foods, as close as possible to the way nature intended. I capture this in my Daily Dozen, which you can download for free here or get the free app (iTunes and Android). On the app, you’ll see that there’s also an option for those looking to lose weight: my 21 Tweaks. But before you go checking them off, be sure to read about the science behind the checklist in my book How Not to Diet. Get it for free at your local public library. If you choose to buy a copy, note that all proceeds from all of my books go to charity. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What Is the Role of Our Genes in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Is the Role of Our Genes in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The “fat gene” accounts for less than 1 percent of the differences in size between people.

    To date, about a hundred genetic markers have been linked to obesity, but when you put them all together, overall, they account for less than 3 percent of the difference in body mass index (BMI) between people. You may have heard about the “fat gene,” called FTO, short for FaT mass and Obesity-associated). It’s the gene most strongly linked to obesity, but it explains less than 1 percent of the difference in BMI between people, a mere 0.34 percent. 

    As I discuss in my video The Role of Genes in the Obesity Epidemic, FTO codes for a brain protein that appears to affect our appetite. Are you one of the billion people who carry the FTO susceptibility genes? It doesn’t matter because it only appears to result in a difference in intake of a few hundred extra calories a year. The energy imbalance that led to the obesity epidemic is on the order of hundreds of calories a day, and that’s the gene known so far to have the most effect. The chances of accurately predicting obesity risk based on FTO status is “only slightly better than tossing a coin.” In other words, no, those genes don’t make you look fat.

    When it comes to obesity, the power of our genes is nothing compared to the power of our fork. Even the small influence the FTO gene does have appears to be weaker among those who are physically active and may be abolished completely in those eating healthier diets. FTO only appears to affect those eating diets higher in saturated fat, which is predominantly found in meat, dairy, and junk food. Those eating more healthfully appear to be at no greater risk of weight gain, even if they inherited the “fat gene” from both of their parents.

    Physiologically, FTO gene status does not appear to affect our ability to lose weight. Psychologically, knowing we’re at increased genetic risk for obesity may motivate some people to eat and live more healthfully, but it may cause others to fatalistically throw their hands up in the air and resign themselves to thinking that it just runs in their family, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:11 in my video. Obesity does tend to run in families, but so do lousy diets. 

    Comparing the weight of biological versus adopted children can help tease out the contributions of lifestyles versus genetics. Children growing up with two overweight biological parents were found to be 27 percent more likely to be overweight themselves, whereas adopted children placed in a home with two overweight parents were 21 percent more likely to be overweight. So, genetics do play a role, but this suggests that it’s more the children’s environment than their DNA.

    One of the most dramatic examples of the power of diet over DNA comes from the Pima Indians of Arizona. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:05 in my video, they not only have among the highest rates of obesity, but they also have the highest rates of diabetes in the world. This has been ascribed to their relatively fuel-efficient genetic makeup. Their propensity to store calories may have served them well in times of scarcity when they were living off of corn, beans, and squash, but when the area became “settled,” their source of water, the Gila River, was diverted upstream. Those who survived the ensuing famine had to abandon their traditional diet to live off of government food programs and chronic disease rates skyrocketed. Same genes, but different diet, different result. 

    In fact, a natural experiment was set up. The Pima living over the border in Mexico come from the same genetic pool but were able to maintain more of their traditional lifestyle, sticking with their main staples of beans, wheat flour tortillas, and potatoes. Same genes, but seven times less obesity and about four times less diabetes. You can see those graphs below and at 3:58 and 4:02 in my video. Genes may load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger.

    Of course, it’s not our genes! Our genes didn’t suddenly change 40 years ago. At the same time, though, in a certain sense, it could be thought of as all in our genes. That’s the topic of my next video The Thrifty Gene Theory: Survival of the Fattest.

    This is the second in an 11-video series on the obesity epidemic. If you missed the first one, check out The Role of Diet vs. Exercise in the Obesity Epidemic. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What Should We Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Should We Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Here is a review of reviews on the health effects of animal foods versus plant foods.

    Instead of looking only at individual studies or individual reviews of studies, what if you looked at a review of reviews? In my last video, I covered beverages. As you can see below and at 0:20 in my video Friday Favorites: What Are the Best Foods?, the majority of reviews found some effects either way, finding at least some benefits to tea, coffee, wine, and milk, but not for sweetened beverages, such as soda. As I explored in depth, this approach isn’t perfect. It doesn’t take into account such issues as conflicts of interest and industry funding of studies, but it can offer an interesting bird’s-eye view of what’s out in the medical literature. So, what did the data show for food groups? 

    You’ll note the first thing the authors did was divide everything into plant-based foods or animal-based foods. For the broadest takeaway, we can look at the totals. The vast majority of reviews on whole plant foods show protective or, at the very least, neutral effects, whereas most reviews of animal-based foods identified deleterious health effects or, at best, neutral effects, as you can see at 1:14 in my video. 

    Let’s break these down. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:23, the plant foods consistently rate uniformly well, reflecting the total, but the animal foods vary considerably. If it weren’t for dairy and fish, the total for animal foods would swing almost entirely neutral or negative. 

    I talked about the effects of funding by the dairy industry in my last blog, as well as substitution effects. For instance, those who drink milk may be less likely to drink soda, a beverage even more universally condemned than dairy, so the protective effects may be relative. They may arise not necessarily from what is being consumed, but rather from what is being avoided. This may best explain the fish findings. After all, the prototypical choice is between chicken and fish, not chicken and chickpeas.

    Not a single review found a single protective effect of poultry consumption. Even the soda industry could come up with 14 percent protective effects! But, despite all of the funding from the National Chicken Council and the American Egg Board, chicken, and eggs got big fat goose eggs, as you can see below and at 2:20 in my video. 

    Also, like the calcium in dairy, there are healthful components of fish, such as the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Not for heart health, though. In “the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date,” increasing intake of fish oil fats had little or no effect on cardiovascular health. If anything, it was the plant-based omega-3s found in flaxseeds and walnuts that were protective. The long-chain omega-3s are important for brain health. Thankfully, just like there are best-of-both-worlds non-dairy sources of calcium, there are pollutant-free sources of the long-chain omega-3s, EPA, and DHA, as well.

    The bottom line, as you can see below and at 3:04 in my video, is that when it comes to diet-related diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, mental health, bone health, cardiovascular disease, and cancers, even if you lump together all the animal foods, ignore any industry-funding effects, and just take the existing body of evidence at face value, nine out of ten study compilations show that whole plant foods are, in the very least, not bad.

    However, about eight out of ten of the reviews on animal products show them to be not good, as shown in the graph below and at 3:24 in my video.

    This reminds me of my Flashback Friday: What Are the Healthiest Foods? video, which you may find to be helpful for some broad takeaways.

    If you missed my previous video, check out Friday Favorites: What Are the Best Beverages?.

    The omega-3s video I mentioned is Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?.

    For more on eggs, see here.

    On fish, go here.

    And, for poultry, see related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Headache and Migraine Relief from Foods  | NutritionFacts.org

    Headache and Migraine Relief from Foods  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Plant-based diets are put to the test for treating migraine headaches.

    Headaches are one of the top five reasons people end up in emergency rooms and one of the leading reasons people see their doctors in general. One way to try to prevent them is to identify their triggers and avoid them. Common triggers for migraines include stress, smoking, hunger, sleep issues, certain foods (like chocolate, cheese, and alcohol), your menstrual cycle, or certain weather patterns (like high humidity).

    In terms of dietary treatments, the so-called Father of Modern Medicine, William Osler suggested trying a “strict vegetable diet.” After all, the nerve inflammation associated with migraines “may be reduced by a vegan diet as many plant foods are high in anti-inflammatory compounds and antioxidants, and likewise, meat products have been reported to have inflammatory properties.” It wasn’t put to the test, though, for another 117 years.

    As I discuss in my video Friday Favorites: Foods That Help Headache and Migraine Relief, among study participants given a placebo supplement, half said they got better, while the other half said they didn’t. But, when put on a strictly plant-based diet, they did much better, experiencing a significant drop in the severity of their pain, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:08 in my video. 

    Now, “it is possible that the pain-reducing effects of the vegan diet may be, at least in part, due to weight reduction.” The study participants lost about nine more pounds when they were on the plant-based diet for a month, as shown below, and at 1:22. 

    Even just lowering the fat content of the diet may help. Those placed on a month of consuming less than 30 daily grams of fat (for instance, less than two tablespoons of oil all day), experienced “statistically significant decreases in headache frequency, intensity, duration, and medication intake”—a six-fold decrease in the frequency and intensity, as you can see below and at 1:44 in my video. They went from three migraine attacks every two weeks down to just one a month. And, by “low fat,” the researchers didn’t mean SnackWell’s; they meant more fruits, vegetables, and beans. Before the food industry co-opted and corrupted the term, eating “low fat” meant eating an apple, for example, not Kellogg’s Apple Jacks.  

    Now, they were on a low-fat diet—about 10 percent fat for someone eating 2,500 calories a day. What about just less than 20 percent fat compared to a more normal diet that’s still relatively lower fat than average? As you can see below and at 2:22 in my video, the researchers saw the same significant drops in headache frequency and severity, including a five-fold drop in attacks of severe pain. Since the intervention involved at least a halving of intake of saturated fat, which is mostly found in meat, dairy, and junk, the researchers concluded that reduced consumption of saturated fat may help control migraine attacks—but it isn’t necessarily something they’re getting less of. There are compounds “present in Live green real veggies” that might bind to a migraine-triggering peptide known as calcitonin gene-related peptide, CGRP. 

    Drug companies have been trying to come up with something that binds to CGRP, but the drugs have failed to be effective. They’re also toxic, which is a problem we don’t have with cabbage, as you can see below and at 3:01 in my video. 

    Green vegetables also have magnesium. Found throughout the food supply but most concentrated in green leafy vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains, magnesium is the central atom to chlorophyll, as shown below and at 3:15. So, you can see how much magnesium foods have in the produce aisle by the intensity of their green color. Although magnesium supplements do not appear to decrease migraine severity, they may reduce the number of attacks you get in the first place. You can ask your doctor about starting 600 mg of magnesium dicitrate every day, but note that magnesium supplements can cause adverse effects, such as diarrhea, so I recommend getting it the way nature intended—in the form of real food, not supplements.  

    Any foods that may be particularly helpful? You may recall that I’ve talked about ground ginger. What about caffeine? Indeed, combining caffeine with over-the-counter painkillers, like Tylenol, aspirin, or ibuprofen, may boost their efficacy, at doses of about 130 mg for tension-type headaches and 100 mg for migraines. That’s about what you might expect to get in three cups of tea, as you can see below, and at 4:00 in my video. (I believe it is just a coincidence that the principal investigator of this study was named Lipton.) 

    Please note that you can overdo it. If you take kids and teens with headaches who were drinking 1.5 liters of cola a day and cut the soda, you can cure 90 percent of them. However, this may be a cola effect rather than a caffeine effect. 

    And, finally, one plant food that may not be the best idea is the Carolina Reaper, the hottest chili pepper in the world. It’s so mind-numbingly hot it can clamp off the arteries in your brain, as seen below and at 4:41 in my video, and you can end up with a “thunderclap headache,” like the 34-year-old man who ate the world’s hottest pepper and ended up in the emergency room. Why am I not surprised it was a man? 

    I’ve previously covered ginger and topical lavender for migraines. Saffron may help relieve PMS symptoms, including headaches. A more exotic way a plant-based diet can prevent headaches is by helping to keep tapeworms out of your brain.

    Though hot peppers can indeed trigger headaches, they may also be used to treat them. Check out my video on relieving cluster headaches with hot sauce. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Is All Vegan Food Healthy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Is All Vegan Food Healthy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How do healthier plant-based diets compare to unhealthy plant foods and animal foods when it comes to diabetes risk? 

    In my video on flexitarians, I discuss how the benefits of eating a plant-based diet are not all-or-nothing. “Simple advice to increase the consumption of plant-derived foods with compensatory [parallel] reductions in the consumption of foods from animal sources confers a survival advantage”— a live-longer advantage. The researchers call it a “pro-vegetarian” eating pattern, one that’s moving in the direction of vegetarianism, “a more gradual and gentle approach.” 

    If you’re dealing with a serious disease, though, like diabetes, completely “avoiding some problem foods is easier than attempting to moderate their intake. Clinicians would never tell an alcoholic to try to simply cut down on alcohol. Avoiding alcohol entirely is more effective and, in fact, easier for a problem drinker…Paradoxically, asking patients to make a large change may be more effective than making a slow transition. Diet studies show that recommending more significant changes increases the chances that patients can accomplish [them]. It may help to replace the common advice, ‘all things in moderation’ with ‘big changes beget big results.’ Success breeds success. After a few days or weeks of major dietary changes, patients are likely to see improvements in weight and blood glucose [sugar] levels—improvements that reinforce the dietary changes that elicited them. Furthermore, they may enjoy other health benefits of a plant-based diet” that may give them further motivation. 

    As you can see below and at 1:43 in my video Friday Favorites: Is Vegan Food Always Healthy?, those who choose to eat plant-based for their health say it’s mostly for “general wellness or general disease prevention” or to improve their energy levels or immune function, for example. 

    They felt it gives them a sense of control over their health, helps them feel better emotionally, improves their overall health, makes them feel better, and more, as shown below and at 1:48. Most felt it was very important for maintaining their health and well-being. 

    For the minority who used it for a specific health problem, mostly high cholesterol or weight loss, followed by high blood pressure and diabetes, most reported they felt it helped a great deal, as you can see below and at 2:14. 

    Some choose plant-based diets for other reasons, such as animal welfare or global warming, and it looks like “ethical vegans” are more likely to eat sugary and fatty foods, like vegan donuts, compared to those eating plant-based because of religious or health concerns, as you can see below and at 2:26 in my video. 

    The veganest vegan could make an egg- and dairy-free cake, covered with frosting, marshmallow fluff, and chocolate syrup, topped with Oreos, and served with a side of Doritos. Or, they may want fruit for dessert, but in the form of Pop-Tarts and Krispy Kreme pies. Vegan, yes. Healthy, no. 

    “Plant-based diets have been recommended to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, not all plant foods are necessarily beneficial.” In the pro-vegetarian scoring system I mentioned above, you get points for eating potato chips and French fries because they are technically plant-based, as you can see below and at 3:07 in my video, but Harvard researchers wanted to examine the association of not only an overall plant-based diet, but healthy and unhealthy versions. So, they created the same kind of pro-vegetarian scoring system, but it was weighted towards any sort of plant-based foods and against animal foods; then, they created a healthful plant-based diet index, where at least some whole plant foods took precedence and Coca-Cola and other sweetened beverages were no longer considered plants. Lastly, they created an unhealthful plant-based diet index by assigning positive scores to processed plant-based junk and negative scores for healthier plant foods and animal foods. 

    Their findings? As you can see below and at 3:51 in my video, a more plant-based diet, in general, was good for reducing diabetes risk, but eating especially healthy plant-based foods did better, nearly cutting risk in half, while those eating more unhealthy plant foods did worse, as shown in the graph below and at 4:03.

    Now, is that because they were also eating more animal foods? People often eat burgers with their fries, so the researchers separated the effects of healthy plant foods, less healthy plant foods, and animal foods on diabetes risk. And, they found that healthy plant foods were protectively associated, animal foods were detrimentally associated, and less healthy plant foods were more neutral when it came to diabetes risk. Below and at 4:32 in my video, you can see the graph that shows higher diabetes risk with more and more animal foods, no protection whatsoever with junky plant foods, and lower and lower diabetes risk associated with more and more healthy whole plant foods in the diet. So, they concluded that, yes, “plant-based diets…are associated with substantially lower risk of developing T2D.” However, it may not be enough to just lower the intake of animal foods; consumption of less healthy plant foods may need to decrease, too. 

    As a physician, labels like vegetarian and vegan just tell me what you don’t eat, but there are a lot of unhealthy vegetarian fare like French fries, potato chips, and soda pop. That’s why I prefer the term whole food and plant-based nutrition. That tells me what you do eat—a diet centered around the healthiest foods out there. 

    The video I mentioned is Do Flexitarians Live Longer?. 

    You may also be interested in some of my past popular videos and blogs on plant-based diets. Check related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How Much Added Sugar Is Okay?  | NutritionFacts.org

    How Much Added Sugar Is Okay?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Public health authorities continue to lower the upper tolerable limit of daily added sugar intake.

    Dating back to the original “Dietary Goals for the United States” in 1977, also known as the so-called McGovern Report, leading nutrition scientists didn’t only call for a reduction in meat and other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol, such as dairy and eggs, but also sugar. The goal was to reduce America’s sugar intake to no more than 10 percent of our daily diet.

    “The conclusions would hang sugar,” reported the president of the Sugar Association. “The McGovern Report has to be neutralized.” The National Cattlemen’s Association was on its side and, just like Big Sugar, appealed to the Senate Select Committee to withdraw the report.

    “The Sugar Industry Empire Strikes Back”—and it appeared to work. When the official U.S. Dietary Guidelines were released in 1980 and again in 1985, it was without a specific limit, like 10 percent. It “said, simply, and in just four words, ‘Avoid too much sugar.’” (Whatever that means.) “In 1990, it went to five words, ‘Use sugars only in moderation,’ and in 1995 to six: ‘Choose a diet moderate in sugars.’” In 2000, it at least went back to limiting intake—specifically, “‘Choose beverages and foods to limit your intake of sugars’ (ten words), but even that was too strong. Under pressure from sugar lobbyists, the government agencies substituted the word ‘moderate’ for ‘limit’ so it read ‘Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugars.’” Then, the 2005 guidelines committee dropped the s-word completely, encouraging Americans to “Choose carbohydrates wisely…” Again, what does that mean? If only there were a dietary guidelines committee that could guide us….

    The Sugar Association expressed optimism about that 2005 Committee. In its Sugar E-News, it wrote that Sugar Association Incorporated (SAI) “is committed to the protection and promotion of sucrose [table sugar] consumption. Any disparagement of sugar will be met with forceful, strategic public comments”—and it wasn’t kidding. “In 2003, [the World Health Organization] WHO released a joint report with the Food and Agriculture Organization entitled Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases which, for the first time [since the McGovern Report], called for a reduction in sugar intake to under 10% of total dietary energy [caloric] consumption.” The Sugar Association responded by threatening to get the United States to withdraw all funding from the WHO. You can see it yourself in black and white at 2:22 in my video Friday Favorites: The Recommended Daily Added Sugar Intake. The Sugar Association threatened to pressure Congress to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization—polio vaccinations and AIDS medications be damned! Don’t mess with the candy man. The threat was described as “tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.” 

    Fifteen years later and 40 years after the first proposed McGovern Report, the 2015 to 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans lays out the 10 percent limit as a key recommendation: “Consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from added sugars.” This is currently exceeded by every age bracket in the United States starting at age one, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:58 in my video, with adolescents averaging 87 grams of sugar a day. That means the average teen is effectively eating 29 sugar packets a day. 

    The Sugar Association describes the 10 percent limit as “extremely low.” Well, I mean, it is only up to about a dozen spoonsful a day. Of course, there is no dietary requirement for added sugar at all, and every single calorie we get from added sugar is a wasted opportunity to get calories from sources that provide nutrition. To the American Heart Association’s credit, it went further by trying to push added sugar intake down to about 6 percent of calories, for which a single can of soda could send you over the limit. That’s an added sugar limit exceeded by 90 percent of Americans.

    In 2017, the American Heart Association (AHA) released its guidelines for children, recommending they get no more than about six teaspoons per day. In that case, a single serving of nearly a hundred cereals on the U.S. market would exceed the entire recommended daily limit. The AHA recommends no added sugars at all for children under the age of two, a recommendation that’s violated in up to 80 percent of toddlers, as you can see below and at 4:20 in my video. 

    In the United States, “at least 65 countries have implemented dietary guidelines or public health policies to curb sugar consumption to encourage maintenance of healthy body weight.” In the United Kingdom, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition made new recommendations to reduce added sugars down to 5 percent, which is also the direction the World Health Organization is headed. The WHO always seems to be ahead of the curve. Why? Because its policy-making process is at least partially protected “against industry influence.” Unlike governments, which may have competing interests in commerce and trade, “WHO is exclusively concerned with health.”

    I spoke at a hearing of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Committee. Watch the highlights and my speech here: Highlights from the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Hearing.

    The sugar industry keeps pretty busy, as you’ll see from my recent videos, Friday Favorites: Are Fortified Kids’ Breakfast Cereals Healthy or Just Candy? and Flashback Friday: Sugar Industry Attempts to Manipulate the Science.

    Check the related posts below for my other popular videos and blogs on sugar.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Milk Hormones and Female Infertility  | NutritionFacts.org

    Milk Hormones and Female Infertility  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Dairy consumption is associated with years of advanced ovarian aging, thought to be due to the steroid hormones or endocrine-disrupting chemicals in cow’s milk.
     
    When it comes to the amount of steroid hormones we are exposed to in the food supply, dairy “milk products supply about 60–80% of ingested female sex steroids.” I’ve talked about the effects of these estrogens and progesterone in men and prepubescent children, and how milk intake can spike estrogen levels within hours of consumption. You can see graphs illustrating these points from 0:25 in my video The Effects of Hormones in Milk on Infertility in Women. In terms of effects on women, I’ve discussed the increased endometrial cancer risk in postmenopausal women. What about reproductive-age women? Might dairy hormones affect reproduction? 
     
    We’ve known that “dairy food intake has been associated with infertility; however, little is known with regard to associations with reproductive hormones or anovulation.” How might dairy do it? By affecting how the uterus prepares, or by affecting the ovary itself? Researchers found that women who ate yogurt or cream had about twice the risk of sporadic anovulation, meaning failure of ovulation, so some months there was no egg to fertilize at all. Now, we know most yogurt is packed with sugar these days. Even plain Greek yogurt can have more sugar than a double chocolate glazed cake donut, but the researchers controlled for that and the results remained after adjusting for the sugar content, “which suggests that the risk of anovulation was independent of the sugar content included in many flavored yogurt products.” We don’t know if this was just a fluke or exactly what the mechanism might be, but if women skip ovulation here and there throughout their lives, might they end up with a larger ovarian reserve of eggs? 
     
    Women are starting to have their first baby later in life. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:02 in my video, there’s been a rise in women having babies when they’re in their late 30s and 40s.

    We used to think that women’s ovarian reserve of eggs stayed relatively stable until a rapid decline at about age 37, but now we know it appears to be more of a gradual loss of eggs over time. The graph below and at 2:22 in my video charts a steady loss starting at peak fertility in one’s 20s.

    This measures “antral follicle count,” which is an ultrasound test where you can count the number of “next batter up” eggs in the ovaries, as you can see below and at 2:31 in my video. It is probably the best reflection of true reproductive age. It’s a measure of ovarian reserve—how many eggs a woman has left.

    What does this have to do with diet? Researchers at Harvard looked at the association of various protein intakes with ovarian antral follicle counts among women having trouble getting pregnant. “Even though diminished ovarian reserve is one of the major causes of female infertility, the process leading to reproductive senescence [deterioration with age] currently is poorly understood. In light of emerging population trends towards delayed pregnancy, the identification of reversible factors (including diet) that affect the individual rates of reproductive decline might be of significant clinical value.”

    The researchers performed ultrasounds on all the women, studied their diets, and concluded that higher intake of dairy protein was associated with lower antral follicle counts—in other words, accelerated ovarian aging. The graph below and at 3:39 in my video shows what counts look like in nonsmokers: Significantly lower ovarian reserve (12.7 antral follicle counts) at the highest dairy intake, which would be like three ounces of cheese a day, compared to the lowest dairy intake (16.9 antral follicle counts).

    What do these numbers mean in terms of biological age? Is 16.9 down to 12.7 really that much of a difference? As you can see below and at 3:58 in my video, when you look at women with really robust ovaries, a follicle count of 16.9 is what you might see in a 36- or 37-year-old, whereas 12.7, which is what you can see in women eating the most dairy, is what you might see in a really fertile 50-year-old. So, we’re talking year’s worth of ovarian aging between the highest and lowest dairy consumers.

    While it wasn’t possible for the researchers to “identify the underlying mechanism linking higher dairy protein intake to lower AFC,” antral follicle count, they had educated guesses. (1) It could be the steroid hormones and growth factors or (2) “the contamination of milk products by pesticides and endocrine disrupting chemicals that may negatively impact” the development of these ovarian follicles and egg competence.

    “Regarding the former [the hormones], studies suggest that commercial milk (derived from both pregnant and non-pregnant animals) contains large amounts of estrogens, progesterone, and other placental hormones that are eventually released into the human food chain, with dairy intake accounting for 60–80% of the estrogens consumed. Dairy estrogens overcome [survive] processing, appear in raw whole cow’s and commercial milk products, are found in substantially higher concentrations with increasing amounts of milk fat, with no apparent difference between organic and conventional dairy products…” Hormones are just naturally in cows’ bodies, so they aren’t just in the ones injected with growth hormones. And, once these bovine hormones are inside the human body, they get converted to estrone and estradiol, the main active human estrogens. Following absorption, bovine steroids may then affect reproductive outcomes.

    The researchers asserted that further studies are needed and that “it is imperative that these findings are reproduced in prospective studies designed to clarify the biology underlying the observed associations. The latter might be crucial given that consumption of another species’ milk by humans is an evolutionary novel dietary behavior that has the potential to alter reproductive parameters and may have long-term adverse health effects.”

    The video I mentioned about the effects of these estrogens and progesterone in men and prepubescent children is The Effects of Hormones in Dairy Milk on Cancer.

    I talk about the effect of dairy estrogen on male fertility in Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility.

    How else might diet affect fertility? See related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Branched-Chain Amino Acids Good for Us?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Are Branched-Chain Amino Acids Good for Us?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    I discuss why we may not want to exceed the recommended intake of protein.

    Diabetes isn’t just about the amount of body fat, but also the distribution of body fat. At 0:26 in my video Are BCAA (Branched-Chain Amino Acids) Healthy?, you can view cross-sections of thighs from two different patients using MRI. In the images, the fat shows up as white and the thigh muscle is black. At first glance, you might think the bottom cross-section has more fat since it’s ringed with more white. That is the subcutaneous fat, the fat under the skin. But, if you look at the top cross-section, you’ll see how the middle of the thigh muscle is more marbled with fat, like those really fatty Japanese beef steaks. That is the fat infiltrating into the muscle. In the graph below and at 0:48 in my video, the two cross sections are colored so you can see the different types of fat: the fat infiltrating the muscle in red, the fat between the muscles in green, and subcutaneous fat outside of the muscles and under the skin in yellow. If you add up all three types of fat, both of those thighs actually have the same amount of fat—just distributed differently.

    This seems to be the critical factor in terms of determining insulin resistance, the cause of type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that the subcutaneous adipose tissue, the fat right under the skin, was not associated with insulin resistance. Going back to the two cross sections, as seen below and at 1:20 in my video, it is healthier to have the bottom thigh with the thicker ring of subcutaneous fat but less fat infiltrating muscle than the top thigh with more fat present in the muscle.

    Is it possible a more plant-based diet also affects a more healthful distribution of fat?

    We now know the effect of a vegetarian diet versus a conventional diabetic diet on thigh fat distribution in patients with type 2 diabetes. Researchers took 74 people with diabetes and randomly assigned them to follow either a vegetarian diet or a conventional diabetic diet. Both diets were calorie-restricted by the same number of calories. The vegetarian diet was also egg-free, and dairy was limited to a maximum of one serving of low-fat yogurt a day. What did the researchers find? The reduction in the more benign subcutaneous fat was comparable; it was about the same in both groups. However, the more dangerous fat—the fat lodged inside the muscle itself—“was reduced only in response to a vegetarian diet.” So, even getting the same number of calories, there can be a healthier weight loss on a more plant-based diet.

    Those eating strictly plant-based also had lower levels of fat stuck inside the individual muscle fibers themselves, which may help explain why vegans in particular are often found to have the lowest odds of diabetes. It is not just because vegans are generally slimmer either. Even if you match subjects pound for pound, there is significantly less fat inside the muscle cells of vegans compared to omnivores. This is a good thing, since storing fat in muscle cells “may be one of the primary causes of insulin resistance,” which is what’s behind both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, if you put someone on a high-fat diet, the fat in their muscle cells shoots up by 54 percent in just a single week.

    What about a high-protein diet? That may undermine one of the principal benefits of weight loss: eliminating the weight-loss-induced improvement in insulin resistance. Researchers put obese individuals on a calorie-restricted diet of less than 1,400 calories a day until they lost 10 percent of their body weight. Half of the participants were getting more of a regular protein intake (73 grams a day), and the other half were on a higher-protein diet (about 105 daily grams). Normally, if you lose 10 percent of your body weight, your insulin resistance improves. That’s why it is so critical for obese individuals with type 2 diabetes to lose weight. However, the beneficial effect of a 10 percent weight loss was eliminated by the high protein intake. Those extra 32 grams of protein a day abolished the weight-loss benefit. “The failure to improve…insulin sensitivity in the WL-HP [weight-loss high-protein] group is clinically important because it reflects a failure to improve a major pathophysiological [cause-and-effect] mechanism involved in the development of T2D,” type 2 diabetes. In summary, the researchers concluded that they demonstrated “the protein content of a weight loss diet can have profound effects on metabolic function.” 

    Is this true of any protein? As you can see below and at 4:19 in my video, if you split it between animal protein versus plant protein, following people over time, intake of animal protein is associated with an increased risk of diabetes in most studies.

    Intake of plant protein, however, appears to have either a neutral or even protective association with diabetes, as shown below and at 4:25 in my video. 

    Those were just observational studies, though. People who eat a lot of animal protein might have many unhealthy behaviors. However, you see the same thing in randomized, controlled, interventional trials, where you can improve blood sugar control just by replacing sources of animal protein with plant protein.

    We think it may be the branched-chain amino acids concentrated in animal protein. Higher levels in the bloodstream are associated with obesity and the development of insulin resistance. As you can see below and at 5:00 in my video, we may be able to drop our levels by sticking to plant proteins, but you don’t know if that has metabolic effects until you put it to the test. 

    Ruining the suspense, researchers titled their study: “Decreased Consumption of Branched-Chain Amino Acids Improves Metabolic Health.” They demonstrated that “a moderate reduction in total dietary protein or selected amino acids can rapidly improve metabolic health,” and this included improving blood sugar control, while also decreasing body mass index (BMI) and body fat. As you can see at 5:27 in my video, the protein-restricted group was eating hundreds more calories per day, significantly more calories than the control group, so they should have gained weight. But, no. They lost weight! After about a month and a half, they were eating more calories but lost more weight—about five more pounds than participants in the control group who were eating fewer calories, as you can see at 5:38 in my video. What’s more, this “protein restriction” had people eat the recommended amount of protein per day, about 56 daily grams. They should have been called the normal protein group or the recommended protein group instead, and the group eating more typically American protein levels and suffering because of it should have been called the excess protein group. Just sticking to the recommended protein intake doubled the levels of a pro-longevity hormone called FGF21, too, but we’ll save that for another discussion.

    To better understand the negative impact of omnivores getting too much protein relative to vegetarians, see my video Flashback Friday: Do Vegetarians Get Enough Protein?.

    I have several additional videos and blogs that may help explain some of the benefits of plant-based proteins. Check in the related posts below.

    Of course, the best way to treat type 2 diabetes is to get rid of it by treating the underlying cause, as described in my video How Not to Die from Diabetes. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Pre-Cut Vegetables and Endotoxins  | NutritionFacts.org

    Pre-Cut Vegetables and Endotoxins  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Endotoxins can build up on pre-cut vegetables and undermine some of their benefits.

    You may remember when I introduced the endotoxin theory literature in my video The Exogenous Endotoxin Theory, which sought to explain how a single Sausage and Egg McMuffin meal could cripple artery function within hours of consumption. Maybe it’s because such a meal causes inflammation within hours of consumption by inducing low-grade endotoxemia, endotoxins in the bloodstream, as I previously discussed in my video Dead Meat Bacteria Endotoxemia. Endotoxins are structural components of gram-negative bacteria like E. coli, as you can see below and at 0:35 in my video Are Pre-Cut Vegetables Just as Healthy?. Certain foods, like ground meat, have high bacterial loads, so the thought was that the endotoxins in the food were triggering the inflammation.

    Critics of the theory argued that because we already have so many bacteria living in our colon, so many endotoxins just sitting down in our large intestine, a few more endotoxins in our food wouldn’t matter much in terms of causing systemic inflammation. After all, we have about two pounds of pure bacteria down there where the sun don’t shine, so there could be about a whole ounce of endotoxin. The lethal dose of intravenously injected endotoxin can be just a few millionths of a gram, so we could have a million lethal doses down there. However, the apparent paradox is explained by compartmentalization. It’s location, location, location.

    Poop is harmless when it’s in your colon, but it shouldn’t be injected into your bloodstream or eaten for that matter, particularly with fat, as that can promote the absorption of endotoxins in the small intestine. That goes for well-cooked poop, too.

    As you can see in the graph below and at 1:44 in my video, you can boil endotoxins for two hours straight with no detriment in their ability to induce inflammation. You could easily kill off any bacteria if you boiled your poop soup long enough, but you can’t kill off the endotoxins they make, just like you can’t cook the crap out of the meat. The consumption of meat contaminated with feces doesn’t just cause food poisoning. It can spill out onto the animal’s skin during the evisceration process when the digestive tract is ruptured. 

    Even when slaughterhouse workers trim off “visible fecal contamination,” the trimming itself can, ironically, sometimes lead to an increase in certain fecal bacteria, thought to be caused by “cross-contamination resulting from the handling to removal fecal contamination” from one carcass to the next. Then, even when properly stored in the fridge, endotoxins start accumulating along with the bacterial growth, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:30 in my video. 

    What about other foods? The highest levels of endotoxins were found in meat and dairy, and the lowest levels in fresh fruits and vegetables. That was testing whole fruits and vegetables, though. “Most spoilage organisms cannot penetrate the plant’s surface barrier and spoil the inner tissues.” That’s why fruits and veggies can sit out in the fields all day in the sun. But, once you cut them open, bacteria can gain access to the inner tissues, and, within a matter of days, your veggies can start to spoil. So, what does that mean for all those convenient pre-cut veggies these days?

    While endotoxins were not detectable in the majority of unprocessed vegetables, once you damage the protective outer layers of vegetables, you diminish their resistance to microbial growth. So, while freshly cut carrots and onions start with undetectable levels, day after day after they’ve been chopped, you start to get the growth of bacteria and, along with them, endotoxin buildup—even if they’ve been kept chilled in the fridge. Not as much as meat, but not insignificant either, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:27 in my video. Enough to make a difference, though? You don’t know until you put it to the test.

    What would happen if you switched people between foods expected to have a lower endotoxin load to foods containing more endotoxins? For instance, going from intact meat, such as a steak, and whole fruits and vegetables, to more like ground beef, pre-cut veggies, and more ready-made meals, as shown below and at 3:39 in my video. After just one week on the lower-endotoxin diet, people’s white blood cell count, which is an indicator of total body inflammation, dropped by 12 percent, then bumped back up by 14 percent after just four days on the higher-endotoxin diet. They also lost a pound and a half on the lower-endotoxin diet and slimmed their waists a bit. 

    They weren’t eating otherwise identical diets, though. It looks like they were eating more meat and cheese on the higher-endotoxin diet and perhaps getting more food additives in the ready-made meals. So, how do we know endotoxins had anything to do with it? That’s where the onion study comes in. Another study was designed based on two meals that differed in their content of bacterial products but were otherwise nutritionally identical. So, researchers compared freshly chopped onion to prechopped onion that had been refrigerated for a few days. The pre-chopped onion wasn’t spoiled; it was still before the “best before” date. So, would it make any difference?

    Within three hours of consumption, the fresh onion meal caused significant reductions in several markers of inflammation. That’s what fruits and vegetables do—they reduce inflammation—but these effects were not observed after eating the pre-chopped onions. For example, three hours after eating freshly chopped onions, researchers saw a significant drop in inflammatory status, but there was no significant change three hours after eating the same amount of pre-chopped onions, as you can see in the graph below and at 5:06 in my video. So, it’s not like the pre-chopped onions caused more inflammation, like in the meat, eggs, and dairy studies, but it did appear that some of the onion’s anti-inflammatory effects were extinguished. “In conclusion, the modern trend towards eating minimally processed vegetables”—pre-cut vegetables—“rather than whole [intact] foods is likely to be associated with increased oral endotoxin exposure.” It’s still better to eat pre-cut veggies than no veggies, but cutting your own might be the healthiest.

     For some other practical veggie videos and blogs check out the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • ‘Plant-Based’ Peanut Butter … And Shampoo … And Booze

    ‘Plant-Based’ Peanut Butter … And Shampoo … And Booze

    [ad_1]

    Several years ago, I made a New Year’s resolution to eat more plants. Doing so, I assumed, would be better for my health, for animals, and for the planet. Besides, it would be easy: The rise of plant-based meat alternatives, offered by companies such as Impossible Meat and Beyond Meat, made it a breeze to eat less meat but still satisfy the occasional carnivorous urge. I could have my burger and eat it too.

    Or so I thought. Meat alternatives, I found, cost more than their conventional counterparts and are made with complicated ingredients that raise doubts about their healthiness—and even then, taste just okay. Other people have had similar concerns, part of the reason the popularity of those products has declined in recent years to such a degree that Beyond Meat is reportedly now in “survival mode.” But beyond the meat aisle, the “plant-based” label lives on in virtually every food product imaginable: instant ramen, boxed mac and cheese, Kraft singles, KitKat bars, even queso. You can now buy plant-based peanut butter. You can also wash your hair with plant-based shampoo and puff on a plant-based vape.

    Queso made from cauliflower instead of milk is correctly described as plant-based. But if peanut butter is vegan to begin with, then what is the point of the label? And who asked for plant-based liquor? On packaging and ad copy, plant-based has been applied to so many items—including foods that are highly processed, or those that have never contained animal ingredients—that it has gotten “diluted to nothing,” Mark Lang, a marketing professor at the University of Tampa who studies food, told me.

    Technically, plant-based does have a clear definition. The Cornell University biochemist Thomas Colin Campbell is often credited for coining the term in the 1980s as a neutral, less fraught descriptor for diets considered “vegan” or “vegetarian.” That is what made plant-based a popular term for companies eager to sell their meat replacements to a wide range of eaters. The Plant Based Foods Association uses essentially the same criteria—foods made from plants that do not contain animal products—to determine which products can bear its “Certified Plant Based Seal.”

    Some companies describe products as “plant-based,” however, even if they don’t meet these criteria. Items sold as such include foods that have always been vegan, such as prepackaged jackfruit, and those mixed in with some animal products, such as Wahlburgers’ “Flex Blend” patties. But even a product that is properly described as “plant-based” might mean different things to different people, because there is no one reason to try and avoid the consequences of animal rearing and consumption. Health is the leading one, followed by environmental and ethical concerns, Emma Ignaszewski, the associate director of industry intelligence and initiatives at the Good Food Institute, told me.

    The label’s vagueness has been a marketer’s dream, creating an enormous opportunity to capitalize on the perceived virtuousness and healthiness of eating plant-based. Brands use the “plant-based” label to “draw people’s attention to the aggregate goodness of a particular product” and simultaneously “deflect attention” from any less appealing attributes, Joe Árvai, a professor of psychology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California, told me. Some, like coconut water, are relatively good for you; others, like booze, are probably not. And their environmental benefits remain murky: Using fewer animal ingredients generally decreases emissions, but the climate impacts are not always straightforward.

    In this way, the evolution of plant-based mirrors that of organic or gluten-free. These terms have specific meanings that are legitimately useful for helping people make choices about their food, but they have been overused into oblivion. You can now buy organic marijuana and gluten-free water along with your plant-based energy drinks. With multiple labels, including gluten-free, plant-based, GMO-free, Earth-friendly, and Fair Trade, “some products look like a NASCAR” vehicle, Lang said. “You’re just putting buttons all over the place, trying to get my attention.”

    We may have already hit peak “plant-based.” According to a recent survey from the Food Industry Association, there is substantial confusion about what the label means—and that could be discouraging people from buying plant-based products. Some are now outright skeptical of the label. A 2023 study co-authored by Árvai suggested that people are less likely to go for foods described as “plant-based” (or “vegan”) compared with those called “healthy” or “sustainable.” One reason may be negative associations with plant-based meat alternatives, which are seen as “artificial” because of their ultra-processed nature, co-author Patrycja Sleboda, an assistant professor of psychology at Baruch College, City University of New York, told me.

    Another may be that consumers are not sure whether “plant-based” foods are healthy. Americans may respond better when the actual benefits of the food are highlighted, she said. Similarly, market research conducted by Meati, a company that sells meat alternatives made of mushrooms, found that the “plant-based” label, applied to food, signaled “bad eating experience, bad flavor, bad texture, poor nutrition, too many ingredients, and overprocessing,” Christina Ra, Meati’s vice president of marketing and communications, told me.

    Some good may still come out of the messiness of “plant-based” everything. Meati deliberately avoids the label altogether, opting instead to highlight the contents of its products (“95 percent mushroom root”). A recent Whole Foods report predicted that in 2024, consumers will want to “put the ‘plant’ back in ‘plant-based’” by replacing “complex meat alternatives” with recognizable ingredients such as walnuts and legumes. In a particular literal interpretation of this prediction, the company Actual Veggies sells a greens-and-grains patty called “The Actual Green Burger.” And some milk alternatives are also now skipping “plant-based” and simplifying their ingredient lists to just two items (nuts and water).

    Shoppers just want to know what’s in their food without having to think too hard about it. Plant-based hasn’t helped with that. Even Campbell, after he coined the term, acknowledged that it was a limiting, potentially misleading phrase that left too much room for unhealthy ingredients, such as sugar and flour. Perhaps shoppers’ exasperation with the vagueness of “plant-based” eating may eventually lead brands to promote more plant-based eating: that is, just eating plants.

    [ad_2]

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Dairy Milk Hormones’ Effects on Cancer  | NutritionFacts.org

    Dairy Milk Hormones’ Effects on Cancer  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What are the effects of the female sex hormones in cow’s milk on men, women, and children? 
     
    All foods of animal origin contain hormones, but most of our dietary exposure to hormones comes from dairy products. By quantity, as you can see below and at 0:16 in my video The Effects of Hormones in Dairy Milk on Cancer, it is mostly prolactin, corticosteroids, and progesterone, but there are also a bunch of estrogens, which concentrate even further when other dairy products are made. For instance, hormones are five times more concentrated in cream and cheese, and ten times more in butter. 

    When it comes to steroid hormones in the food supply, about three-quarters of our exposure to ingested female sex steroids come from dairy, and the rest is split evenly between eggs and meat (including fish). Indeed, eggs contribute about as much as all meat combined, which makes a certain amount of sense since an egg comes straight from a hen’s ovary. Among the various types of meat, you get as much from white meat (fish and poultry) as you do from pork and beef, and this is just from natural hormones—not added hormone injections, like bovine growth hormone. So, it doesn’t matter if the meat is organic. Animals produce hormones because they’re animals, and their hormones understandably end up in animal products. 
     
    About half of the people surveyed “did not know that milk naturally contains hormones,” and many “lacked basic knowledge (22% did not know that cows only give milk after calving)”—that is, they didn’t realize what milk is for—feeding baby calves. Researchers suggested we ought to inform the public about dairy production practices. In response, one Journal of Dairy Science respondent wrote that telling the public about the industry’s new technologies, like transgenic animals (meaning genetically engineered farm animals), “or contentious husbandry practices” (such as taking away that newly born calf so we can have more of the milk or “zero-grazing for dairy cows”—i.e., not letting cows out on grass), “does not result in high rates of public approval,” so ixnay on the educationay. 
     
    The public may not know the extent to which they are exposed to estrogen through the intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows, which has potential public health implications. “Modern genetically improved dairy cows, such as the Holstein,” the stereotypical black and white cow, can get reimpregnated after giving birth and lactate throughout almost their entire next pregnancy, which means that, these days, commercial cow’s milk contains large amounts of pregnancy hormones, like estrogens and progesterone. 
     
    As you can see in the graph below and at 2:42 in my video, during the first eight months of a pregnant cow’s nine-month gestation, hormone levels in her milk shoot up more than 20-fold. Even so, we’re only talking about a millionth of a gram per quart, easily 10 to 20 times less estrogen hormones than you’d find in a birth control pill. In that case, would drinking it really have an effect on human hormone levels? 


    Researchers analyzed three different estrogens and one progesterone metabolite flowing through the bodies of seven men before and after they drank about a liter of milk. Within hours of drinking the milk, their hormone levels shot up, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:08 in my video. 


    The researchers also looked at the average levels of female sex steroids flowing through the bodies of six schoolchildren (with an average age of eight) before and after they drank about two cups of milk. Within hours of drinking the milk, their levels shot up, tripling or quadrupling their baseline hormone levels, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:23 in my video. So, one can imagine the effects milk might have on men or prepubescent children, but what about women? Presumably, women would have high levels of estrogen in their body in the first place, wouldn’t they? Well, not all women. 

    What about postmenopausal women and endometrial cancer, for example? Estrogens have “a central role” in the development of endometrial cancer, cancer of the lining of the uterus. “Milk and dairy products are a source of steroid hormones and growth factors that might have physiological effects in humans.” So, Harvard researchers followed tens of thousands of women and their dairy consumption for decades and found a significantly higher risk of endometrial cancer among postmenopausal women who consumed more dairy, as shown below and at 4:19 in my video. 
    What about dietary exposure to hormones and breast cancer? Unfortunately, “understanding the role of dietary hormone exposure in the population burden of breast cancer is not possible at this time.” 

    For more on the relationship between cancer and dairy, see related videos below. 

    I talk about the effect of dairy estrogen on men in Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility.

    What about the phytoestrogens in soy? See here.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link