ReportWire

Tag: calcium

  • Is Moringa the Most Nutritious Food?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Does the so-called miracle tree live up to the hype?

    Moringa (Moringa oleifera) is a plant commonly known as the “miracle” tree due to its purported healing powers across a spectrum of diseases. If “miracle” isn’t hyperbolic enough for you, “on the Internet,” it’s also known as “God’s Gift to Man.” Is moringa a miracle or just a mirage? “The enthusiasm for the health benefits of M. oleifera is in dire contrast with the scarcity of strong experimental and clinical evidence supporting them. Fortunately, the chasm is slowly being filled.” There has been a surge in scientific publications on moringa. In just the last ten years, the number of articles is closer to a thousand, as shown here and at 1:02 in my video The Benefits of Moringa: Is It the Most Nutritious Food?.

    What got my attention was the presence of glucosinolates, compounds that boost our liver’s detoxifying enzymes. I thought they were only found in cruciferous vegetables, such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, collards, and cauliflower. Still, it turns out they’re also present in the moringa family, with a potency comparable to broccoli. But rather than mail-ordering exotic moringa powder, why not just eat broccoli?Is there something special about moringa?

    “Moringa oleifera has been described as the most nutritious tree yet discovered,” but who eats trees? Moringa supposedly “contains higher amounts of elemental nutrients than most conventional vegetable sources,” such as featuring 10 times more vitamin A than carrots, 12 times more vitamin C than oranges, 17 times more calcium than milk, 15 times more potassium than bananas, 25 times more iron than spinach, and 9 times more protein than yogurt, as shown here and at 2:08 in my video. 
    Sounds impressive, but first of all, even if this were true, it is relevant for 100 grams of dry moringa leaf, which is about 14 tablespoons, almost a whole cup of leaf powder. Researchers have had trouble getting people to eat even 20 grams, so anything more would likely “result in excessively unpleasant taste, due to the bitterness of the leaves.”

    Secondly, the nutritional claims in these papers are “adapted from Fuglie,” which is evidently a lay publication. If you go to the nutrient database of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and enter a more reasonable dose, such as the amount that might be in a smoothie, about a tablespoon, for instance, a serving of moringa powder has as much vitamin A as a quarter of one baby carrot and as much vitamin C as one one-hundredth of an orange. So, an orange has as much vitamin C as a hundred tablespoons of moringa. A serving of moringa powder has the calcium of half a cup of milk, the potassium of not fifteen bananas but a quarter of one banana, the iron of a quarter cup of spinach, and the protein of a third of a container of yogurt, as seen below and at 3:15 in my video. So, it may be nutritious, but not off the charts and certainly not what’s commonly touted. So, again, why not just eat broccoli?

    Moringa does seem to have anticancer activity—in a petri dish—against cell lines of breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and fibrosarcoma, while tending to leave normal cells relatively alone, but there haven’t been any clinical studies. What’s the point in finding out that “Moringa oleifera extract enhances sexual performance in stressed rats,” as one study was titled?

    Studies like “Effect of supplementation of drumstick (Moringa oleifera) and amaranth (Amaranthus tricolor) leaves powder on antioxidant profile and oxidative status among postmenopausal women” started to make things a little interesting. When researchers were testing the effects of a tablespoon of moringa leaf powder once a day for three months on antioxidant status, they saw a drop in oxidative stress, as one might expect from eating any healthy plant food. However, they also saw a drop in fasting blood sugars from prediabetic levels exceeding 100 to more normal levels. Now, that’s interesting. Should we start recommending a daily tablespoon of moringa powder to people with diabetes, or was it just a fluke? I’ll discuss the study “Moringa oleifera and glycemic [blood sugar] control: A review of the current evidence” next.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Natural Electrolyte Boost for Your Dog: Keeping Your Best Friend Hydrated and Healthy | Animal Wellness Magazine

    Natural Electrolyte Boost for Your Dog: Keeping Your Best Friend Hydrated and Healthy | Animal Wellness Magazine

    Do you have questions about how to keep your canine companions properly hydrated, especially when it comes to electrolytes? These essential minerals play a crucial role in your dog’s health, regulating everything from muscle function to hydration. But when do dogs need electrolyte replenishment, and how can we do it naturally? 

    When does your dog need electrolyte replenishment?

    Dogs may need extra electrolytes after intense exercise, during hot weather, or when they’re experiencing vomiting or diarrhea. Senior dogs or those with certain health conditions might also benefit from electrolyte support. Always consult your vet if you’re unsure whether your pup needs electrolyte supplementation.

    Water — the foundation of hydration 

    Before we get into specific electrolytes, let’s talk about the basics – water! Ensuring your dog has constant access to fresh, clean water is the first step in maintaining proper hydration and electrolyte balance. Some dogs prefer running water, so a doggy fountain might encourage more drinking.

    Sodium and chloride as a salty duo

    Sodium and chloride are key electrolytes often lost through sweating (yes, dogs do sweat, albeit minimally) and panting. While we don’t want to overdo the sodium, a pinch of sea salt in your dog’s water or food can help replenish these electrolytes naturally. Just remember, moderation is key!

    Potassium lives in bananas

    Potassium is another crucial electrolyte. Luckily, many dogs love bananas, a great natural source of potassium. Other dog-safe, potassium-rich foods include sweet potatoes, pumpkin, and watermelon (seeds removed, of course). These can be offered as occasional treats or mixed into your dog’s regular food.

    Calcium is not just for bones

    While we often think of calcium in terms of bone health, it’s also an important electrolyte. Plain, unsweetened yogurt is a great natural source of calcium that many dogs enjoy. Just be sure your pup isn’t lactose intolerant before offering dairy products.

    Magnesium — your multitasking mineral

    Magnesium plays a role in numerous bodily functions. Pumpkin seeds are a magnesium powerhouse and can be a healthy treat for dogs when unsalted and ground up. Leafy greens like spinach also contain magnesium, but introduce these gradually to avoid digestive upset.

    Coconut water is nature’s sports drink 

    Coconut water is often touted as a natural electrolyte drink for humans, and it can benefit dogs too! It’s rich in potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Just make sure it’s pure coconut water without added sugars or flavors. Offer it in small amounts, especially if it’s new to your dog’s diet.

    Bone broth as a nutrient and electrolyte powerhouse

    Homemade bone broth is not only delicious for dogs but also packed with natural electrolytes and other nutrients. Simmer bones in water with a splash of apple cider vinegar to release the minerals. Let the broth cool, remove and discard the bones, skim off any fat, and offer small amounts to your pup.

    Commercial options when natural isn’t enough

    While natural sources are great, sometimes commercial electrolyte solutions designed for dogs are necessary, especially in cases of severe dehydration or illness. Be sure to speak to your vet before using these products.

    Balance is key

    While replenishing electrolytes naturally in dogs can be beneficial, it’s crucial not to overdo it. Too much of any electrolyte can be harmful. Always introduce new foods gradually and in moderation. If you’re concerned about your dog’s hydration or electrolyte balance, don’t hesitate to consult with your veterinarian.

    Also remember that each dog is unique. Pay attention to your furry friend’s response to different foods and always prioritize their overall health and well-being. 


    Post Views: 34


    Animal Wellness is North America’s top natural health and lifestyle magazine for dogs and cats, with a readership of over one million every year. AW features articles by some of the most renowned experts in the pet industry, with topics ranging from diet and health related issues, to articles on training, fitness and emotional well being.

    Animal Wellness

    Source link

  • What Should We Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Should We Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    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. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Here is a review of reviews on the health effects of tea, coffee, milk, wine, and soda.

    If you’ve watched my videos or read my books, you’ve heard me say, time and again, the best available balance of evidence. What does that mean? When making decisions as life-or-death important as what to feed ourselves and our families, it matters less what a single study says, but rather what the totality of peer-reviewed science has to say.

    Individual studies can lead to headlines like “Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke and Cancer,” but to know if there is a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it would be better to look at a review or meta-analysis that compiles multiple studies. The problem is that some reviews say one thing—for instance, “breathing other people’s tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer”—and other reviews say another—such as, the effects of secondhand smoke are insignificant and further such talk may “foster irrational fears.” And, while we’re at it, you can indulge in “active smoking of some 4-5 cigarettes per day” without really worrying about it, so light up!

    Why do review articles on the health effects of secondhand smoke reach such different conclusions? As you can imagine, about 90 percent of reviews written by researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry said it was not harmful, whereas you get the opposite number with independent reviews, as you can see below and at 1:18 in my video Friday Favorites: What Are the Best Beverages?. Reviews written by the tobacco industry–affiliated researchers had 88 times the odds of concluding that secondhand smoke was harmless. It was all part of “a deliberate strategy to use scientific consultants to discredit the science…” In other words, “the strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking issue…is developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical evidence that passive smoking [secondhand smoke] is not harmful to the non-smoker’s health.”

    Can’t we just stick to the independent reviews? The problem is that industry-funded researchers have all sorts of sneaky ways to get out of declaring conflicts of interest, so it can be hard to follow the money. For instance, it was found that “77% failed to disclose the sources of funding” for their research. But, even without knowing who funded what, the majority of reviews still concluded that secondhand smoke was harmful. So, just as a single study may not be as helpful as looking at a compilation of studies on a topic, a single review may not be as useful as a compilation of reviews. In that case, looking at a review of reviews can give us a better sense of where the best available balance of evidence may lie. When it comes to secondhand smoke, it’s probably best not to inhale, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:30 in my video. 

    Wouldn’t it be cool if there were reviews of reviews for different foods and drinks? Voila! Enter “Associations Between Food and Beverage Groups and Major Diet-Related Chronic Diseases: An Exhaustive Review of Pooled/Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews.” Let’s start with the drinks. As you can see below and at 2:51 in my video, the findings were classified into three categories: protective, neutral, or deleterious.

    First up: tea versus coffee. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:58, most reviews found both beverages to be protective for whichever condition they were studying, but you can see how this supports my recommendation for tea over coffee. Every cup of coffee is a lost opportunity to drink a cup of green tea, which is even healthier. 

    It’s no surprise that soda sinks to the bottom, as you can see below and at 3:20 in my video, but 14 percent of reviews mentioned the protective effects of drinking soda. What?! Well, most were references to papers like “High Intake of Added Sugar Among Norwegian Children and Adolescents,” a cross-sectional study that found that eighth-grade girls who drank more soda were thinner than girls who drank less. Okay, but that was just a snapshot in time. What do you think is more likely? That the heavier girls were heavier because they drank less soda, or that they drank less sugary soda because they were heavier? Soda abstention may therefore be a consequence of obesity, rather than a cause, yet it gets marked down as having a protective association. 

    Study design flaws may also account for wine numbers, as seen below and at 4:07 in my video. This review of reviews was published in 2014, before the revolution in our understanding of “alcohol’s evaporating health benefits,” suggesting that the “presumed health benefits from ‘moderate’ alcohol use [may have] finally collapsed”—thanks in part to a systematic error of misclassifying former drinkers as if they were lifelong abstainers, as I revealed in a deep dive in a video series on the subject.  

    Sometimes there are unexplainable associations. For example, one of the soft drink studies found that increased soda consumption was associated with a lower risk of certain types of esophageal cancers. Don’t tell me. Was the study funded by Coca-Cola? Indeed. Does that help explain the positive milk studies, as you can see in the graph below and at 5:02 in my video? Were they all just funded by the National Dairy Council? 

    As shown below and at 5:06, even more conflicts of interest have been found among milk studies than soda studies, with industry-funded studies of all such beverages “approximately four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the [study] sponsors than articles without industry-related funding.”

    Funding bias aside, though, there could be legitimate reasons for the protective effects associated with milk consumption. After all, those who drink more milk may drink less soda, which is even worse, so they may come out ahead. It may be more than just relative benefits, though. The soda-cancer link seems a little tenuous and not just because of the study’s financial connection to The Coca-Cola Company. It’s hard to imagine a biologically plausible mechanism, whereas even something as universally condemned as tobacco isn’t universally bad. As I’ve explored before, more than 50 studies have consistently found a protective association between nicotine and Parkinson’s disease. Even secondhand smoke may be protective. Of course, you’d still want to avoid it. Passive secondhand smoke may decrease the risk of Parkinson’s, but it increases the risk of stroke, an even deadlier brain disease, not to mention lung cancer and heart disease, which has killed off millions of Americans since the first Surgeon General’s report was released, as you can see below and at 6:20 in my video. 

    Thankfully, by eating certain vegetables, we may be able to get some of the benefits without the risks, and the same may be true of dairy. As I’ve described before, the consumption of milk is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, leading to recommendations suggesting that men may want to cut down or minimize their intake, but milk consumption is also associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk. This appears to be a calcium effect. Thankfully, we may be able to get the best of both worlds by eating high-calcium plant foods, such as greens and beans.  

    What does our review-of-reviews study conclude about such plant-based foods, in comparison to animal-based foods? We’ll find out next.

    Stay tuned for the exhaustive review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on major diet-related chronic diseases found for food groups in What Are the Best Foods?.

    The alcohol video I mentioned is Is It Better to Drink a Little Alcohol Than None at All?, and the Parkinson’s video is Pepper’s and Parkinson’s: The Benefits of Smoking Without the Risks. I also mentioned my Dairy and Cancer video. 

    What about diet soda? See related posts below. 

    What’s so bad about alcohol? Check out Can Alcohol Cause Cancer? and Do Any Benefits of Alcohol Outweigh the Risks? for more. 

    I’ve also got tons of milk. Check here.

    My recommendations for the best beverages are water, green tea, and hibiscus herbal tea. Learn more in the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    The industry responds to the charge that breakfast cereals are too sugary.

    In 1941, the American Medical Association’s Council on Foods and Nutrition was presented with a new product, Vi-Chocolin, a vitamin-fortified chocolate bar, “offered ostensibly as a specialty product of high nutritive value and of some use in medicine, but in reality intended for promotion to the public as a general purpose confection, a vitaminized candy.” Surely, something like that couldn’t happen today, right? Unfortunately, that’s the sugary cereal industry’s business model.

    As I discuss in my video Are Fortified Kids’ Breakfast Cereals Healthy or Just Candy?, nutrients are added to breakfast cereals “as a marketing gimmick to “create an aura of healthfulness…If those nutrients were added to soft drinks or candy, would we encourage kids to consume them more often?” Would we feed our kids Coke and Snickers for breakfast? We might as well spray cotton candy with vitamins, too. As one medical journal editorial read, “Adding vitamins and minerals to sugary cereals…is worse than useless. The subtle message accompanying such products is that it is safe to eat more.”

    General Mills’ “Grow up strong with Big G kids’ cereals” ad campaign featured products like Lucky Charms, Trix, and Cocoa Puffs. That’s like the dairy industry promoting ice cream as a way to get your calcium. Kids who eat presweetened breakfast cereals may get more than 20 percent of their daily calories from added sugar, as you can see below and at 1:28 in my video. 

    Most sugar in the American diet comes from beverages like soda, but breakfast cereals represent the third largest food source of added sugars in the diets of children and adolescents, wedged between candy and ice cream. On a per-serving basis, there is more added sugar in a cereal like Frosted Flakes than there is in frosted chocolate cake, a brownie, or even a frosted donut, as you can see below and at 1:48 in my video. 

    Kellogg’s and General Mills argue that breakfast cereals only contribute a “relatively small amount” of sugar to the diets of children, less than soda, for example. “This is a perfect example of the social psychology phenomenon of ‘diffusion of responsibility.’ This behavior is analogous to each restaurant in the country arguing that it should not be required to ban smoking because it alone contributes only a tiny fraction to Americans’ exposure to secondhand smoke.” In fact, “each source of added sugar…should be reduced.”

    The industry argues that most of their cereals have less than 10 grams of sugar per serving, but when Consumer Reports measured how much cereal youngsters actually poured for themselves, they were found to serve themselves about 50 percent more than the suggested serving size for most of the tested cereals. The average portion of Frosted Flakes they poured for themselves contained 18 grams of sugar, which is 4½ teaspoons or 6 sugar packets’ worth. It’s been estimated that a “child eating one serving per day of a children’s cereal containing the average amount of sugar would consume nearly 1,000 teaspoons of sugar in a year.”

    General Mills offers the “Mary Poppins defense,” arguing that those spoonsful of sugar can “help the medicine go down” and explaining that “if sugar is removed from bran cereal, it would have the consistency of sawdust.” As you can see below and at 3:17 in my video, a General Mills representative wrote that the company is presented “with an untenable choice between making our healthful foods unpalatable or refraining from advertising them.” If it can’t add sugar to its cereals, they would be unpalatable? If one has to add sugar to a product to make it edible, that should tell us something. That’s a characteristic of so-called ultra-processed foods, where you have to pack them full of things like sugar, salt, and flavorings “to give flavor to foods that have had their [natural] intrinsic flavors processed out of them and to mask any unpleasant flavors in the final product.” 

    The president of the Cereal Institute argued that without sugary cereals, kids might not eat breakfast at all. (This is similar to dairy industry arguments that removing chocolate milk from school cafeterias may lead to students “no longer purchasing school lunch.”) He also stressed we must consider the alternatives. As Kellogg’s director of nutrition once put it: “I would suggest that Fruit [sic] Loops as a snack are much better than potato chips or a sweet roll.” You know there’s a problem when the only way to make your product look good is to compare it to Pringles and Cinnabon.

    Want a healthier option? Check out my video Which Is a Better Breakfast: Cereal or Oatmeal?.

    For more on the effects of sugar on the body and if you like these more politically charged videos see the related posts below.

    Finally, for some additional videos on cereal, see Kids’ Breakfast Cereals as Nutritional Façade and Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link