ReportWire

Tag: cholesterol

  • Can Onions Help with Weight Loss, Cholesterol, and PCOS? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Let’s talk about treating weight loss, cholesterol, and PCOS with diet. What can an eighth of a teaspoon a day of onion powder do for body fat, and what can raw red onion do for cholesterol?

    In one of my previous videos about onions, I talked about the data supporting—or not supporting—the role of onions in boosting testosterone in men, protecting bone health, controlling allergies, and dealing with the side effects of chemotherapy. What about weight loss? Enter the “Effect of Steamed Onion (ONIRO) Consumption on Body Fat and Metabolic Profiles in Overweight Subjects.” Researchers used steamed onions, which aren’t as spicy and have a weaker smell, so they could better disguise them as a placebo. They dried them into onion powder and gave people a minuscule amount—about an eighth of a teaspoon (300 mg) a day. Surely, a little daily dusting of onion powder wouldn’t affect people’s weight. But check out the results reported in the abstract: Measurements using a DEXA scan showed a significant reduction in body fat mass, and a CT scan revealed a significant decrease in whole, visceral, and subcutaneous fat areas.

    Hold on. If a little onion powder is so effective for weight loss, why wasn’t it featured in my book How Not to Diet? Because, as so often happens in studies, the spin in the abstract doesn’t accurately represent the actual data. The DEXA scan results measured no significant change of fat in the group that got the placebo capsules. They only appeared to lose about a spoonful (7 g) of fat, whereas the group unknowingly taking an eighth of a teaspoon of onion powder stuffed into capsules lost nearly one and a half pounds (0.64 kg) of body fat—a significant drop from baseline, but not a statistically significant drop compared to the placebo group, meaning the loss could have just been due to chance. Same thing with the CT scan results: 5 times more loss of overall fat and over 30 times more loss of the dangerous visceral fat, but the results did not reach statistical significance compared to placebo.

    A more recent study tried four teaspoons (9 g) of onion powder a day and similarly failed to accelerate the loss of visceral, total, or subcutaneous fat compared to placebo—but the placebo was also four teaspoons (9 g) of onion powder a day. They used yellow onions versus white onions, and it seems they both may have caused a loss of abdominal body fat, without a significant difference between them. Either way, you might look at these two studies and think, sure, but what are the downsides? It’s only an eighth of a teaspoon of onion powder a day, so why not give it a try? It can’t hurt, but we just don’t have enough evidence to be confident it will actually help.

    Let’s talk about polycystic ovary syndrome, also known as PCOS. It’s one of the most common hormone disorders, affecting 5% to 10% of reproductive-aged women. In addition to causing symptoms like irregular periods, “PCOS is a pre-diabetic state, with decreased insulin sensitivity.” PCOS treatment is challenging due to medication side effects. So, are there dietary options? How about a randomized controlled clinical trial of raw red onion intake?

    Why onions? Well, onion extracts can evidently improve blood sugar and insulin sensitivity in rats with diabetes and, more importantly, were found to reduce blood sugar levels in humans with diabetes, but evidently not in non-diabetic humans. People with PCOS are kind of pre-diabetic, so would it work for them? First, let’s look at those other two studies. To study the “Metabolic Effects of Onion and Green Beans,” people with diabetes spent a week eating either a small onion (60 g) each day or the same diet with about six cups (600 g) of green beans instead—and both approaches worked. The onion lowered people’s blood sugar levels by about 10% compared to a non-onion control diet, while the green beans lowered them by roughly 15% compared to the control.

    Here’s the study that supposedly shows no blood sugar benefits for people without diabetes. It’s true—onions don’t seem to lower normal blood sugar levels, which is a good thing, but check out what happens when you feed people sugar. Have people consume about two and a half tablespoons (50 g) of corn syrup, and their blood sugar levels shoot up over the next two hours before their body can tamp it back down. But give people the exact same amount of sugar along with more and more onion extract, and the blood sugar spike is significantly dampened, almost as much as if you had instead given them an antidiabetic drug, as you can see below and at 4:00 in my video Onions Put to the Test for Weight Loss, Cholesterol, and PCOS Treatment.

    We see the same blunting effect on blood sugar when people get a shot of adrenaline and eat onion extract, compared to receiving adrenaline without the onion extract, as you can see below and at 4:11 in my video.

    So, are there blood sugar benefits for both people with and without diabetes? No difference was found in blood sugar levels or other markers of insulin resistance between the high-onion and low-onion groups of PCOS patients, nor were there any differences in a marker of inflammation between the two groups. But women with PCOS aren’t just at higher risk for diabetes and inflammation—they are also at higher risk for high cholesterol.

    Women with PCOS are over seven times more likely to have a heart attack and develop heart disease, the number one killer of women. But consuming raw red onion appears to be effective in lowering cholesterol, though the group that ate more onions only dropped their LDL cholesterol about 5 points (5 mg/dL), which was not significantly different than the group that ate fewer onions.

    I did find this study from 50 years ago where researchers fed people nearly an entire stick (100 g) of butter, and their cholesterol shot up about 30 points within hours of consumption but by only 9 points or 3 points when combined with about a third of a cup (50 g) of raw or boiled onion. The moral of the story: Don’t eat a stick of butter.

    Doctor’s Note

    Check out the previous video I mentioned: Friday Favorites: Are Onions Beneficial for Testosterone, Osteoporosis, Allergies, and Cancer?.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How Low Can LDL Cholesterol Go on PCSK9 Inhibitors? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    People with genetic mutations that leave them with an LDL cholesterol of 30 mg/dL live exceptionally long lives. Can we duplicate that effect with drugs?

    Data extrapolated from large cholesterol-lowering trials using statin drugs suggest that the incidence of cardiovascular events like heart attacks would approach zero if LDL cholesterol could be forced down below 60 mg/dL for first-time prevention and around 30 mg/dL for those trying to prevent another one. But is lower actually better? And is it even safe to have LDL cholesterol levels that low?

    We didn’t know until PCSK9 inhibitors were invented. Are PCSK9 Inhibitors for LDL Cholesterol Safe and Effective? I explore that issue in my video of the same name. PCSK9 is a gene that mutated to give people such low LDL cholesterol, and that’s how Big Pharma thought of trying to cripple PCSK9 with drugs. After a heart attack, intensive lowering of an individual’s LDL cholesterol beyond a target of 70 mg/dL does seem to work better than more moderate lowering. There were fewer cardiovascular deaths, heart attacks, or strokes at an LDL less than 30 mg/dL compared with 70 mg/dL or higher, and even compared to less than 70 mg/dL. There is a consistent risk reduction even when starting as low as an average of 63 mg/dL, and pushing LDL down to 21 mg/dL, remarkably, showed “no observed offsetting” of adverse side effects.

    Maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising, since that’s about the level at which we start life. And there’s another type of genetic mutation that leaves people with LDL levels of about 30 mg/dL their whole lives, and they are known to have an exceptionally long life expectancy. So, where did we get this idea that cholesterol could fall too low?

    The common claim that lowering cholesterol can be dangerous due to depletion of cell cholesterol is unsupported by evidence and does not consider the exquisite balancing mechanisms our body uses. After all, that’s how we evolved. Until recently, most of us used to have LDL levels around 50 mg/dL, so that’s pretty normal for the human species. The absence of evidence that low or lowered cholesterol levels are somehow bad for us contrasts with the overwhelming evidence that cholesterol reduction decreases risk for coronary artery disease, our number one killer.

    What about hormone production, though? Since the body needs cholesterol for the synthesis of steroid hormones—like adrenal hormones and sex hormones—there’s a concern that there wouldn’t be enough. You don’t know, though, until you put it to the test. For decades, we’ve known that women on cholesterol-lowering drugs don’t have a problem with estrogen production and that lowering cholesterol doesn’t affect adrenal gland function. As well, it doesn’t impair testicular function in terms of causing testosterone levels to fall below normal. If anything, statin drugs can improve erectile function in men, which is what you’d expect from lowering cholesterol. But you’ll notice these studies only looked at lowering LDL to 70 mg/dL or below. What about really low LDL?

    On PCSK9 inhibitors, you can get most people under an LDL of 40 mg/dL and some under 15 mg/dL! And there is no evidence that adrenal, ovarian, or testicular hormone production is impaired, even in patients with LDL levels below 15 mg/dL. The risk of heart attacks falls in a straight line as LDL gets lower and lower, even below 10 mg/dL, for example, without apparent safety concerns, but that’s over the duration of exposure to these drugs. The longest follow-up to date of those whose LDL, by way of using multiple medications, was kept less than 30 mg/dL is six years.

    Now, we can take comfort in the fact that those with extreme PCSK9 mutations, leading to a lifelong reduction in levels of LDL to under 20 mg/dL their whole lives, remain healthy and have healthy kids. Cholesterol-affecting mutations are what cause the so-called “longevity syndromes,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean the drugs are safe. The bottom line is we should try to get our LDL cholesterol down as low as we can, but much longer follow-up data are necessary anytime a new class of drugs is introduced. So far, so good, but we’ve only been following the data for about 10 years. For example, we didn’t know statins increased diabetes risk until decades after they were approved and millions had been exposed. Also worth noting: PCSK9 inhibitors cost about $14,000 a year.

    Doctor’s Note

    How can we decrease cholesterol with diet? See Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

    For more on statin drugs, see the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How to Beat Heart Disease Before It Starts | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why might healthy lifestyle choices wipe out 90% of our risk for having a heart attack, while drugs may only reduce risk by 20% to 30%?

    On the standard American diet, atherosclerosis—hardening of the arteries, the number one killer of men and women—has been found to start in our teens. Investigators collected about 3,000 sets of coronary arteries and aortas (the aorta is the main artery in the body) from victims of accidents, homicides, and suicides who were 15 to 34 years old and found that the fatty streaks in arteries can begin forming in our teens, which turn into atherosclerotic plaques in our 20s that get worse in our 30s and can then become deadly. In the heart, atherosclerosis can cause a heart attack. In the brain, it can cause a stroke. See the progression below and at 0:35 in my video Can Cholesterol Get Too Low?.

    How common is this? All of the teens they looked at—100% of them—already had fatty streaks building up inside their arteries. By their early 30s, most already had those streaks blossoming into atherosclerotic plaques that bulged into their arteries. From ages 15 through 19, their aortas had fatty streaks building up throughout them, but no plaques yet, on average, as seen below and at 1:15 in my video.

    The plaques started appearing in their abdominal aorta in their early 20s and worsened by their late 20s, by which time fatty streaks had infiltrated throughout. By their early 30s, their arteries were in bad shape, as seen below and at 1:25 in my video.

    But that’s just the abdominal aorta, the main artery running through the torso that splits off into our legs. What about the coronary arteries that feed the heart?

    Researchers found the same pattern: fatty streaks in teens, early signs of plaque in early 20s that progress with age, and by the early 30s, most people already had plaques in their coronary arteries, as seen below and at 1:47 in my video.

    Atherosclerosis starts as early as adolescence.

    That’s why we shouldn’t wait until heart disease becomes symptomatic to treat it. If it starts in our youth, we should start treating it when we’re youths. If you knew you had a cancerous tumor, you wouldn’t want to wait until it grew to a certain size to treat it. If you had diabetes, you wouldn’t want to wait until you started going blind before you did something about it. So, how do you treat atherosclerosis? You lower LDL cholesterol through a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol—a diet that’s low in eggs, meat, dairy, and junk.

    If we want to stop this epidemic, we have to “alter our lifestyle accordingly, beginning in infancy or early childhood. Is such a radical proposal totally impractical?” (Eating more healthfully? Radical?!) It would take serious dedication to change our behavior, but atherosclerosis is our number one cause of death. In the case of cigarettes, we did pretty well, slashing smoking rates and dropping lung cancer rates. And, yes, healthy eating is safe. According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest and oldest association of nutrition professionals in the world, even strictly plant-based diets are appropriate for all stages of life, starting from pregnancy. (NutritionFacts.org is among the websites recommended by the Academy for more information.)

    The title of an important study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology declares: “Curing Atherosclerosis Should Be the Next Major Cardiovascular Prevention Goal.” What evidence do we have that a lifelong suppression of LDL will do it? There is a genetic mutation of a gene called PCSK9 that about 1 in 50 African Americans are lucky to be born with because it gives them about a 40% lower LDL cholesterol level their whole lives. Indeed, they were found to have dramatically lower rates of coronary heart disease—an 88% drop in risk compared to those without the genetic mutation, despite otherwise terrible cardiovascular risk factors on average. Most had high blood pressure and were overweight, almost a third smoked, and nearly 20% had diabetes, but that highlights how a lifelong history of low LDL cholesterol levels can substantially reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, even when there are multiple risk factors.

    This near-90% drop in events like heart attacks or sudden death occurred at an average LDL level of 100 mg/dL, compared to 138 mg/dL in those without the genetic mutation. This means LDL can drop below even 100 mg/dL. Why does a drop in LDL cholesterol by about 40 mg/dL from a lucky genetic mutation lower the risk of coronary heart disease by nearly 90%, while the same reduction with statin drugs lowers it by only about 20%? The most probable explanation? Duration. When it comes to lowering LDL cholesterol, it’s not only about how low it is, but how long it’s been low.

    That’s why healthy lifestyle choices may wipe out about 90% of our risk for having a heart attack, while drugs may reduce it by only 20% to 30%. If you’re getting treated with drugs later in life, you may have to get your LDL under 70 mg/dL to halt the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. But if we start making healthier choices earlier, it may be enough to lower LDL cholesterol just to 100 mg/dL, which should be achievable for most of us. That’s consistent with country-by-country data that suggested death from heart disease would bottom out at a population average of about 100 mg/dL, as seen below and at 5:21 in my video.

    But that’s only if you can keep your LDL cholesterol down your whole life.

    If you’re relying on medication later in life to halt disease progression, you may need to get your LDL below 70 mg/dL, and if you’re trying to use drugs to reverse a lifetime of bad food choices, you may not get to zero coronary heart disease events until your LDL drops to about 55 mg/dL. If your heart disease is so bad that you’ve already had a heart attack but you’re trying not to die from another one, ideally, you might want to push your LDL down to about 30 mg/dL. Once you get that low, not only would you likely prevent any new atherosclerotic plaques, but you’d also help stabilize the plaques you already have so they’re less likely to burst open and kill you.

    Is it even safe to have cholesterol levels that low, though? In other words, can LDL cholesterol ever be too low? We’ll find out next.

    Doctor’s Note

    Didn’t know atherosclerosis could start at such a young age? See Heart Disease Starts in Childhood.

    For more on drugs versus lifestyle, check out my video The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs.

    Want to learn more about so-called primordial prevention? See When Low Risk Means High Risk.

    Does Cholesterol Size Matter? Watch the video to find out.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Shoveling snow? Over-exertion and cold temps can raise your heart risks

    [ad_1]

    Shoveling snow? Over-exertion and cold temps can raise your heart risks

    ON SATURDAY. TIP OFF FOR THAT GAME IS EIGHT. MIGHT HAVE TO DIG OUT IF YOU’RE HEADED TO THAT GAME. THE SNOW STILL FALLING. BUT FOR A LOT OF US MAYBE ALREADY STARTED OR WILL CONTINUE DOING IS THAT TASK OF SHOVELING. AND WHILE IT MAY BE LIGHT SNOW, THERE ARE STILL IMPORTANT HEALTH REMINDERS TO KEEP IN MIND. DOCTOR JORGE PLUTZKY IS THE DIRECTOR OF PREVENTATIVE CARDIOLOGY AT BRIGHAM AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL. DOCTOR PLUTZKY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE WITH US THIS MORNING. SURE. THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU WORRY ABOUT MOST WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HEADING OUT TO MOVE ALL OF THAT SNOW AROUND? WELL, FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT MAY BE THE FIRST TIME THEY’RE EXERTING THEMSELVES TO THAT LEVEL. AND WE KNOW THAT SHOVELING SNOW IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF EXERTION. YOU CAN VERY QUICKLY. STUDIES SUGGEST WITHIN TEN MINUTES REACH 100% OF YOUR MAXIMUM HEART RATE. AND SO FOR PEOPLE WITH A HISTORY OF HEART DISEASE OR JUST RISK FACTORS, THAT CAN BE QUITE AN EXERTION. IT’S LIKE SETTLING, DOING A MAXIMAL STRESS TEST AND BRINGING ON ISSUES RELATED TO THAT. DOC, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE WARNING SIGNS THAT FOLKS OUT THERE MIGHT BE? YOU KNOW, WE TOUGH NEW ENGLANDERS WILL SAY, WELL, WE’LL WORK THROUGH IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SIGNS THAT SOMETHING MAY BE SERIOUSLY HAPPENING AND YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A BREAK, HEAD ON INSIDE FOR A BIT. YES. YOU KNOW, THE CLASSIC SIGNS OF CHEST PAIN AND PERHAPS ASSOCIATED SHORTNESS OF BREATH, NAUSEA, RADIATION DOWN THE ARMS ARE CERTAINLY VERY VALID. BUT WE ALSO WANT PEOPLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO MORE SUBTLE SIGNS LIKE CHEST PRESSURE, ACHING IN THE JAW, JUST THE THE NAUSEA CAN STILL BE RELEVANT. AND SO LISTENING TO YOUR BODY SLOWING DOWN, TAKING BREAKS AND STOPPING IF YOU’RE FEELING ANY OF THOSE IS GOOD ADVICE AND HIGHLY WARRANTED, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU’RE OUT THERE IN THE COLD, WHICH MAY BE ITS OWN FACTOR FOR WHY THESE ISSUES ARISE. THE COLD CAN CONSTRICT ARTERIES AND MAKE THINGS WORSE, AND THERE REALLY IS NO MESSING AROUND WITH THIS. AND WE KNOW HEART ISSUES PRESENT DIFFERENTLY. BUT ARE THERE? AND MAYBE YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT THIS MORE SUBTLE SIGNS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO DURING THIS KIND OF WEATHER. YEAH, IT’S THINGS LIKE I’M FEELING MORE SHORT OF BREATH THAN I THAN I WOULD EXPECT TO BE. I’M HAVING AN ACHE IN MY JAW OR IN MY NECK THAT IS SURPRISING AND FEELS DIFFERENT. THESE ARE ALL SIGNS TO PAY ATTENTION TO AND TO NOT PUSH IT, TO SORT THAT OUT. THE. THERE ARE VARIOUS STRATEGIES PEOPLE CAN TAKE TO HAVE LESS OF A LOAD, LIKE TAKING BREAKS, COVERING YOUR MOUTH SO YOU WARM THE AIR THAT’S ON ITS WAY IN TO NOT NECESSARILY SHOVEL AND LIFT, BECAUSE USING YOUR ARMS IS MORE OF AN EXERTION, BUT TO PUSH AND TO TO SWIPE. BUT YOU REALLY DO WANT TO LISTEN TO ANY, ANY SENSE YOU HAVE THAT SOMETHING’S OFF. INCLUDING THESE OTHER, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT ATYPICAL SYMPTOMS THAT AREN’T CLASSIC CHEST PAIN. EVEN THAT CHEST PRESSURE CAN BE A SIGN. IT’S BEEN FOUR YEARS SINCE WE HAD THIS AMOUNT OF SNOW, SO MAYBE FOLKS HAVEN’T HAD TO FACE IT FOR A WHILE. DOCTOR GEORGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CARDIOLOGIST WITH MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM, WE THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING.


    By The Associated Press undefined

    Digging out from the weekend’s massive snow and ice storm could be hazardous to your heart.Pennsylvania health officials announced three snow-removal-related deaths on Sunday. All were between the ages of 60 and 84. The Lehigh County coroner’s office cautioned people to take breaks and avoid over-exerting themselves.Shoveling snow is heavy, hard work — research has shown that doing it for even a short time can make the heart work as hard as it does during a major workout. Adding to that stress, the cold temperatures cause blood vessels, including those feeding the heart, to constrict. That raises blood pressure, which in turn increases the risk of a heart attack, stroke, or cardiac arrest, according to the American Heart Association.Snow shoveling is especially risky for anyone with known heart disease or who’s already survived a heart attack, as well as older adults and people with risk factors, including high blood pressure or cholesterol. People who think they’re healthy can get in trouble, too, with that combination of heavy exertion in cold weather – especially if they’re generally sedentary until a snowstorm comes along.The heart association advises that if you have to shovel, go slow and try to push the snow instead of lifting and throwing it. It also urges people to learn common warning signs of a heart attack and to call 911 if they experience them.

    Digging out from the weekend’s massive snow and ice storm could be hazardous to your heart.

    Pennsylvania health officials announced three snow-removal-related deaths on Sunday. All were between the ages of 60 and 84. The Lehigh County coroner’s office cautioned people to take breaks and avoid over-exerting themselves.

    Shoveling snow is heavy, hard work — research has shown that doing it for even a short time can make the heart work as hard as it does during a major workout. Adding to that stress, the cold temperatures cause blood vessels, including those feeding the heart, to constrict. That raises blood pressure, which in turn increases the risk of a heart attack, stroke, or cardiac arrest, according to the American Heart Association.

    Snow shoveling is especially risky for anyone with known heart disease or who’s already survived a heart attack, as well as older adults and people with risk factors, including high blood pressure or cholesterol. People who think they’re healthy can get in trouble, too, with that combination of heavy exertion in cold weather – especially if they’re generally sedentary until a snowstorm comes along.

    The heart association advises that if you have to shovel, go slow and try to push the snow instead of lifting and throwing it. It also urges people to learn common warning signs of a heart attack and to call 911 if they experience them.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Healthy Are Baruka Nuts? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How do barukas, also known as baru almonds, compare with other nuts?

    There is a new nut on the market called baru almonds, branded as “barukas” or baru nuts. Technically, it isn’t a nut but a seed native to the Brazilian Savannah, known as the Cerrado, which is now among the most threatened ecosystems on the planet. Over the last 30 years, much of the Cerrado’s ecosystem has been destroyed by extensive cattle ranching and feed crop production to fatten said cattle. If it were profitable not to cut down the native trees and instead sell baru nuts, for example, that could be good for the ecosystem’s health. But what about our health?

    “Although baru nuts are popular and widely consumed, few studies report on their biological properties.” They do have a lot of polyphenol phytonutrients, presumably accounting for their high antioxidant activity. (About 90% of their phytonutrients are present in the peel.) Are they nutritious? Yes, but do they have any special health benefits—beyond treating chubby mice?

    Researchers found that individuals fed baru nuts showed lower cholesterol, supposedly indicating the nuts “have great potential for dietary use” in preventing and controlling cholesterol problems. But the individuals were rats, not humans, and the baru nuts were compared to lard. Pretty much everything lowers cholesterol compared to lard. Nevertheless, there haven’t been any reports about the effect of baru nut consumption on human health, until this: A randomized, controlled study of humans found that eating less than an ounce a day for six weeks led to a 9% drop in LDL cholesterol. Twenty grams would be about 15 nuts or a palmful.

    Like many other nut studies, even though the research subjects were told to add nuts to their regular diets, there was no weight gain, presumably because nuts are so filling that we inadvertently cut down on other foods throughout the day. How good is a 9.4% drop in LDL? It’s the kind of drop we can get from regular almonds, though macadamias and pistachios may work even better, but those were at much higher doses. It appears that 20 grams of baru nuts work as well as 73 grams of almonds. So, on a per-serving basis or a per-calorie basis, baru nuts really did seem to be special.

    There are lower-dose nut studies that show similar or even better results. In this one, for instance, people were given 25 grams of almonds for just four weeks and got about a 6% drop in their LDL cholesterol. In another study, after consuming just 10 grams of almonds a day, or just seven individual almonds a day, study participants got more like a 30% drop in LDL during the same time frame as the baru nuts. Three times better LDL at half the dose with regular almonds, as you can see below and at 2:47 in my video Are Baruka Nuts the Healthiest Nut?.

    The biggest reason we are more confident in regular almonds than baru almonds is that studies have been done over and over in more than a dozen randomized controlled trials, whereas in the only other cholesterol trial of baru nuts, researchers found no significant benefit for LDL cholesterol, even at the same 20-gram dose given for even longer—a period of eight weeks.

    That’s disappointing, but it isn’t the primary reason I would suggest choosing other nuts instead of baru nuts. I would do so because we can’t get raw baru nuts. They contain certain compounds that must be inactivated by heat before we can eat them. The reason raw nuts are preferable is because of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), so-called glycotoxins, which are known to contribute to increased oxidative stress and inflammation.

    Glycotoxins are naturally present in uncooked animal-derived foods, and dry-heat cooking like grilling can make things worse. The three highest recorded levels have been in bacon, broiled hot dogs, and roasted barbecued chicken skin—nothing even comes close to that, not even Chicken McNuggets, as you can see below and at 3:50 in my video.

    However, any foods high in fat and protein can create AGEs at high enough temperatures. So, although plant foods tend to “contain relatively few AGEs, even after cooking,” there are some high-fat, high-protein plant foods. But, again, AGEs aren’t a problem at all with most plant foods. See the AGE content in boiled tofu (in a soup, for instance), broiled tofu, a raw apple, a baked apple, a veggie burger—I was surprised that veggie burgers are so low in AGEs, even when baked or fried—and nuts and seeds, which are up in tofu territory, especially when roasted, which is why I would recommend raw nuts and seeds and nut and seed butters whenever you have a choice. See below and at 4:33 in my video.

    Doctor’s Note

    In my Daily Dozen checklist, I recommend eating a quarter cup of nuts or seeds or two tablespoons of nut or seed butter each day. Why? See related posts below. 

    For those unfamiliar with advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), check out the first two videos I did on them way back when: Glycotoxins and Avoiding Glycotoxins in Food.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fiber is something most people could use more of. But experts advise caution with ‘fibermaxxing’

    [ad_1]

    U.S. consumers who have had their fill of finding protein added to everything from cereal to ice cream are about to meet the next big food fad: fiber.

    Americans have been boosting their protein intake for years; even Pop-Tarts and Starbucks are selling protein-enhanced products. But the number of new products promoted with high or added fiber saw a big uptick in the U.S. this year, according to market research firm Mintel. Hundreds of videos on social media celebrate the benefits of dietary fiber and share recipes to help viewers get more of it.

    There’s even a term for trying to meet or exceed the recommended daily fiber intake: fibermaxxing.

    “I think fiber will be the next protein,” PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta said during a recent conference call with investors. “Consumers are starting to understand that fiber is the benefit that they need.”

    Boxes of cereal promoting fiber sit on a shelf at a Kroger grocery store, in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Dee-Ann Durbin)

    Fiber’s benefits

    Unlike muscle-building protein, fiber isn’t sexy. It’s a carbohydrate found in plants that your body can’t break down. It helps feed gut bacteria and move food through the digestive system.

    “Folks don’t want to talk about it at a dinner party,” said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

    There are two main types of fiber. Soluble fiber dissolves in water and forms a gel-like material that feeds gut bacteria. It’s found in foods like oats, peas, beans, apples and carrots. Insoluble fiber doesn’t dissolve in water and moves food through the digestive system. It’s found in whole wheat flour, popcorn, wheat bran, nuts, green beans and potatoes.

    This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.

    Studies have shown that fiber lowers cholesterol levels, regulates blood sugar and promotes weight loss, since high-fiber foods tend to make eaters feel more full. It may also protect against heart disease, diabetes, diverticulitis and colon cancer, according to the American Heart Association.

    Petitpain said rising use of GLP-1 weight loss drugs could be one reason for the renewed focus on fiber, since GLP-1s naturally slow digestion and fiber can prevent constipation. She said fiber has seen similar spikes in interest when people wanted to alleviate symptoms from high-fat diets like Atkins or keto.

    How much fiber do we need?

    Most people in Western countries could use more fiber because their diets are low in vegetables, fruits and whole grains, said Sander Kersten, director of the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University.

    Under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guidelines, adults should aim for 14 grams of fiber for every 1,000 calories they consume. That’s about 25 grams of fiber for women and 38 grams for men each day. Petitpain said Americans generally only get about two-thirds of that amount.

    For reference, 1 cup of raspberries contains 8 grams of fiber, while a banana contains 3.2 grams, according to the USDA. One-half cup of avocado contains 5 grams of fiber and 1 cup of lima beans contains 13.2 grams. Fiber One, a bran cereal, packs 18 grams of fiber into a 2/3-cup serving.

    Boxes of cereal promoting fiber are for sale at a Kroger grocery store, in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Dee-Ann Durbin)

    Boxes of cereal promoting fiber are for sale at a Kroger grocery store, in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Dee-Ann Durbin)

    What are good ways to increase fiber?

    Kersten said long-term studies about the benefits of fiber have looked at the consumption of whole foods and not packaged products with added fiber.

    “The way it is consumed as an additive and part of a diet that doesn’t contain a lot of fiber may be different than a naturally fiber-rich diet,” Kersten said. “You can eat a very processed, Western diet and consume foods that are enriched, but we don’t know if it confers the same benefit.”

    Whole foods also help the body in other ways, Petitpain said. An apple contains 4.8 grams of fiber as well as water, vitamins and minerals, for example.

    Here are some recommendations from the Mayo Clinic for adding fiber to your diet:

    — Choose a breakfast cereal with 5 grams or more of fiber a serving. Top it with a sliced banana or berries.

    — Choose breads with at least 2 grams of fiber per serving and try other grains like brown rice, whole-wheat pasta and quinoa.

    — When baking, substitute whole-grain flour for white flour. Add wheat bran to muffins and cookies.

    — Try to eat five or more servings of fruit and vegetables daily. If you eat canned fruit, make sure it’s canned in fruit juice and not syrup, and make sure canned vegetables are low in sodium.

    Think twice about fibermaxxing

    There is no defined upper limit for fiber intake, Kersten said. But increasing fiber can cause painful gas and bloating, especially if it’s done quicky.

    Petitpain said people should increase their fiber intake gradually and drink plenty of water.

    “You’re feeding gut bacteria a food, and you can’t break it down. You rely on them, and if you give them second, third and fourth servings, there’s not enough of them to handle the extra load,” Petitpain said.

    Certain populations should also be extra careful about their fiber intake, Petitpain said. People who are sensitive to gluten or allergic to foods like soy, shellfish or psyllium husk should read labels carefully since some foods with added fiber contain those ingredients.

    More broadly, Kersten questions the trend of focusing on one nutrient, whether it’s protein or fiber.

    “We don’t need nutrients, we need foods. Ultimately, what you want to be striving for is a healthy diet, and you should choose foods that are considered to be an important part of a healthy diet,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3-MCPD in Refined Cooking Oils | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    There is another reason to avoid palm oil and question the authenticity of extra-virgin olive oil.

    The most commonly used vegetable oil in the world today is palm oil. Pick up any package of processed food in a box, bag, bottle, or jar, and the odds are it will have palm oil. Palm oil not only contains the primary cholesterol-raising saturated fat found mostly in meat and dairy, but concerns have been raised about its safety, given the finding that it may contain a potentially toxic chemical contaminant known as 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol, otherwise known as 3-MCPD, which is formed during the heat treatment involved in the refining of vegetable oils. So, these contaminants end up being “widespread in refined vegetable oils and fats and have been detected in vegetable fat-containing products, including infant formulas.”

    Although 3-MCPD has been found in all refined vegetable oils, some are worse than others. The lowest levels of the toxic contaminants were found in canola oil, and the highest levels were in palm oil. Based on the available data, this may result in “a significant amount of human exposure,” especially when used to deep-fry salty foods, like french fries. In fact, just five fries could blow through the tolerable daily intake set by the European Food Safety Authority. If you only eat such foods once in a while, it shouldn’t be a problem, but if you’re eating fries every day or so, this could definitely be a health concern.

    Because the daily upper limit is based on body weight, particularly high exposure values were calculated for infants who were on formula rather than breast milk, since formula is made from refined oils, which—according to the European Food Safety Authority—may present a health risk. Estimated U.S. infant exposures may be three to four times worse.

    If infants don’t get breast milk, “there is basically no alternative to industrially produced infant formula.” As such, the vegetable oil industry needs to find a way to reduce the levels of these contaminants. This is yet another reason that breastfeeding is best whenever possible.

    What can adults do to avoid exposure? Since these chemicals are created in the refining process of oils, what about sticking to unrefined oils? Refined oils have up to 32 times the 3-MCPD compared to their unrefined counterparts, but there is an exception: toasted sesame oil. Sesame oil is unrefined; manufacturers just squeeze the sesame seeds. But, because they are squeezing toasted sesame seeds, the 3-MCPD may have come pre-formed.

    Virgin oils are, by definition, unrefined. They haven’t been deodorized, the process by which most of the 3-MCPD is formed. In fact, that’s how you can discriminate between the various processing grades of olive oil. If your so-called extra virgin olive oil contains MCPD, then it must have been diluted with some refined olive oil. The ease of adulterating extra virgin olive oil, the difficulty of detection, the economic drivers, and the lack of control measures all contribute to extra virgin olive oil’s susceptibility to fraud. How widespread a problem is it?

    Researchers tested 88 bottles labeled as extra virgin olive oil and found that only 33 were found to be authentic. Does it help to stick to the top-selling imported brands of extra virgin olive oil? In that case, 73% of those samples failed. Only about one in four appeared to be genuine, and not a single brand had even half its samples pass the test, as you can see here and at 3:32 in my video 3-MCPD in Refined Cooking Oils.

    Doctor’s Note

    If you missed the previous post where I introduced 3-MCPD, see The Side Effects of 3-MCPD in Bragg’s Liquid Aminos.

    There is no substitute for human breast milk. We understand this may not be possible for adoptive families or those who use surrogates, though. In those cases, look for a nearby milk bank.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Ideal vs. Normal Cholesterol Levels  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Having a “normal” cholesterol level in a society where it’s normal to die from a heart attack isn’t necessarily a good thing.

    “Consistent evidence” from a variety of sources “unequivocally establishes” that so-called bad LDL cholesterol causes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—strokes and heart attacks, our leading cause of death. This evidence base includes hundreds of studies involving millions of people. “Cholesterol is the cause of atherosclerosis,” the hardening of the arteries, and “the message is loud and clear.” “It’s the Cholesterol, Stupid!” noted the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, William Clifford Roberts, whose CV is more than 100 pages long as he has published about 1,700 articles in peer-reviewed medical literature. Yes, there are at least ten traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, as seen below and at 1:11 in my video How Low Should You Go for Ideal LDL Cholesterol?, but, as Dr. Roberts noted, only one is required for the progression of the disease: elevated cholesterol.

    Your doctor may have just told you that your cholesterol is normal, so you’re relieved. Thank goodness! But, having a “normal” cholesterol level in a society where it’s normal to have a fatal heart attack isn’t necessarily good. With heart disease, the number one killer of men and women, we definitely don’t want to have normal cholesterol levels; we want to have optimal levels—and not optimal by current laboratory standards, but optimal for human health.

    Normal LDL cholesterol levels are associated with the hidden buildup of atherosclerotic plaques in our arteries, even in those who have so-called “optimal risk factors by current standards”: blood pressure under 120/80, normal blood sugars, and total cholesterol under 200 mg/dL. If you went to your doctor with those kinds of numbers, you’d likely get a gold star and a lollipop. But, if your doctor used ultrasound and CT scans to actually peek inside your body, atherosclerotic plaques would be detected in about 38% of individuals with those kinds of “optimal” numbers.

    Maybe we should define an LDL cholesterol level as optimal only when it no longer causes disease. What a concept! When more than a thousand men and women in their 40s were scanned, having an LDL level under 130 mg/dL left them with atherosclerosis throughout their body, and that’s a cholesterol level at which most lab tests would consider normal.

    In fact, atherosclerotic plaques were not found with LDL levels down around 50 or 60, which just so happens to be the levels most people had “before the introduction of western lifestyles.” Indeed, before we started eating a typical American diet, “the majority of the adult population of the world had LDLs of around 50 mg per deciliter (mg/dL)”—so that’s the true normal. “Present average values…should not be regarded as ‘normal.’” We don’t want to have a normal cholesterol based on a sick society; we want a cholesterol that is normal for the human species, which may be down around 30 to 70 mg/dL or 0.8 to 1.8 mmol/L.

    “Although an LDL level of 50 to 70 mg/dl seems excessively low by modern American standards, it is precisely the normal range for individuals living the lifestyle and eating the diet for which we are genetically adapted.” Over millions of years, “through the evolution of the ancestors of man,” we’ve consumed a diet centered around whole plant foods. No wonder we have a killer epidemic of atherosclerosis, given the LDL level “we were ‘genetically designed for’ is less than half of what is presently considered ‘normal.’”

    In medicine, “there is an inappropriate tendency to accept small changes in reversible risk factors,” but “the goal is not to decrease risk but to prevent atherosclerotic plaques!” So, how low should you go? “In light of the latest evidence from trials exploring the benefits and risks of profound LDLc lowering, the answer to the question ‘How low do you go?’ is, arguably, a straightforward ‘As low as you can!’” “‘Lower’ may indeed be better,” but if you’re going to do it with drugs, then you have to balance that with the risk of the drug’s side effects.

    Why don’t we just drug everyone with statins, by putting them in the water supply, for instance? Although it would be great if everyone’s cholesterol were lower, there are the countervailing risks of the drugs. So, doctors aim to use statin drugs at the highest dose possible, achieving the largest LDL cholesterol reduction possible without increasing risk of the muscle damage the drugs may cause. But when you’re using lifestyle changes to bring down your cholesterol, all you get are the benefits.

    Can we get our LDL low enough with diet alone? Ask some of the country’s top cholesterol experts what they shoot for, “and the odds are good that many will say 70 or so.” So, yes, we should try to avoid the saturated fats and trans fats found in junk foods and meat, and the dietary cholesterol found mostly in eggs, but “it is unlikely anyone can achieve an LDL cholesterol level of 70 mg/dL with a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet alone.” Really? Many doctors have this mistaken impression. An LDL of 70 isn’t only possible on a healthy enough diet, but it may be normal. Those eating strictly plant-based diets can average an LDL that low, as you can see here and at 5:28 in my video.

    No wonder plant-based diets are the only dietary patterns ever proven to reverse coronary heart disease in a majority of patients. And their side effects? You get to feel better, too! Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that more plant-based dietary patterns significantly improve psychological well-being and quality of life, with improvements in depression, anxiety, emotional well-being, physical well-being, and general health.

    For more on cholesterol, see the related posts below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Lose Weight with Cumin and Saffron?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The spice cumin can work as well as orlistat, the “anal leakage” obesity drug.

    In my video Friday Favorites: Benefits of Black Cumin for Weight Loss, I discussed how a total of 17 randomized controlled trials showed that the simple spice could reduce cholesterol and triglyceride levels. And its side effects? A weight-loss effect.

    Saffron is another spice found to be effective for treating a major cause of suffering—depression, in this study, with a side effect of decreased appetite. Indeed, when put to the test in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, saffron was found to lead to significant weight loss, five pounds more than placebo, and an extra inch off the waist in eight weeks. The dose of saffron used in the study was the equivalent of drinking a cup of tea made from a large pinch of saffron threads.

    Suspecting the active ingredient might be crocin, the pigment in saffron that accounts for its crimson color, as shown here and at 0:59 in my video Friday Favorites: Benefits of Cumin and Saffron for Weight Loss, researchers also tried giving people just the purified pigment.

    That also led to weight loss, but it didn’t do as well as the full saffron extract and only beat the placebo by two pounds and half an inch off the waist. The mechanism appeared to be appetite suppression, as the crocin group ended up averaging about 80 fewer calories a day, whereas the full saffron group consumed an average of 170 fewer daily calories, as you can see below and at 1:21 in my video.

    A similar study looked specifically at snacking frequency. The researchers thought that the mood-boosting effects of saffron might cut down on stress-related eating. Indeed, eight weeks of a saffron extract halved snack intake, compared to a placebo. There was also a slight but statistically significant weight loss of about two pounds, as you can see here and at 1:41 in my video, which is pretty remarkable, given that tiny doses were utilized—about 100 milligrams, which is equivalent to about an eighth of a teaspoon of the spice.

    The problem is that saffron is the most expensive spice in the world. It’s composed of delicate threads sticking out of the saffron crocus flower. Each flower produces only a few threads, so about 50,000 flowers are needed to make a single pound of spice. That’s enough flowers to cover a football field. So, that pinch of saffron could cost a dollar a day.

    That’s why, in my 21 Tweaks to accelerate weight loss in How Not to Diet, I include black cumin, instead of saffron, as you can see here and at 2:30 in my video. And, at a quarter teaspoon a day, the daily dose of black cumin would only cost three cents.

    What about just regular cumin? Used in cuisines around the world from Tex-Mex to South Asian, cumin is the second most popular spice on Earth after black pepper. It is one of the oldest cultivated plants with a range of purported medicinal uses, but only recently has it been put to the test for weight loss. Those randomized to a half teaspoon at both lunch and dinner over three months lost about four more pounds and an extra inch off their waist. The spice was found to be comparable to the obesity drug known as orlistat.

    If you remember, orlistat is the “anal leakage” drug sold under the brand names Alli and Xenical. The drug company apparently prefers the term “faecal spotting” to describe the rectal discharge it causes, though. The drug company’s website offered some helpful tips, including: “It’s probably a smart idea to wear dark pants, and bring a change of clothes with you to work.” You know, just in case their drug causes you to poop in your pants at the office.

    I think I’ll stick with the cumin, thank you very much.

    Doctor’s Note

    The video on black cumin that I mentioned is Friday Favorites: Benefits of Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) for Weight Loss.

    My other videos on saffron are in the related posts below.

    For an in-depth dive into weight loss, see my book How Not to Diet. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • A Longer Life on Statins?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What are the pros and cons of relative risk, absolute risk, number needed to treat, and average postponement of death when taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs?

    In response to the charge that describing the benefits of statin drugs only in terms of relative risk reduction is a “statistical deception” created to give the appearance that statins are more effective than they really are, it was pointed out that describing things in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat can depend on the duration of the study.

    For example, let’s say a disease has a 2% chance of killing you every year, but some drug cuts that risk by 50%. That sounds amazing, until you realize that, at the end of a year, your risk will only have fallen from 2% to 1%, so the absolute reduction of risk is only 1%. If a hundred people were treated with the drug, instead of two people dying, one person would die, so a hundred people would have to be treated to save one life, as shown below and at 1:01 in my video How Much Longer Do You Live on Statins?.

    But there’s about a 99% chance that taking the drug all year would have no effect either way. So, to say the drug cuts the risk of dying by 50% seems like an overstatement. But think about it: Benefits accrue over time. If there’s a 2% chance of dying every year, year after year, after a few decades, the majority of those who refused the drug would be dead, whereas the majority who took the drug would be alive. So, yes, perhaps during the first year on the drug, there was only about a 1% chance it would be life-saving, but, eventually, you could end up with a decent chance the drug would save your life after all.

    “This is actually the very reason why the usage of relative risk makes sense…” Absolute risk changes depending on the time frame being discussed, but with relative risk, you know that whatever risk you have, you can cut it in half by taking the drug. On average, statins only cut the risk of a cardiovascular “event” by 25%, but since cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of men and women, if you’re unwilling to change your diet, that’s a powerful argument in favor of taking these kinds of drugs. You can see the same kind of dependency on trial duration, looking at the “postponement of death” by taking a statin. How much longer might you live if you take statins?

    The average postponement of death has some advantages over other statistics because it may offer “a better intuitive understanding among lay persons,” whereas a stat like a number needed to treat has more of a win-or-lose “lottery-like” quality. So, when a statin drug prevents, say, one heart attack out of a hundred people treated over five years, it’s not as though the other 99 completely lost out. Their cholesterol also dropped, and their heart disease progression presumably slowed down, too, just not enough to catch a heart attack within that narrow time frame.

    So, what’s the effect of statins on average survival? According to an early estimate, if you put all the randomized trials together, the average postponement of death was calculated at maybe three or four days. Three or four days? Who would take a drug every day for years just to live a few more days? Well, let’s try to put that into context. Three or four days is comparable to the gains in life expectancy from other medical interventions. For example, it’s nearly identical to what you’d get from “highly effective childhood vaccines.” Because vaccines have been so effective in wiping out infectious diseases, these days, they only add an average of three extra days to a child’s life. But, of course, “those whose deaths are averted gain virtually their whole lifetimes.” That’s why we vaccinate. It just seems like such a small average benefit because it gets distributed over the many millions of kids who get the vaccine. Is that the same with statins?

    An updated estimate was published in 2019, which explained that the prior estimate of three or four days was plagued by “important weaknesses,” and the actual average postponement of death was actually ten days. Headline writers went giddy from these data, but what they didn’t understand was that this was only for the duration of the trial. So, if your life expectancy is only five years, then, yes, statins may increase your lifespan by only ten days, but statins are meant to be taken a lot longer than five years. What you want to know is how much longer you might get to live if you stick with the drugs your whole life.

    In that case, it isn’t an extra ten days, but living up to ten extra years. Taking statins can enable you to live years longer. That’s because, for every millimole per liter you lower your bad LDL cholesterol, you may live three years longer and maybe even six more years, depending on which study you’re reading. A millimole in U.S. units is 39 points. Drop your LDL cholesterol by about 39 points, and you could live years longer. Exercise your whole life, and you may only increase your lifespan by six months, and stopping smoking may net you nine months. But if you drop your LDL cholesterol by about 39 points, you could live years longer. You can accomplish that by taking drugs, or you can achieve that within just two weeks of eating a diet packed with fruits, vegetables, and nuts, as seen here and at 5:30 in my video. 

    Want to know what’s better than drugs? “Something important and fundamental has been lost in the controversy around this broad expansion of statin therapy.…It is imperative that physicians (and drug labels) inform patients that not only their lipid [cholesterol] levels but also their cardiovascular risk can be reduced substantially by adoption of a plant-based dietary pattern, and without drugs. Dietary modifications for cardiovascular risk reduction, including plant-based diets, have been shown to improve not only lipid status, but also obesity, hypertension, systemic inflammation, insulin sensitivity, oxidative stress, endothelial function, thrombosis, and cardiovascular event risk…The importance of this [plant-based] approach is magnified when one considers that, in contrast to statins, the ‘side effects’ of plant-based diets—weight loss, more energy, and improved quality of life—are beneficial.” 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Real Benefits of Statins and Their Side Effects  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    A Mayo Clinic visualization tool can help you decide if cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are right for you.

    “Physicians have a duty to inform their patients about the risks and benefits of the interventions available to them. However, physicians rarely communicate with methods that convey absolute information, such as numbers needed to treat, numbers needed to harm, or prolongation of life, despite patients wanting this information.” That is, for example, how many people are actually helped by a particular drug, how many are actually hurt by it, or how much longer the drug will enable you to live, respectively.

    If doctors inform patients only about the relative risk reduction—for example, telling them a pill will cut their risk of heart attacks by 34 percent—nine out of ten agree to take it. However, give them the same information framed as absolute risk reduction—“1.4% fewer patients had heart attacks”—then those agreeing to take the drug drops to only four out of ten. And, if they use the number needed to treat, only three in ten patients would agree to take the pill. So, if you’re a doctor and you really want your patient to take the drug, which statistic are you going to use?

    The use of relative risk stats to inflate the benefits and absolute risk stats to downplay any side effects has been referred to as “statistical deception.” To see how one might spin a study to accomplish this, let’s look at an example. As you can see below and at 1:49 in my video, The True Benefits vs. Side Effects of Statins, there is a significantly lower risk of the incidence of heart attack over five years in study participants randomized to a placebo compared to those getting the drug. If you wanted statins to sound good, you’d use the relative risk reduction (24 percent lower risk). If you wanted statins to sound bad, you’d use the absolute risk reduction (3 percent fewer heart attacks).

    Then you could flip it for side effects. For example, the researchers found that 0.3 percent (1 out of 290 women in the placebo group) got breast cancer over five years, compared to 4.1 percent (12 out of 286) in the statin group. So, a pro-statin spin might be a 24 percent drop in heart attack risk and only 3.8 percent more breast cancers, whereas an anti-statin spin might be only 3 percent fewer heart attacks compared to a 1,267 percent higher risk of breast cancer. Both portrayals are technically true, but you can see how easily you could manipulate people if you picked and chose how you were presenting the risks and benefits. So, ideally, you’d use both the relative risk reduction stat and the absolute risk reduction stat.

    In terms of benefits, when you compile many statin trials, it looks like the relative risk reduction is 25 percent. So, if your ten-year risk of a heart attack or stroke is 5 percent, then taking a statin could lower that from 5 percent to 3.75 percent, for an absolute risk reduction of 1.25 percent, or a number needed to treat of 80, meaning there’s about a 1 in 80 chance that you’d avoid a heart attack or stroke by taking the drug for the next ten years. As you can see, as your baseline risk gets higher and higher, even though you have that same 25 percent risk reduction, your absolute risk reduction gets bigger and bigger. And, with a 20 percent baseline risk, that means you have a 1 in 20 chance of avoiding a heart attack or stroke over the subsequent decade if you take the drug, as seen below and at 3:31 in my video.

    So, those are the benefits. In terms of risk, that breast cancer finding appears to be a fluke. Put together all the studies, and “there was no association between use of statins and the risk of cancer.” In terms of muscle problems, estimates of risk range from approximately 1 in 1,000 to closer to 1 in 50.

    If all those numbers just blur together, the Mayo Clinic developed a great visualization tool, seen below and at 4:39 in my video.

    For those at average risk, 10 people out of 100 who do not take a statin may have a heart attack over the next ten years. If, however, all 100 people took a statin every day for those ten years, 8 would still have a heart attack, but 2 would be spared, so there’s about a 1 in 50 chance that taking the drug would help avert a heart attack over the next decade. What are the downsides? The cost and inconvenience of taking a pill every day, which can cause some gastrointestinal side effects, muscle aching, and stiffness in about 5 percent, reversible liver inflammation in 2 percent, and more serious damage in perhaps 1 in 20,000 patients.

    Note that the two happy faces in the bottom left row of the YES STATIN chart represent heart attacks averted, not lives saved. The chance that a few years of statins will actually save your life if you have no known heart disease is about 1 in 250.

    If you want a more personalized approach, the Mayo Clinic has an interactive tool that lets you calculate your ten-year risk. You can get there directly by going to bit.ly/statindecision.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are We Being Misled About the Benefits and Risks of Statins?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What is the dirty little secret of drugs for lifestyle diseases?

    Drug companies go out of their way—in direct-to-consumer ads, for example—to “present pharmaceutical drugs as a preferred solution to cholesterol management while downplaying lifestyle change.” You see this echoed in the medical literature, as in this editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Despite decades of exhortation for improvement, the high prevalence of poor lifestyle behaviors leading to elevated cardiovascular disease risk factors persists, with myocardial infarction [heart attack] and stroke remaining the leading causes of death in the United States. Clearly, many more adults could benefit from…statins for primary prevention.” Do we really need to put more people on drugs? A reply was published in the British Medical Journal: “Once again, doctors are implored to ‘get real’—stop hoping that efforts to help their patients and communities adopt healthy lifestyle habits will succeed, and start prescribing more statins. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Note that the author of these comments [the pro-statin editorial] disclosed receipt of funding from 11 drug companies, at least four of which produce or are developing new classes of cholesterol-lowering agents,” which make billions of dollars a year in annual sales.

    Every time the cholesterol guidelines expand the number of people eligible for statins, they’re decried as a “big kiss to big pharma.” This is understandable, since the majority of guideline panel members “had industry ties,” financial conflicts of interest. But these days, all the major statins are off-patent, so there are inexpensive generic versions. For example, the safest, most effective statin is generic Lipitor, sold as atorvastatin for as little as a few dollars a month. So, nowadays, the cholesterol guidelines are not necessarily “part of an industry plot.”

    “The US way of life is the problem, not the guidelines…” The reason so many people are candidates for cholesterol- and blood-pressure-lowering medications is that so many people are taking such terrible care of themselves. The bottom line is that “individuals must take more responsibility for their own health behaviors.” What if you are unwilling or unable to improve your diet and make lifestyle changes to bring down that risk? If your ten-year risk of having a heart attack is 7.5 percent or more and going to stay that way, then the benefits of taking a statin drug likely outweigh the risk. That’s really for you to decide, though. It’s your body, your choice.

    “Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile.” This was recognized by some of medicine’s “historical luminaries such as Hippocrates,” but “only in recent decades has the medical profession begun to shift from a paternalistic ‘doctor knows best’ stance towards one explicitly endorsing patient-centered, evidence-based, shared decision-making.” One of the problems with communicating statin evidence to support this shared decision-making is that most doctors “have a poor understanding of concepts of risk and probability and…increasing exposure to statistics in undergraduate and postgraduate education hasn’t made much difference.” But that understanding is critical for preventive medicine. When doctors offer a cholesterol-lowering drug, “they’re doing something quite different from treating a patient who has sought help because she is sick. They’re not so much doctors as life insurance salespeople, peddling deferred benefits in exchange for a small (but certainly not negligible) ongoing inconvenience and cost. In this new kind of medicine, not understanding risk is the equivalent of not knowing about the circulation of the blood or basic anatomy. So, let’s dive in and see exactly what’s at stake.

    Below and at 3:55 in my video Are Doctors Misleading Patients About Statin Risks and Benefits? is an ad for Lipitor. When drug companies say a statin reduces the risk of a heart attack by 36 percent, that’s the relative risk.

    If you follow the asterisk I’ve circled after the “36%” in the ad, you can see how they came up with that. I’ve included it here and at 3:56 in my video. In a large clinical study, 3 percent of patients not taking the statin had a heart attack within a certain amount of time, compared to 2 percent of patients who did take the drug. So, the drug dropped heart attack risk from 3 percent to 2 percent; that’s about a one-third drop, hence the 36 percent reduced relative risk statistic. But another way to look at going from 3 percent to 2 percent is that the absolute risk only dropped by 1 percent. So, in effect, “your chance to avoid a nonfatal heart attack during the next 2 years is about 97% without treatment, but you can increase it to about 98% by taking a Crestor [a statin] every day.” Another way to say that is that you’d have to treat 100 people with the drug to prevent a single heart attack. That statistic may shock a lot of people.

    If you ask patients what they’ve been led to believe, they don’t think the chance of avoiding a heart attack within a few years on statins is 1 in 100, but 1 in 2. “On average, it was believed that most patients (53.1%) using statins would avoid a heart attack after statin treatment for 5 years.” Most patients, not just 1 percent of patients. And this “disparity between actual and expected effect could be viewed as a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not ethically acceptable for caregivers to deliberately support and maintain illusive treatment expectations by patients.” We cannot mislead people into thinking a drug works better than it really does, but on the other hand, how else are we going to get people to take their pills?

    When asked, people want an absolute risk reduction of at least about 30 percent to take a cholesterol-lowering drug every day, whereas the actual absolute risk reduction is only about 1 percent. So, the dirty little secret is that, if patients knew the truth about how little these drugs actually worked, almost no one would agree to take them. Doctors are either not educating their patients or actively misinforming them. Given that the majority of patients expect a much larger benefit from statins than they’d get, “there is a tension between the patient’s right to know about benefiting from a preventive drug and the likely reduction in uptake [willingness to take the drugs] if they are so informed,” and learn the truth. This sounds terribly paternalistic, but hundreds of thousands of lives may be at stake.

    If patients were fully informed, people would die. About 20 million Americans are on statins. Even if the drugs saved 1 in 100, that could mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost if everyone stopped taking their statins. “It is ironic that informing patients about statins would increase the very outcomes they were designed to prevent.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Should You Take Statins?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How can you calculate your own personal heart disease risk to help you determine if you should start on a cholesterol-lowering statin drug?

    The muscle-related side effects from cholesterol-lowering statins “are often severe enough for patients to stop taking the drug. Of course, these side effects could be coincidental or psychosomatic and have nothing to do with the drug,” given that many clinical trials show such side effects are rare. “It is also possible that previous clinical trials”—funded by the drug companies themselves—“under-recorded the side effects of statins.” The bottom line is that there’s an urgent need to establish the true incidence of statin side effects.

    “What proportion of symptomatic side effects in patients taking statins are genuinely caused by the drug?” That’s the title of a journal article that reports that, even in trials funded by Big Pharma, “only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins,” and those taking statins are significantly more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those randomized to placebo sugar pills. Why? We’re still not exactly sure, but statins may have the double-whammy effect of impairing insulin secretion from the pancreas while also diminishing insulin’s effectiveness by increasing insulin resistance.

    Even short-term use of statins may “approximately double the odds of developing diabetes and diabetic complications.” As shown below and at 1:49 in my video Who Should Take Statins?, fewer people develop diabetes and diabetic complications off statins over a period of about five years than those who do develop diabetes while on statins. “Of more concern, this increased risk persisted for at least 5 years after statin use stopped.”

    “In view of the overwhelming benefit of statins in the reduction of cardiovascular events,” the number one killer of men and women, any increase in risk of diabetes, our seventh leading cause of death, would be outweighed by any cardiovascular benefits, right? That’s a false dichotomy. We don’t have to choose between heart disease and diabetes. We can treat the cause of both with the same diet and lifestyle changes. The diet that can not only stop heart disease, but also reverse it, is the same one that can reverse type 2 diabetes. But what if, for whatever reason, you refuse to change your diet and lifestyle? In that case, what are the risks and benefits of starting statins? Don’t expect to get the full scoop from your doctor, as most seemed clueless about statins’ causal link with diabetes, so only a small fraction even bring it up with their patients.

    “Overall, in patients for whom statin treatment is recommended by current guidelines, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.” But that’s for you to decide. Before we quantify exactly what the risks and benefits are, what exactly are the recommendations of current guidelines?

    How should you decide if a statin is right for you? “If you have a history of heart disease or stroke, taking a statin medication is recommended, without considering your cholesterol levels.” Period. Full stop. No discussion needed. “If you do not yet have any known cardiovascular disease,” then the decision should be based on calculating your own personal risk. If you know your cholesterol and blood pressure numbers, it’s easy to do that online with the American College of Cardiology risk estimator or the Framingham risk profiler.

    My favorite is the American College of Cardiology’s estimator because it gives you your current ten-year risk and also your lifetime risk. So, for a person with a 5.8 percent risk of having a heart attack or stroke within the next decade, if they don’t clean up their act, that lifetime risk jumps to 46 percent, nearly a flip of the coin. If they improved their cholesterol and blood pressure, though, they could reduce that risk by more than tenfold, down to 3.9 percent, as shown below and at 4:11 in my video.

    Since the statin decision is based on your ten-year risk, what do you do with that number? As you can see here and at 4:48 in my video, under the current guidelines, if your ten-year risk is under 5 percent, then, unless there are extenuating circumstances, you should just stick to diet, exercise, and smoking cessation to bring down your numbers. In contrast, if your ten-year risk hits 20 percent, then the recommendation is to add a statin drug on top of making lifestyle modifications. Unless there are risk-enhancing factors, the tendency is to stick with lifestyle changes if risk is less than 7.5 percent and to move towards adding drugs if above 7.5 percent.

    Risk-enhancing factors that your doctor should take into account when helping you make the decision include a bad family history, really high LDL cholesterol, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney or inflammatory conditions, or persistently high triglycerides, C-reactive protein, or LP(a). You can see the whole list here and at 4:54 in my video.

    If you’re still uncertain, guidelines suggest you consider getting a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, but even though the radiation exposure from that test is relatively low these days, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has explicitly concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to conclude that the benefits outweigh the harms.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Why I Don’t Recommend Moringa Leaf Powder  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    “Clearly, in spite of the widely held ‘belief’ in the health benefits of M. oleifera [moringa], the interest of the international biomedical community in the medicinal potential of this plant has been rather tepid.” In fact, it has been “spectacularly hesitant in exploring its nutritional and medicinal potential. This lukewarm attitude is curious, as other ‘superfoods’ such as garlic and green tea have enjoyed better reception,” but those have more scientific support. There are thousands of human studies on garlic and more than ten thousand on green tea, but only a few hundred on moringa.

    The most promising appears to be moringa’s effects on blood sugar control. Below and at 0:55 in my video The Efficacy and Side Effects of Moringa Leaf Powder, you can see the blood sugar spikes after study participants ate about five control cookies each (top line labeled “a”), compared with cookies containing about two teaspoons of moringa leaf powder into the batter (bottom line labeled “b”). Even with the same amount of sugar and carbohydrates as the control cookies, the moringa-containing cookies resulted in a dampening of the surge in blood sugar.

    Researchers found that drinking just one or two cups of moringa leaf tea before a sugar challenge “suppressed the elevation in blood glucose [sugar] in all cases compared to controls that did not receive the tea initially” and instead drank plain water. As you can see here and at 1:16 in my video, drinking moringa tea with sugar dampened blood sugar spikes after 30 minutes of consumption of the same amount of sugar without moringa tea. It’s no wonder that moringa is used in traditional medicine practice for diabetes, but we don’t really know if it can help until we put it to the test. 
    People with diabetes were given about three-quarters of a teaspoon of moringa leaf powder every day for 12 weeks and had significant improvements in measures of inflammation and long-term blood sugar control. The researchers called it a “quasi-experimental study” because there was no control group. They just took measurements before and after the study participants took moringa powder, and we know that simply being in a dietary study can lead some to eat more healthfully, whether consciously or unconsciously, so we don’t know what effect the moringa itself had. However, even in a moringa study with a control group, it’s not clear if the participants were randomly allocated. The researchers didn’t even specify how much moringa people were given—just that they took “two tablets daily with one tablet each after breakfast and dinner,” but what does “one tablet” mean? There was no significant improvement in this study, but perhaps the participants weren’t given enough moringa. Another study used a tablespoon a day and not only saw a significant drop in fasting blood sugars, but a significant drop in LDL cholesterol as well, as seen below and at 2:27 in my video. 

    Two teaspoons of moringa a day didn’t seem to help, but what about a third, making it a whole tablespoon? Apparently not, since, finally, a randomized, placebo-controlled study using one tablespoon of moringa a day failed to show any benefit on blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes.

    So, we’re left with a couple of studies showing potential, but most failing to show benefit. Why not just give moringa a try to see for yourself? That’s a legitimate course of action in the face of conflicting data when we’re talking about safe, simple, side–effect–free solutions, but is moringa safe? Probably not during pregnancy, as “about 80% of women folk” in some areas of the world use it to abort pregnancies, and its effectiveness for that purpose has been confirmed (at least in rats), though breastfeeding women may get a boost of about half a cup in milk production based on six randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

    Just because moringa has “long been used in traditional medicine” does not in any way prove that the plant is safe to consume. A lot of horribly toxic substances, like mercury and lead, have been used in traditional medical systems the world over, but at least “no major harmful effects of M. oleifera [moringa]…have been reported by the scientific community.” More accurately, “no adverse effects were reported in any of the human studies that have been conducted to date.” In other words, no harmful effects had been reported until now. 

    Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) is probably the most dreaded drug side effect, “a rare but potentially fatal condition characterized by…epidermal detachment and mucous membrane erosions.” In other words, your skin may fall off. Fourteen hours after consuming moringa, a man broke out in a rash. The same thing had happened three months earlier, the last time he had eaten moringa, causing him to suffer “extensive mucocutaneous lesions with blister formation over face, mouth, chest, abdomen, and genitalia.” “This case report suggests that consumption of Moringa leaf is better avoided by individuals who are at risk of developing SJS.” Although it can happen to anyone, HIV is a risk factor.

    My take on moringa is that the evidence of benefit isn’t compelling enough to justify shopping online for something special when you can get healthy vegetables in your local market, like broccoli, which has yet to be implicated in any genital blistering. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating to Downregulate a Gene for Metastatic Cancer  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Women with breast cancer should include the “liberal culinary use of cruciferous vegetables.”

    Both the Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study and the Women’s Health Initiative study showed that women randomized to a lower-fat diet enjoyed improved breast cancer survival. However, in the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study, women with breast cancer were also randomized to drop their fat intake down to 15 to 20 percent of calories, yet there was no difference in breast cancer relapse or death after seven years.

    Any time there’s an unexpected result, you must question whether the participants actually followed through with study instructions. For instance, if you randomized people to stop smoking and they ended up with the same lung cancer rates as those in the group who weren’t instructed to quit, one likely explanation is that the group told to stop smoking didn’t actually stop. In the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study, both the dietary intervention group and the control group started out at about 30 percent of calories from fat. Then, the diet group was told to lower their fat intake to 15 to 20 percent of calories. By the end of the study, they had in fact gone from 28.5 percent fat to 28.9 percent fat, as you can see below and at 1:16 in my video The Food That Can Downregulate a Metastatic Cancer Gene. They didn’t even reduce their fat intake. No wonder they didn’t experience any breast cancer benefit. 

    When you put together all the trials on the effect of lower-fat diets on breast cancer survival, even including that flawed study, you see a reduced risk of breast cancer relapse and a reduced risk of death. In conclusion, going on a low-fat diet after a breast cancer diagnosis “can improve breast cancer survival by reducing the risk of recurrence.” We may now know why: by targeting metastasis-initiating cancer cells through the fat receptor CD36.

    We know that the cancer-spreading receptor is upregulated by saturated fat. Is there anything in our diet that can downregulate it? Broccoli.

    Broccoli appears to decrease CD36 expression by as much as 35 percent (in mice). Of all fruits and vegetables, cruciferous vegetables like broccoli were the only ones associated with significantly less total risk of cancer and not just getting cancer in the first place, as you can see here and at 2:19 in my video.

    Those with bladder cancer who eat broccoli also appear to live longer than those who don’t, and those with lung cancer who eat more cruciferous veggies appear to survive longer, too.

    For example, as you can see below and at 2:45 in my video, one year out, about 75 percent of lung cancer patients eating more than one serving of cruciferous vegetables a day were still alive (the top line in red), whereas, by then, most who had been getting less than half a serving a day had already died from their cancer (the bottom line in green).

    Ovarian cancer, too. Intake of cruciferous vegetables “significantly favored survival,” whereas “a survival disadvantage was shown for meats.” Milk also appeared to double the risk of dying. Below and at 3:21 in my video are the survival graphs. Eight years out, about 40 percent of ovarian cancer patients who averaged meat or milk every day were deceased (the boldest line, on the bottom), compared to only about 20 percent who had meat or milk only a few times a week at most (the faintest line, on the top). 

    Now, it could be that the fat and cholesterol in meat increased circulating estrogen levels, or it could be because of meat’s growth hormones or all its carcinogens. And galactose, the sugar naturally found in milk, may be directly toxic to the ovary. Dairy has all its hormones, too. However, the lowering of risk with broccoli and the increasing of risk with meat and dairy are also consistent with the CD36 mechanism of cancer spread.

    Researchers put it to the test in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who were given pulverized broccoli sprouts or a placebo. The average death rate was lower in the broccoli sprout group compared to the placebo group. After a month, 18 percent of the placebo group had died, but none in the broccoli group. By three months, another 25 percent of the placebo group had died, but still not a single death in the broccoli group. And by six months, 43 percent of the remaining patients in the placebo group were deceased, along with the first 25 percent of the broccoli group. Unfortunately, even though the capsules for both groups looked the same, “true blinding was not possible,” and the patients knew which group they were in “because the pulverized broccoli sprouts could be easily distinguished from the methylcellulose [placebo] through their characteristic smell and taste.” So, we can’t discount the placebo effect. What’s more, the study participants weren’t properly randomized “because many of the patients refused to participate unless they were placed into the [active] treatment group.” That’s understandable, but it makes for a less rigorous result. A little broccoli can’t hurt, though, and it may help. It’s the lack of downsides of broccoli consumption that leads to “Advising Women Undergoing Treatment for Breast Cancer” to include the “liberal culinary use of cruciferous vegetables,” for example.

    It’s the same for reducing saturated fat. The title of an editorial in a journal of the National Cancer Institute asked: “Is It Time to Give Breast Cancer Patients a Prescription for a Low-Fat Diet?” “Although counseling women to consume a healthy diet after breast cancer diagnosis is certainly warranted for general health, the existing data still fall a bit short of proving this will help reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality.” But what do we have to lose? After all, it’s still certainly warranted for general health.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Does Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) Help with Weight Loss?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    For three cents a day, black cumin may improve our cholesterol and triglyceride levels, blood pressure, and blood sugar control, as well as accelerate the loss of body fat.

    Black cumin, also known as Nigella sativa or simply “black seed,” is not related to cumin; it’s a member of the buttercup family rather than the carrot family. Black cumin, with its peppery flavor, is a spice commonly used in Indian and Middle Eastern cuisines, but it’s also been prized for its purported medicinal benefits. Described as “a miracle herb,” with mentions going back to the Old Testament, it was found cached in King Tut’s tomb, and it’s been reported that the “Islamic prophet Muhammad once stated that the black seed can heal every disease except death.” Only in the last 50 years or so has it been put to the test, though, culminating in more than a thousand papers published in the medical literature.

    Typical doses used in studies are one or two grams a day, which is only about a quarter teaspoon. This enables researchers to perform randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials by putting the whole-food spice powder into capsules rather than studying a component or extract.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials found that daily black cumin consumption significantly improves cholesterol and triglycerides. Researchers also found that it not only improves blood pressure, but it also improves blood sugar control. Some of the results are quite extraordinary. For example, one study found that postmenopausal women randomized to a gram a day (less than a quarter teaspoon) of black cumin powder reduced their LDL cholesterol by 27 percent within two months, significantly better than placebo. Those are the kinds of results we’d expect from a statin drug, yet it was achieved with just a sprinkle’s worth of a simple spice. Black cumin may also help with menopausal symptoms.

    Now, it doesn’t appear to cure anything—a month after stopping the spice, cholesterol levels began to creep back up, for instance, as you can see below and at 2:00 in my video Benefits of Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) for Weight Loss—but it does appear to be a cheap, safe, effective, and delicious (if you like spice) treatment for some of our deadliest risk factors. And its side effects include loss of appetite and weight loss! 

    The latest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled weight-loss trials found that about a quarter teaspoon of black cumin powder a day does appear to cause weight loss within a span of a few months. If it really can benefit so many facets of health, why don’t we hear more about it? Why wasn’t I taught about it in medical school? Maybe because there’s little profit motive. Black cumin is just a common, natural spice. The daily dose used in most of these studies would cost about three cents a day. Stockholders won’t be thrilled to sell something that can’t be patented and costs only three pennies a day. Black cumin has become a staple in my family’s daily diet. I keep a pepper mill filled with it right on the kitchen table and grind it onto foods just as I would black pepper—easy and delicious.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Treating Hashimoto’s Disease (Hypothyroidism) Naturally with Diet  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What were the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a daily half teaspoon of powdered black cumin in Hashimoto’s patients?

    “Autoimmune thyroiditis, also known as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, is an organ-specific autoimmune disorder,” where our body attacks our own thyroid gland, often leading to hypothyroidism due to destruction and scarring of the gland itself. We know there’s a genetic component, since identical twins are more likely to share the disease than fraternal twins. “However, even with identical twins, the concordance rate was only about 50%, emphasizing that important factors such as the environment play a role in disease pathogenesis.” Indeed, even if your identical twin, who has basically your exact same DNA, has the disease, there’s only like a flip of a coin’s chance you’ll get it. Genes load the gun, but the environment may pull the trigger.

    More than 90 synthetic chemicals were noted to show disruption of hormonal balance or thyroid dysfunction.” However, only a few such ‘pollutants show evidence that they contribute to autoimmune thyroid disease.” These include polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Smokers get a lot of them from cigarettes, but in nonsmokers, exposure comes almost entirely from food, as you can see below and at 1:18 in my video Diet for Hypothyroidism: A Natural Treatment for Hashimoto’s Disease. 

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are primarily formed when muscle meats, such as beef, pork, fish, or chicken, are cooked using high-temperature methods, such as grilling. PBBs, polybrominated biphenols, are a type of flame-retardant chemical no longer manufactured in the United States, but are still found in the aquatic food chain. PCBs, polychlorinated biphenols, are used in a number of industrial processes and end up in people’s bodies, again, largely through the consumption of fish, but also eggs and other meats, as seen here and at 1:41 in my video.

    So, one might suspect those eating plant-based diets would have lower rates of hypothyroidism, and, indeed, despite their lower iodine intake, vegan diets tended to be protective. But they’ve never been put to the test in an interventional trial. A modification of the Paleolithic diet has been tried in Hashimoto’s patients, but it didn’t appear to improve thyroid function. What did, though, is Nigella Sativa. That name should sound familiar to anyone who’s read my book How Not to Diet or watched my live Evidence-Based Weight Loss presentation. Nigella Sativa is the scientific name for black cumin, which is just a simple spice that’s also used for a variety of medicinal purposes.

    In one study, Hashimoto’s patients received a half teaspoon of powdered black cumin every day for eight weeks in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Not only was there a significant reduction in body weight, which is why I profiled it in my book, but the black cumin also significantly reduced the thyroid-stimulating hormone, a sign that thyroid function was improving. It even lowered the level of autoimmune anti-thyroid antibodies, as well as increased blood levels of thyroid hormone T3 in these Hashimoto’s patients. In addition, there was a significant drop in Interleukin 23, a proinflammatory cell signal thought to help promote the autoimmune inflammation of the thyroid, which “further confirms the anti-inflammatory nature of the plant.” And what were the side effects? There was a 17 percent drop in “bad” LDL cholesterol, as shown below and at 3:19 in my video.

    Given the fact that patients with Hashimoto’s may be at particularly high risk of developing heart disease, this is exactly the kind of side effects we’d want. “Considering these health-promoting effects of N. Sativa [black cumin], it can be considered as a therapeutic approach in the management of Hashimoto-related metabolic abnormalities.”

    A similar trial failed to find a benefit, though. Same dose, same time frame, but no significant changes in thyroid function. In contrast with the previous study, though, the study participants were not all Hashimoto’s patients, but rather hypothyroid for any reason, and that may have diluted the results. And it’s possible that telling patients to take the black cumin doses with their thyroid hormone replacement therapy may have interfered with its absorption, which is an issue similar to other foods and drugs, and why patients are normally told to take it on an empty stomach. Since there are no downsides—it’s just a simple spice—I figure, why not give it a try? The worst that can happen is you’ll have tastier food.

    Doctor’s Note:

    I get a lot of questions about thyroid function, and I am glad to have been able to do this series. If you missed any of the other videos, see the related posts below.

    For more on black cumin, see my book How Not to Diet and my presentation Evidence-Based Weight Loss. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Statins and Muscle Pain Side Effects  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why is the incidence of side effects from statins so low in clinical trials while appearing to be so high in the real world?

    “There is now overwhelming evidence to support reducing LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol)”—so-called bad cholesterol—to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD),” the number one killer of men and women. So, why is adherence to cholesterol-lowering statin drug therapy such “a major challenge worldwide”? Researchers found “that the majority of studies reported that at least 40%, and as much as 80%, of patients did not comply fully with statin treatment recommendations.” Three-quarters of patients may flat out stop taking them, and almost 90 percent may discontinue treatment altogether.

    When asked why they stopped taking the pills, most “former statin users or discontinuers…cited muscle pain, a side effect, as the primary reason…” “SAMSs”—statin-associated muscle symptoms—“are by far the most prevalent and important adverse event, with up to 72% of all statin adverse events being muscle-related.” Taking coenzyme Q10 supplements as a treatment for statin-associated muscle symptoms was a good idea in theory, but they don’t appear to help. Normally, side-effect symptoms go away when you stop the drug but can sometimes linger for a year or more. There is “growing evidence that statin intolerance is predominantly psychosocial, not pharmacological.” Really? It may be mostly just in people’s heads?

    “Statins have developed a bad reputation with the public, a phenomenon driven largely by proliferation on the Internet of bizarre and unscientific but seemingly persuasive criticism of these drugs.” “Does Googling lead to statin intolerance?” But people have stopped taking statins for decades before there even was an Internet. What kinds of data have doctors suggested that patients are falsely “misattribut[ing] normal aches and pains to be statin side effects”?

    Well, if you take people who claim to have statin-related muscle pain and randomize them back and forth between statins and an identical-looking placebo in three-week blocks, they can’t tell whether they’re getting the real drug or the sugar pill. The problem with that study, though, is that it may take months not only to develop statin-induced muscle pain, but months before it goes away, so no wonder three weeks on and three weeks off may not be long enough for the participants to discern which is which.

    However, these data are more convincing: Ten thousand people were randomized to a statin or a sugar pill for a few years, but so many more people were dying in the sugar pill group that the study had to be stopped prematurely. So then everyone was offered the statin, and the researchers noted that there was “no excess of reports of muscle-related AEs” (adverse effects) among patients assigned to the statin over those assigned to the placebo. But when the placebo phase was over and the people knew they were on a statin, they went on to report more muscle side effects than those who knew they weren’t taking the statin. “These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect,” which is akin to the opposite of the placebo effect.

    Placebo effects are positive consequences falsely attributed to a treatment, whereas nocebo effects are negative consequences falsely attributed to a treatment, as was evidently seen here. There was an excess rate of muscle-related adverse effects reported only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used, and not when its use was concealed. The researchers hope “these results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter…exaggerated claims about statin-related side effects.”

    These are the kinds of results from “placebo-controlled randomised trials [that] have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution.)” Now, “only a few patients will believe that their SAMS are of psychogenic origin” and just in their head, but their denial may have “deadly consequences.” Indeed, “discontinuing statin treatment may be a life-threatening mistake.”

    Below and at 4:46 in my video How Common Are Muscle Side Effects from Statins?, you can see the mortality of those who stopped their statins after having a possible adverse reaction compared to those who stuck with them. This translates into about “1 excess death for every 83 patients who discontinued treatment” within a four-year period. So, when there are media reports about statin side effects and people stop taking them, this could “result in thousands of fatal and disabling heart attacks and strokes, which would otherwise have been avoided. Seldom in the history of modern therapeutics have the substantial proven benefits of a treatment been compromised to such an extent by serious misrepresentations of the evidence for its safety.” But is it a misrepresentation to suggest “that statin therapy causes side-effects in up to one fifth of patients”? That is what is seen in clinical practice; between 10 to 25 percent of patients placed on statins complain of muscle problems. However, because we don’t see anywhere near those kinds of numbers in controlled trials, patients are accused of being confused. Why is the incidence of side effects from statins so low in clinical trials while appearing to be so high in the real world? 

    Take this meta-analysis of clinical trials, for example: It found muscle problems not in 1 in 5 patients, but only 1 in 2,000. Should everyone over a certain age be on statins? Not surprisingly, every one of those trials was funded by statin manufacturers themselves. So, for example, “how could the statin RCTs [randomized controlled trials] miss detecting mild statin-related muscle adverse side effects such as myalgia [muscle pain]? By not asking. A review of 44 statin RCTs reveals that only 1 directly asked about muscle-related adverse effects.” So, are the vast majority of side effects just being missed in all these trials, or are the vast majority of side effects seen in clinical practice just a figment of patients’ imagination? The bottom line is we don’t know, but there is certainly an urgent need to figure it out.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Treat Type 1 Diabetes with a Plant-Based Diet?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Treat Type 1 Diabetes with a Plant-Based Diet?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Is it possible to reverse type 1 diabetes if caught early enough?

    The International Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention has already had its share of miraculous disease reversals with a plant-based diet. For instance, one patient began following a whole food, plant-based diet after having two heart attacks in two months. Within months, he experienced no more chest pain, controlled his cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugars, and also lost 50 pounds as a nice bonus. Yet, the numbers “do not capture the patient’s transformation from feeling like a ‘dead man walking’ to being in command of his health with a new future and life.” 

    I’ve previously discussed cases of reversing the autoimmune inflammatory disease psoriasis and also talked about lupus nephritis (kidney inflammation). What about type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease we didn’t think we could do anything about? In contrast to type 2 diabetes, which is a lifestyle disease that can be prevented and reversed with a healthy enough diet and lifestyle, type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which our body attacks our pancreas, killing off our insulin-producing cells and condemning us to a life of insulin injections—unless, perhaps, it’s caught early enough. If a healthy enough diet is started early enough, might we be able to reverse the course of type 1 diabetes by blunting that autoimmune inflammation?

    As I discuss in my video Type 1 Diabetes Treatment: A Plant-Based Diet, we know that patients with type 1 diabetes “may be able to reduce insulin requirements and achieve better glycemic [blood sugar] control” with healthier diets. For example, children and teens were randomized to a nutritional intervention in which they increased the whole plant food density of their diet—meaning they ate more whole grains, whole fruits, vegetables, legumes (beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils), nuts, and seeds. Researchers found that the more whole plant foods, the better the blood sugar control.

    The fact that more whole fruits were associated “with better glycemic [blood sugar] control has important clinical implications for nutrition education” in those with type 1 diabetes. We should be “educating them on the benefits of fruit intake, and allaying erroneous concerns that fruit may adversely affect blood sugar.”

    The case series in the IJDRP, however, went beyond proposing better control of just their high blood sugars, the symptom of diabetes, but better control of the disease itself, suggesting the anti-inflammatory effects of whole healthy plant foods “may slow or prevent further destruction of the beta cells”—the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas—“if dietary intervention is initiated early enough.” Where did this concept come from?

    A young patient. Immediately following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age three, a patient began a vegetable-rich diet and, three years later, “has not yet required insulin therapy…and has experienced a steady decline in autoantibody levels,” which are markers of insulin cell destruction. Another child, who also started eating a healthier diet, but not until several months after diagnosis, maintains a low dose of insulin with good control. And, even if their insulin-producing cells have been utterly destroyed, individuals with type 1 diabetes can still enjoy “dramatically reduced insulin requirements,” reduced inflammation, and reduced cardiovascular risk, which is their number one cause of death over the age of 30. People with type 1 diabetes have 11 to 14 times the risk of death from cardiovascular disease compared to the general population, and it’s already the top killer among the public, so it’s closer to 11 to 14 times more important for those with type 1 diabetes to be on the only diet and lifestyle program ever proven to reverse heart disease in the majority of patients—one centered around whole plant foods. The fact it may also help control the disease itself is just sugar-free icing on the cake.

    All this exciting new research was presented in the first issue of The International Journal of Disease Reversal and Prevention. As a bonus, there’s a companion publication called the Disease Reversal and Prevention Digest. These are for the lay public and are developed with the belief I wholeheartedly share that “everyone has a right to understand the science that could impact their health.” You can go behind the scenes and hear directly from the author of the lupus series, read interviews from luminaries like Dean Ornish, see practical tips from dietitians on making the transition towards a healthier diet, and enjoy recipes. 

    The second issue includes more practical tips, such as how to eat plant-based on a budget, and gives updates on what Dr. Klaper is doing to educate medical students, what Audrey Sanchez from Balanced is doing to help change school lunches, and how Dr. Ostfeld got healthy foods served in a hospital. (What a concept!) And what magazine would be complete without an article to improve your sex life? 

    The journal is free, downloadable at IJDRP.org, and its companion digest, available at diseasereversaldigest.com, carries a subscription fee. I am a proud subscriber.

    Want to learn more about preventing type 1 diabetes in the first place? See the related posts below.

    [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