ReportWire

Tag: mortality

  • Ephedra-Like Weight Loss Minus the Risks  | NutritionFacts.org

    Ephedra-Like Weight Loss Minus the Risks  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The diving reflex shows that it’s possible to have selective adrenal hormone effects.

    Thermogenic drugs like DNP can cause people to overheat to death; they can increase resting metabolic rates by 300 percent or more. A more physiological spread would range about ten times less, from a 30 percent slower metabolism in people with an underactive thyroid to a 30 percent higher metabolism when the part of our nervous system that controls our fight-or-flight response is activated. In response to a fright or acute stress, special nerves release a chemical called noradrenaline to ready us for confrontation. We experience this by our skin getting paler, cold, and clammy, as blood is diverted to our more vital organs. Our mouth can get dry as our digestive system is put on hold, and our heart starts to beat faster. What we don’t feel is the extra fat being burned to liberate energy for the fight.

    That’s why people started taking ephedra for weight loss—“to stimulate the release of noradrenaline from nerve endings.”

    Ephedra is an evergreen shrub. It’s been used in China for thousands of years to treat asthma because it causes that same release of noradrenaline that offers relief to people with asthma by dilating their airways. In the United States, it was appropriated for use as a metabolic stimulant, shown to result in about 2 pounds (0.9 kg) of weight loss a month in 19 placebo-controlled trials. By the late 1990s, millions of Americans were taking it. The problem is that it also had all the other noradrenaline effects, like increasing heart rate and blood pressure. So, chronic use resulted in “stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, and death.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned of its risks in 1994, but ephedra wasn’t banned until a decade later after a 23-year-old Major League Baseball pitcher dropped dead. His “autopsy report revealed evidence of ephedra, which the medical examiner said contributed to his death.”

    In the current Wild West of dietary supplement regulation, not only can a supplement be “marketed without any safety data” at all, but the manufacturer is under no obligation to disclose adverse effects that may arise. No surprise, then, that online vendors assured absolute safety: “No negative side effects to date.” “No adverse side-effects, no nervous jitters or underlying anxiety, no moodiness…” “100% safe for long-term use.” “It will not interact with medications and has no harmful side effects.” The president of Metabolife International, a leading seller of ephedra, assured the FDA that the company had never received a single “notice from a consumer that any serious adverse health event has occurred…” In reality, it had received about 13,000 health complaints, including reports of serious injuries, hospitalizations, and even deaths. 

    If only there were a way to get the good without the bad. As I discuss in my video How to Get the Weight Loss Benefits of Ephedra Without the Risks, there is. But to understand it, you first have to grasp a remarkable biological phenomenon known as the diving reflex.

    Imagine walking across a frozen lake and suddenly falling through the ice, plunging into the freezing depths. It’s hard to think of a greater, instantaneous fight-or-flight shock than that. Indeed, noradrenaline would be released, causing the blood vessels in your arms and legs to constrict to bring blood back to your core. You can imagine how fast your heart might start racing, but that would be counterproductive because you’d use up your oxygen faster. Remarkably, what happens instead is your heart rate slows down. That’s the diving reflex, first described in the 1700s. Air-breathing animals are born with this automatic safety feature to help keep us from drowning.

    In medicine, we can exploit this physiological quirk with what’s called a “cold face test.” To determine if a comatose patient has intact neural pathways, you can apply cold compresses to their face to see if their heart immediately starts slowing down. Or, more dramatically, it can be used to treat people who flip into an abnormally rapid heartbeat. Remember that episode of ER where Carter dunked a patient’s face into a tray of ice water? (That show aired on TV when I was in medical school, and a group of us would gather around and count how many times they violated “universal precautions.”)

    What does this have to do with weight loss? The problem with noradrenaline-releasing drugs like ephedra is the accompanying rise in heart rate and blood pressure. What the diving reflex shows is that it’s possible to experience selective noradrenaline effects, raising the possibility that there may be a way to get the metabolic boost without the risk of stroking out. Unbelievably, this intricate physiological feat may be accomplished by the simplest of acts: Instead of drowning in water, simply drink it. Really? Yes, you can boost your metabolism by drinking water. Buckle your safety belts because you are in for a wild ride—one that continues next.

    This is the first in a four-part video series. Stay tuned for:

    You may also be interested in Friday Favorites: The Best Diet for Weight Loss and Disease Prevention.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Is Creatine Safe and Efficient for High Homocysteine?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Is Creatine Safe and Efficient for High Homocysteine?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Those on a healthy plant-based diet who have elevated homocysteine levels despite taking sufficient vitamin B12 may want to consider taking a gram a day of contaminant-free creatine.

    The average blood levels of homocysteine in men are about 1.5 points higher than in women, which may be one of the reasons men tend to be at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Women don’t need to make as much creatine as men since they tend to have less muscle mass. That may help explain “the ‘gender gap’ in homocysteine levels.” If you remember from my previous video and as seen below and at 0:36 in The Efficacy and Safety of Creatine for High Homocysteine, in the process of making creatine, our body produces homocysteine as a by-product. So, for people with stubbornly high homocysteine levels that don’t respond sufficiently to B vitamins, “creatine supplementation may represent a practical strategy for decreasing plasma homocysteine levels”—that is, lowering the level of homocysteine into the normal range. 

    It seemed to work in rats. What about humans? Well, it worked in one study, but it didn’t seem to work in another. It didn’t work in yet another either. And, in another study, homocysteine levels were even driven up. So, this suggestion that taking creatine supplements would lower homocysteine was called into question. 

    However, all those studies were done with non-vegetarians, so they were already effectively supplementing with creatine every day in the form of muscle meat. In that way, researchers were testing higher versus lower supplementation. Those eating strictly plant-based make all their creatine from scratch, so they may be more sensitive to an added creatine source. There weren’t any studies on creatine supplementation in vegans to lower homocysteine until now. 

    Researchers took vegans who were not supplementing their diets with vitamin B12, so some of their homocysteine levels were through the roof. A few were as high as 50 when the ideal is more like under 10, for example. After taking some creatine for a few weeks, all of their homocysteine levels normalized. You can see the before and after in the graph below and at 2:04 in my video. 

    Now, they didn’t normalize, as that would have been a level under 10, but that’s presumably because they weren’t taking any B12. Give vegetarians and vegans vitamin B12 supplements, either dosing daily or once a week, and their levels normalize in a matter of months, as you can see below and at 2:20 in my video. However, the fact that you could bring down homocysteine levels with creatine alone, even without any B12, suggests—to me at least—that if your homocysteine is elevated (above 10) on a plant-based diet despite taking B12 supplements and eating greens and beans to get enough folate, it might be worth experimenting with supplementing with a gram of creatine a day for a few weeks to see if your homocysteine comes down. 

    Why just a single gram? That’s approximately how much non-vegetarians do not have to make themselves; it’s the amount that erased vegetarian discrepancies in blood and muscle, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:01 in my video, and how much has been shown to be safe in the longer term. 

    How safe is it? We can take a bit of comfort in the fact that it’s “one of the world’s best-selling dietary supplements,” with literally billions of servings taken, and the only consistently reported side effect has been weight gain, presumed to be from water retention. The only serious side effects appear to be among those with pre-existing kidney diseases taking whopping doses closer to 20 grams a day. A concern was raised that creatine could potentially form a carcinogen known as N-nitrososarcosine when it hit the acid bath of the stomach, but, when it actually put to the test, researchers found this does not appear to be a problem. 

    Bottom line: Doses of supplemental creatine up to 3 grams a day are “unlikely to pose any risk,” provided “high purity creatine” is used. However, as we all know, dietary supplements in the United States “are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain contaminants or variable quantities of the desired supplement” and may not even contain what’s on the label. We’re talking about “contaminants…that may be generated during the industrial production.” When researchers looked at 33 samples of creatine supplements made in the United States and Europe, they found that they all actually contained creatine, which is nice, but about half exceeded the maximum level recommended by food safety authorities for at least one contaminant. The researchers recommend that “consumers give their preference to products obtained by producers that ensure the highest quality control and certify the maximum amount of contaminants present in their products.” Easier said than done.

    Because of the potential risks, I don’t think people should take creatine supplements willy-nilly, but the potential benefits may exceed the potential risks if, again, you’re on a healthy plant-based diet and taking B12, and your homocysteine levels are still not under 10. In that case, I would suggest giving a gram a day of creatine a trying to see if it brings it down.

    The reason I did this whole video series goes back to “Risks of Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke in Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters, and Vegetarians Over 18 Years of Follow-Up: Results from the Prospective EPIC-Oxford Study,” which found that, although the overall cardiovascular risk is lower in vegetarians and vegans combined, they appeared to be at slightly higher stroke risk, as you can see in the graph below and at 5:06 in my video. 

    I went through a list of potential causes, as you can see at 5:11 and below, and arrived at elevated homocysteine. What’s the solution? A regular, reliable source of vitamin B12. The cheapest, easiest method that I personally use is one 2,500 mcg chewable tablet of cyanocobalamin, the most stable source of B12, once a week. (In fact, you can just use 2,000 mcg once a week.) And, again, a backup plan for those doing that but still having elevated homocysteine is an empirical trial of a single gram a day of creatine supplementation, which was shown to improve at least capillary blood flow in those who started out with high homocysteine levels. 

    In sum, plant-based diets appear to “markedly reduce risk” for multiple leading killer diseases—heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and many common types of cancer—but “an increased risk for stroke may represent an ‘Achilles heel.’ Nonetheless, vegans have the potential to achieve a truly exceptional ‘healthspan’ if they face this problem forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical measures that promote cerebrovascular [brain artery] health…Nonetheless, these considerations do not justify nutritional nihilism. On balance, low-fat vegan diets offer such versatile protection for long-term health that they remain highly recommendable. Most likely, the optimal strategy is to adopt such a [plant-based] diet, along with additional measures—appropriate food choices, exercising training, judicious supplementation [of vitamin B12]—that will mitigate the associated stroke risk.” And try not to huff whipped cream charging canister gas. Leave the “whippets” alone.

    This concludes my series on stroke risk. If you missed any of the other videos, see the related posts below.

    I’m assuming that nearly everyone taking their B12 will have normal homocysteine levels, so these last two videos are just for the rare person who doesn’t. However, those on a healthy plant-based diet with elevated homocysteine levels despite taking sufficient vitamin B12 should consider taking a gram a day of contaminant-free creatine, which should be about a quarter teaspoon.

    Where do you get contaminant-free creatine? Since regulations are so lax, you can’t rely on supplement manufacturers no matter what they say, so I would recommend going directly to the chemical suppliers that sell it to laboratories and guarantee a certain purity. Here are some examples (in alphabetical order) of some of the largest companies where you can get unadulterated creatine: Alfa Aesar, Fisher Scientific, Sigma-Aldrich, and TCI America.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Creatinine to Normalize Homocysteine in Vegetarians?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Creatinine to Normalize Homocysteine in Vegetarians?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What are the consequences of having to make your creatine rather than relying on dietary sources?

    “Almost universally, research findings show a poor vitamin B12 status among vegetarians” because they aren’t taking vitamin B12 supplements like they should, which results in an elevation in homocysteine levels. This may explain why vegetarians were recently found to have higher rates of stroke, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:30 in my video Should Vegetarians Take Creatine to Normalize Homocysteine?.

    Of course, plant-based eating is just one of many ways to become deficient in vitamin B12. Even nitrous oxide (laughing gas) can do it in as little as two days, thanks to the recreational use of whipped cream canister gas. (I just learned about “whippits”!)

    When researchers gave vegetarians and vegans as little as 50 daily micrograms of cyanocobalamin, which is the recommended and most stable form of vitamin B12 supplement, their homocysteine levels, which had started up in the elevated zone, normalized right down into the safe zone under 10 mmol/L within only one to two months. Just 2,000 micrograms of cyanocobalamin once a week gave the same beautiful result, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:15 in my video. 

    Not always, though. In another study, even 500 daily micrograms, taken as either a sublingual chewable or swallowable regular B12 supplement, didn’t normalize homocysteine within a month, as shown below and at 1:24. Now, presumably, if the participants had kept it up, their levels would have continued to fall as they did in the 50-daily-microgram study.

    If you’re plant-based and have been taking your B12, but your homocysteine level is still too high (above 10 mmol/L), is there anything else you can do? Well, inadequate folate intake can also increase homocysteine, but folate comes from the same root as foliage. It’s found in beans and leaves, concentrated in greens. If you’re eating beans and greens, taking your B12, and your homocysteine level is still too high, I’d suggest taking 1 gram of creatine a day as an experiment, then getting your homocysteine levels retested in a month to see if it helped.

    Creatine is a compound formed naturally in the human body that is primarily involved with energy production in our muscles and brain. It’s also formed naturally in the bodies of many other animals. So, when we eat their muscles, we can also take in some of the creatine in their bodies through our diet. We only need about 2 grams of creatine a day, so those who eat meat may get about 1 gram from their diet and their body makes the rest from scratch. There are rare birth defects where you’re born without the ability to make it, in which case, you have to get it from your diet. Otherwise, our bodies can make as much as we need to maintain normal concentrations in our muscles.

    As you can see in the graph below and at 2:54 in my video, when you cut out meat, the amount of creatine floating around in your bloodstream goes down.

    However, the amount in your brain remains the same, as shown in the graph below and at 2:57. This shows that dietary creatinine doesn’t influence the levels of brain creatine, because our brain makes all the creatine we need. The level in vegetarian muscles is lower, but that doesn’t seem to affect exercise performance, as both vegetarians and meat eaters respond to creatine supplementation with similar increases in muscle power output. If vegetarian muscle creatine were insufficient, then presumably an even bigger boost would be seen. So, all that seems to happen when we eat meat is that our body doesn’t have to make as much. What does all of this have to do with homocysteine?

    As you can see below and at 3:36 in my video, in the process of making creatine, our body produces homocysteine as a waste product. Now, normally this isn’t a problem because our body has two ways to detoxify it: by using vitamin B6 or a combination of vitamin B12 and folate. Vitamin B6 is found in both plant and animal foods, and it’s rare to be deficient. But, vitamin B12 is mainly found in animal foods, so its level can be too low in those eating plant-based who don’t also supplement or eat B12-fortified foods. And, as I mentioned, folate is concentrated in plant foods, so it can be low in those who don’t regularly eat greens, beans, or folic-acid-fortified grains. Without that escape valve, homocysteine levels can get too high. However, if you’re eating a healthy plant-based diet and taking your B12 supplement, your homocysteine levels should be fine. 

    What if they aren’t? We might predict that if we started taking creatine supplements, our level of homocysteine might go down since we won’t have to make so much of it from scratch, producing homocysteine as a by-product, but you don’t know until you put it to the test. I’ll cover that next. 

    This is the eleventh in a 12-video series exploring stroke risk. If you missed the last two, see Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Vitamin B12 and Homocysteine? and How to Test for Functional Vitamin B12 Deficiency.

    This whole creatine angle was new to me. I had long worried about homocysteine levels being too high among those getting inadequate B12 intake, but I didn’t realize there was another potential mechanism for bringing it down other than with vitamin B. Let’s see if it pans out in my final video of the series: The Efficacy and Safety of Creatine for High Homocysteine. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Testing for Vitamin B12 Deficiency  | NutritionFacts.org

    Testing for Vitamin B12 Deficiency  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Many doctors mistakenly rely on serum B12 levels in the blood to test for vitamin B12 deficiency.

    There were two cases of young, strictly vegetarian individuals with no known vascular risk factors. One suffered a stroke, and the other had multiple strokes. Why? Most probably because they weren’t taking vitamin B12 supplements, which leads to high homocysteine levels, which can attack our arteries.

    So, those eating plant-based who fail to supplement with B12 may increase their risk of both heart disease and stroke. However, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:47 in my video How to Test for Functional Vitamin B12 Deficiency, vegetarians have so many heart disease risk factor benefits that they are still at lower risk overall, but this may help explain why vegetarians were found to have more stroke. This disparity would presumably disappear with adequate B12 supplementation, and the benefit of lower heart disease risk would grow even larger.

    Compared with non-vegetarians, vegetarians enjoy myriad other advantages, such as better cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugars, and obesity rates. But, what about that stroke study? Even among studies that have shown benefits, “the effect was not as pronounced as expected, which may be a result of poor vitamin B12 status due to a vegetarian diet. Vitamin B12 deficiency may negate the cardiovascular disease prevention benefits of vegetarian diets. To further reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, vegetarians should be advised to use vitamin B12 supplements.” 

    How can you determine your B12 status? By the time you’re symptomatic with B12 deficiency, it’s too late. And, initially, the symptoms can be so subtle that you might even miss them. What’s more, you develop metabolic vitamin B12 deficiency well before you develop a clinical deficiency, so there’s “a missed opportunity to prevent dementia and stroke” when you have enough B12 to avoid deficiency symptoms, but not enough to keep your homocysteine in check. “Underdiagnosis of this condition results largely from a failure to understand that a normal serum [blood level] B12 may not reflect an adequate functional B12 status.” The levels of B12 in our blood do not always represent the levels of B12 in our cells. We can have severe functional deficiency of B12 even though our blood levels are normal or even high.

    “Most physicians tend to assume that if the serum B12 is ‘normal,’ there is no problem,” but, within the lower range of normal, 30 percent of patients could have metabolic B12 deficiency, with high homocysteine levels. 

    Directly measuring levels of methylmalonic acid (MMA) or homocysteine is a “more accurate reflection of vitamin B12 functional statuses.” Methylmalonic acid can be checked with a simple urine test; you’re looking for less than a value of 4 micrograms per milligram of creatinine. “Elevated MMA is a specific marker of vitamin B12 deficiency while Hcy [homocysteine] rises in both vitamin B12 and folate deficiencies.” So, “metabolic B12 deficiency is strictly defined by elevation of MMA levels or by elevation of Hcy in folate-replete individuals,” that is, in those getting enough folate. Even without eating beans and greens, which are packed with folate, folic acid is added to the flour supply by law, so, these days, high homocysteine levels may be mostly a B12 problem. Ideally, you’re looking for a homocysteine level in your blood down in the single digits.

    Measured this way, “the prevalence of subclinical functional vitamin B12 deficiency is dramatically higher than previously assumed…” We’re talking about 10 to 40 percent of the general population, more than 40 percent of vegetarians, and the majority of vegans who aren’t scrupulous about getting their B12. Some suggest that those on plant-based diets should check their vitamin B12 status every year, but you shouldn’t need to if you’re adequately supplementing. 

    There are rare cases of vitamin B12 deficiency that can’t be picked up on any test, so it’s better to just make sure you’re getting enough.

    If you do get your homocysteine tested and it’s still too high, up in the double digits despite B12 supplementation and eating beans and greens, I have a suggestion for you in the final videos of this series, which we’ll turn to next with: Should Vegetarians Take Creatine to Normalize Homocysteine? and The Efficacy and Safety of Creatine for High Homocysteine.

    How did we end up here? To watch the full series if you haven’t yet, check the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Stay tuned for: 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Animal Protein and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Animal Protein and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Might animal protein-induced increases in the cancer-promoting growth hormone IGF-1 help promote brain artery integrity? 

    In 2014, a study on stroke risk and dietary protein found that greater intake was associated with lower stroke risk and, further, that the animal protein appeared particularly protective. Might that help explain why, as shown in the graph below and at 0:31 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Animal Protein?, vegetarians were recently found to have a higher stroke rate than meat eaters?

    Animal protein consumption increases the levels of a cancer-promoting growth hormone in the body known as IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1, which “accelerates the progression of precancerous changes to invasive lesions.” High blood concentrations are associated with increased risks of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, potentially explaining the association between dairy milk intake and prostate cancer risk, for example. However, there are also IGF-1 receptors on blood vessels, so perhaps IGF-1 promotes cancer and brain artery integrity.

    People who have strokes appear to have lower blood levels of IGF-1, but it could just be a consequence of the stroke rather than the cause. There weren’t any prospective studies over time until 2017 when researchers found that, indeed, higher IGF-1 levels were linked to a lower risk of stroke—but is it cause and effect? In mice, the answer seems to be yes, and in a petri dish, IGF-1 appears to boost the production of elastin, a stretchy protein that helps keep our arteries elastic. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:41 in my video, higher IGF-1 levels are associated with less artery stiffness, but people with acromegaly, like Andre the Giant, those with excessive levels of growth hormones like IGF-1, do not appear to have lower stroke rates, and a more recent study of dietary protein intake and risk of stroke that looked at a dozen studies of more than half a million people (compared to only seven studies with a quarter million in the previous analysis), found no association between dietary protein intake and the risk of stroke. If anything, dietary plant protein intake may decrease the risk of stroke. 

    However, those with high blood pressure who have low IGF-1 levels do appear to be at increased risk of developing atherosclerosis, which is the thickening of the artery walls leading up to the brain, but no such association was found in people with normal blood pressure. So, there may be “a cautionary lesson for vegans” here. Yes, a whole food, plant-based diet “can down-regulate IGF-1 activity” and may slow the human aging process, not to mention reduce the risk of some of the common cancers that plague the Western world. But, “perhaps the ‘take-home’ lesson should be that people who undertake to down-regulate IGF-1 activity [by cutting down on animal protein intake] as a pro-longevity measure should take particular care to control their blood pressure and preserve their cerebrovascular health [the health of the arteries in their brain] – in particular, they should keep salt intake relatively low while insuring an ample intake of potassium” to keep their blood pressures down. So, that means avoiding processed foods and avoiding added salt, and, in terms of potassium-rich foods, eating beans, sweet potatoes, and dark-green leafy vegetables. 

    Might this explain the higher stroke risk found among vegetarians? No—because dairy and egg whites are animal proteins, too. Only vegans have lower IGF-1 levels in both men and women, so low levels of IGF-1 can’t explain why higher rates of stroke were found in vegetarians. Then what is it? I think the best explanation for the mystery is something called homocysteine, which I cover next. 

    If you aren’t familiar with IGF-1, my videos Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking and How Not to Die from Cancer are good primers. 

    Beyond eating a plant-based diet, how else can we lower our blood pressure? Check out the chapter of hypertension in my book How Not to Die at your local public library. 

    This is the eighth video in a 12-part series on vegetarians’ stroke risk. If you missed any of the previous ones, check out the related posts below.

    Coming up, we turn to what I think is actually going on:

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Vegan Junk Food and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Vegan Junk Food and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Just because you’re eating a vegetarian or vegan diet doesn’t mean you’re eating healthfully.

    “Plant-Based Diets Are Associated with a Lower Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality in a General Population of Middle-Aged Adults”: This study of a diverse sample of 12,000 Americans found that “progressively increasing the intake of plant foods by reducing the intake of animal foods is associated with benefits on cardiovascular health and mortality.” Still, regarding plant-based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention, “all plant foods are not created equal.” As you can see in the graph below and at 0:40 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Vegan Junk Food?, a British study found higher stroke risk in vegetarians. Were they just eating a lot of vegan junk food? 

    “Any diet devoid of animal food sources can be claimed to be a vegetarian [or vegan] diet; thus, it is important to determine” what is being eaten. One of the first things I look at when I’m trying to see how serious a population is about healthy eating is something that is undeniably, uncontroversially bad: soda, aka liquid candy. Anyone drinking straight sugar water doesn’t have health on top of mind.

    A large study was conducted of plant-based eaters in the United States, where people tend to cut down on meat for health reasons far more than for ethics, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:20 in my video.

    Researchers found that flexitarians drink fewer sugary beverages than regular meat eaters, as do pescatarians, vegetarians, and vegans, as you can see below and at 1:30.

    However, in the study from the United Kingdom where the increased stroke risk in vegetarians was found and where people are more likely to go veg or vegan for ethical reasons, researchers found that pescatarians drink less soda, but the vegetarians and vegans drink more, as shown in the graph below and at 1:44. 

    I’m not saying that’s why they had more strokes; it might just give us an idea of how healthfully they were eating. In the UK study, the vegetarian and vegan men and women ate about the same amounts of desserts, cookies, and chocolate, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:53. 

    They also consumed about the same total sugar, as shown below and at 2:02. 

    In the U.S. study, the average non-vegetarian is nearly obese, the vegetarians are a little overweight, and the vegans were the only ideal weight group. In this analysis of the UK study, however, everyone was about the same weight. The meat eaters were lighter than the vegans, as you can see below, and at 2:19 in my video. The EPIC-Oxford study seems to have attracted a particularly “health-conscious” group of meat eaters weighing substantially less than the general population. 

    Let’s look at some specific stroke-related nutrients. Dietary fiber appears to be beneficial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including stroke, and it seems the more, the better, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:43 in my video. 

    Based on studies of nearly half a million men and women, there doesn’t seem to be any upper threshold of benefit—so, again, “the more, the better.” At more than 25 grams of soluble fiber and 47 grams of insoluble dietary fiber, you can start seeing a significant drop in associated stroke risk. So, one could consider these values “as the minimal recommendable daily intake of soluble and insoluble fiber…to prevent stroke at a population level.” That’s what you see in people eating diets centered around minimally processed plant foods. Dean Ornish, M.D., got up around there with his whole food, plant-based diet. It might not be as much as we were designed to eat, based on the analyses of fossilized feces, but that’s about where we might expect significantly lower stroke risk, as shown below and at 3:25 in my video. 

    How much were the UK vegetarians getting? 22.1 grams. Now, in the UK, they measure fiber a little differently, so it may be closer to 30 grams, but that’s still not the optimal level for stroke prevention. It’s so little fiber that the vegetarians and vegans only beat out the meat eaters by about one or two bowel movements a week, as you can see below and at 3:48 in my video, suggesting the non-meat eaters were eating lots of processed foods. 

    The vegetarians were only eating about half a serving more of fruits and vegetables. Intake is thought to reduce stroke risk in part because of their potassium content, but the UK vegetarians at higher stroke risk were eating so few greens and beans that they couldn’t even match the meat eaters. The vegetarians (and the meat eaters) weren’t even reaching the recommended minimum daily potassium intake of 4,700 mg a day.

    What about sodium? “The vast majority of the available evidence indicates that elevated salt intake is associated with higher stroke risk…” There is practically a straight-line increase in the risk of dying from a stroke, the more salt you eat, as you can see in the graph below and at 4:29 in my video. 

    Even just lowering sodium intake by a tiny fraction every year could prevent tens of thousands of fatal strokes. “Reducing Sodium Intake to Prevent Stroke: Time for Action, Not Hesitation” was the title of the paper, but the UK vegetarians and vegans appeared to be hesitating, as did the other dietary groups. “All groups exceeded the advised less than 2400 mg daily sodium intake”—and that didn’t even account for salt added to the table! The American Heart Association recommends less than 1,500 mg a day. So, they were all eating a lot of processed foods. It’s no wonder the vegetarians’ blood pressures were only one or two points lower. High blood pressure is perhaps “the single most important potentially modifiable risk factor for stroke.” 

    What evidence do I have that the vegetarians’ and vegans’ stroke risk would go down if they ate more healthfully? Well, in rural Africa, where they were able to nail the fiber intake that our bodies were designed to get by eating so many whole, healthy plant foods—including fruits, vegetables, grains, greens, beans, and protein almost entirely from plant sources—not only was heart disease, our number one killer, “almost non-existent,” but so was stroke. It only surged up from nowhere “with the introduction of salt and refined foods” to their diet. 

    “It is notable that stroke and senile dementia appear to be virtually absent in Kitava, an Oceanic culture [near Australia] whose quasi-vegan traditional diet is very low in salt and very rich in potassium.” They ate fish a few times a week, but the other 95 percent or so of their diet was made up of vegetables, fruits, corn, and beans. They had an apparent absence of stroke, even despite their ridiculously high rates of smoking, 76 percent of men and 80 percent of women. We evolved by eating as little as less than an eighth of a teaspoon of salt a day, and our daily potassium consumption is thought to have been as high as 10,000 mg or so. We went from an unsalted, whole-food diet to eating salty, processed foods depleted of potassium whether we eat meat or not. 

    Caldwell Esselstyn at the Cleveland Clinic tried putting about 200 patients with established cardiovascular disease on a whole food, plant-based diet. Of the 177 who stuck with the diet, only a single patient went on to have a stroke in the subsequent few years, compared to a hundred-fold greater rate of adverse events, including multiple strokes and deaths in those who strayed from the diet. “This is not vegetarianism,” Esselstyn explains. Vegetarians can eat a lot of less-than-ideal foods, “such as milk, cream, butter, cheese, ice cream, and eggs. This new paradigm is exclusively plant-based nutrition.” 

    This entire train of thought—that the reason typical vegetarians don’t have better stroke statistics is because they’re not eating particularly stellar diets—may explain why they don’t have significantly lower stroke rates. However, it still doesn’t explain why they may have higher stroke rates. Even if they’re eating similarly crappy, salty, processed diets, at least they aren’t eating meat, which we know increases stroke risk. There must be something about vegetarian diets that so increases stroke risk that it offsets their inherent advantages. We’ll continue our hunt for the answer next. 

    From a medical standpoint, labels like vegan and vegetarian just tell me what you don’t eat. It’s like identifying yourself as a “No-Twinkie-tarian.” You don’t eat Twinkies? Great, but what’s the rest of your diet like? 

    What are the healthiest foods? Check out my Daily Dozen.

    To catch up on the rest of this series, see related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Omega-3s and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Omega-3s and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Does eating fish or taking fish oil supplements reduce stroke risk? 

    In my last video, we started to explore what might explain the higher stroke risk in vegetarians found in the EPIC-Oxford study. As you can see below and at 0:25 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Omega-3s?, vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease and cardiovascular disease overall, but a higher risk of stroke. We looked into vitamin D levels as a potential mechanism, but that didn’t seem to be the reason. What about long-chain omega-3s, the fish fats like EPA and DHA? 

    Not surprisingly, their levels are found to be “markedly lower in vegetarians and particularly in vegans than in meat-eaters.” They’re about 30 percent lower in vegetarians and more than half as low in vegans, as you can see below and at 0:45 in my video. 

    According to “the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date,” combining 28 randomized controlled trials, stroke has no benefit. There is evidence that taking fish oil “does not reduce heart disease, stroke or death,” or overall mortality, either. This may be because, on the one hand, the omega-3s may be helping, but the mercury in fish may be making things worse. “Balancing the benefits with the contaminant risks of fish consumption has represented a challenge for regulatory agencies and public health professionals.”  

    For example, dietary exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be associated with an increased risk of stroke. In one study, for instance, “neither fish nor intake of PCBs was related to stroke risk. However, with adjustment for fish intake,” that is, at the same fish intake, “dietary PCBs were associated with an increased risk of total stroke,” so the PCB pollutants may be masking the fish benefit. If we had a time machine and could go back before the Industrial Revolution and find fish in an unpolluted state, we might find that it is protective against stroke. Still, looking at the EPIC-Oxford study data, if fish were protective, then we might expect that the pescatarians (those who eat fish but no other meat) would have lower numbers of strokes since they would have the fish benefit without the risk from other meat. But, no. That isn’t the reality. So, it doesn’t seem to be the omega-3s either.

    Let’s take a closer look at what the vegetarians are eating.

    When it comes to plant-based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention, all plant foods are not created equal. There are two types of vegetarians—those who do it for their health, and those who do it for ethical reasons, like global warming or animals—and the latter tend to eat different diets. Health vegans tend to eat more fruits and fewer sweets, for instance, and you don’t tend to see them chomping down on vegan donuts, as shown below and at 2:41 in my video. 

    “Concerns about health and costs were primary motivations for [meat] reduction” in the United States. A middle-class American family is four times more likely to reduce meat for health reasons compared to environmental or animal welfare concerns, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:55 in my video. 

    But in the United Kingdom, where the EPIC-Oxford stroke study was done, ethics was the number one reason given for becoming vegetarian or vegan, as you can see in below and at 3:05 in my video.

    We know that “plant-based diets, diets that emphasize higher intakes of plant foods and lower intakes of animal foods, are associated with a lower risk of incident cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease mortality, and all-cause mortality”—a lower risk of dying from all causes put together—“in a general US adult population.” But, that’s only for healthy plant foods. Eating a lot of Wonder Bread, soda, and apple pie isn’t going to do you any favors. “For all types of plant-based diets, however, it is crucial that the choice of plant foods is given careful consideration.” We should choose whole fruits and whole grains over refined grains and avoid trans fats and added sugars. Could it be that the veggie Brits were just eating more chips? We’ll find out next. 

    Another strikeout trying to explain the increased risk. Could it be that the vegetarians were eating particularly unhealthy diets? Labels like vegetarian or vegan just tell me what is not being eaten. You can be vegetarian and consume a lot of unhealthy fare, like french fries, potato chips, and soda. That’s why, as a physician, I prefer the term whole food, plant-based nutrition. That tells me what you do eat. You eat vegetables and follow a diet centered around the healthiest foods out there.

    If you missed the first four videos in this series, see:

     Surprised about the fishy oil findings? Learn more: Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? and Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Vitamin D and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Vitamin D and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Could the apparent increased stroke risk in vegetarians be reverse causation? And what about vegetarians versus vegans? 

    In the “Risks of Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke in Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters, and Vegetarians Over 18 Years of Follow-Up” EPIC-Oxford study, not surprisingly, vegetarian diets were associated with less heart disease—10 fewer cases per 1,000 people per decade compared to meat eaters—but vegetarian diets were associated with three more cases of stroke. So, eating vegetarian appears to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease by 7 overall, but why the extra stroke risk? Could it just be reverse causation?

    When studies have shown higher mortality among those who quit smoking compared to people who continue to smoke, for example, we suspect “reverse causality.” When we see a link between quitting smoking and dying, instead of quitting smoking leading to people dying, it’s more likely that being “affected by some life-threatening condition” led people to quit smoking. It’s the same reason why non-drinkers can appear to have more liver cirrhosis; their failing liver led them to stop drinking. This is the “sick-quitter effect,” and you can see it when people quit meat, too.

    As you can see below and at 1:16 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Vitamin D?

    , new vegetarians can appear to have more heart disease than non-vegetarians. Why might an older person all of a sudden start eating vegetarian? Well, they may have just been diagnosed with heart disease, so that may be why there appear to be higher rates for new vegetarians—an example of the sick-quitter effect. To control for that, you can throw out the first five years of data to make sure the diet has a chance to start working. And, indeed, when you do that, the true effect is clear: a significant drop in heart disease risk. 

    So, does that explain the apparent increased stroke risk, too? No, because researchers still found higher stroke risk even after the first five years of data were skipped. What’s going on? Let’s dive deeper into the data to look for clues.

    What happens when you break down the results by type of stroke and type of vegetarian (vegetarian versus vegan)? As you can see below and at 2:09 in my video, there are two main types of strokes—ischemic and hemorrhagic. Most common are ischemic, clotting strokes where an artery in the brain gets clogged off, as opposed to hemorrhagic, or bleeding strokes, where a blood vessel in the brain ruptures. In the United States, for example, it is about 90:10, with nine out of ten strokes the clotting (ischemic) type and one out of ten bleeding (hemorrhagic), the latter being the kind of stroke vegetarians appeared to have significantly more of. Now, statistically, the vegans didn’t have a significantly higher risk of any kind of stroke, but that’s terrible news for vegans. Do vegans have the same stroke risk as meat eaters? What is elevating their stroke risk so much that it’s offsetting all their natural advantages? The same could be said for vegetarians, too. 

    Even though this was the first study of vegetarian stroke incidence, there have been about half a dozen studies on stroke mortality. The various meta-analyses have consistently found significantly lower heart disease risk for vegetarians, but the lower stroke mortality was not statistically significant. Now, there is a new study that can give vegetarians some comfort in the fact that they at least don’t have a higher risk of dying from stroke, but that’s terrible news for vegetarians. Statistically, vegetarians have the same stroke death rate as meat eaters. Again, what’s going on? What is elevating their stroke risk so much that it’s offsetting all their natural advantages?

    Let’s run through a couple of possibilities. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:48 in my video, if you look at the vitamin D levels of vegetarians and vegans, they tend to run consistently lower than meat eaters, and lower vitamin D status is associated with an increased risk of stroke. But who has higher levels of the sunshine vitamin? Those who are running around outside and exercising, so maybe that’s why their stroke risk is better. What we need are randomized studies.

    When you look at people who have been effectively randomized at birth to genetically have lifelong, lower vitamin D levels, you do not see a clear indicator of increased stroke risk, so the link between vitamin D and stroke is probably not cause-and-effect.

    We’ll explore some other possibilities, next.

    So far in this series, we’ve looked at what to eat and what not to eat for stroke prevention, and whether vegetarians do have a higher stroke risk. 

    It may be worth reiterating that vegetarians do not have a higher risk of dying from a stroke, but they do appear to be at higher risk of having a stroke. How is that possible? Meat is a risk factor for stroke, so how could cutting out meat lead to more strokes? There must be something about eating plant-based that so increases stroke risk that it counterbalances the meat-free benefit. Might it be because plant-based eaters don’t eat fish? We turn to omega-3s next. For other videos in this series, see related posts below. 

    There certainly are benefits to vitamin D, though. Here is a sampling of videos where I explore the evidence.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Deathbed Motivation: The Top 5 Regrets of the Dying

    Deathbed Motivation: The Top 5 Regrets of the Dying

    [ad_1]

    If you were on your deathbed right now, what would your biggest regrets be? The answer can change the way you decide to live the rest of your life.

    Thinking about death can change how we live our lives. Our time on Earth is limited, and this realization can completely shift our perspective. It puts our real values and priorities into sharp focus, causing us to step back and re-evaluate if we are living our current lives in the best way possible.

    When I was going through a period of depression in college, I would take the bus to the local cemetery by myself with nothing but my camera. I’ve always been comfortable with solitude and doing things alone, but these cemetery walks were an especially meaningful and humbling experience for me. Walking among the graves and reading the names of people I’d never know showed me that life is much bigger than my ego. The realization that death is a necessary part of life sparked me to reevaluate and see the bigger picture behind my choices and actions.

    These cemetery walks were a powerful reminder that I would be dead one day too – but not yet – and that filled me with a sense of power and responsibility so long as I’m still breathing.

    How people think about death can have a profound effect on their psychology. Some people face the prospect of mortality by ignoring it and engaging in escapist behaviors driven by materialism (“buy more things”) or hedonism (“seek more pleasure”). Others embrace the prospect of death and recognize that it means they need to make the most of their time here before it’s too late.

    In the popular book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying: A Life Transformed by the Dearly Departing, Bronnie Ware documents her experiences in palliative care, working closely with those who had terminal illnesses or were approaching the end-of-life. She identified five main regrets of the dying based on conversations and confessions with those on their deathbeds.

    This article will outline her main findings along with my personal thoughts on each one.

    Deathbed Motivation: Top 5 Regrets of the Dying

    According to Bronnie Ware, the five most common regrets shared by people nearing death were:

    “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”

    It’s cliché but true: you only have one life to live.

    Many people cave to social pressures to choose paths in life that are expected of them, such as what school to attend, or what career to pursue, or what types of relationships to cultivate. However, what brings one person happiness isn’t necessarily what brings another person happiness. If we only try to make others happy, we often end up neglecting our own needs, wants, passions, and ideals.

    Understanding your core values is one of the most important steps you can take in life. Knowing what you really want will help you make choices that are harmonious with what you really care about, not just what you think you “should do” or “ought to do.” One interesting study published in the journal Emotions found that our most enduring and long-lasting regrets are usually “ideal-related,” such as personal goals and aspirations.

    Our biggest regrets are often the things we didn’t do but always wanted to, like starting a rock band, or writing a book, or traveling to a place we always wanted to visit.

    “I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.”

    Most people don’t lay on their deathbeds thinking, “I wish I spent more time at my job.”

    Work is important and it can be fulfilling, but many people in today’s world become myopically focused on advancing in their jobs/careers or making more money by any means necessary (sometimes even in unhealthy, destructive, or unethical ways).

    We wrongly believe that wealth is the only real measure of value in life, and thus we get distracted from other important things like spending more time with family, taking care of our health, giving back to our community, or pursuing personal passions.

    In our materialistic and consumerist culture, nothing seems more important than “working hard” and “making money,” but as the saying goes, “You can’t take it with you when you die.”

    “I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.”

    We often have trouble expressing our true feelings toward people because we see emotions as weakness or we don’t want to risk being vulnerable.

    This is especially true when it comes to feelings of love, gratitude, and appreciation. There are some families, cultures, and couples where it’s rare to hear the words, “I love you,” or “I appreciate you.” The feelings are taken for granted, but they are never explicitly said.

    It’s important that we learn to express love and appreciation toward others while we still can (including toward family, friends, loved ones, or mentors), because we will often regret it if we miss our chance.

    Recently I wrote my mom a thank you letter for her birthday. It helped me communicate a lot of feelings that I’ve always had but were difficult to say out-loud. It felt like an emotional weight was lifted off my shoulders once I finally expressed my tremendous gratitude for her and everything she’s done for me.

    There are also people I’ve lost in life whom I was never able to tell that I appreciated them. Those are regrets I’ll have to live with – the crucial lesson is don’t miss the opportunity to tell people you love them while you still can.

    “I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.”

    One common theme in life is that relationships come and go.

    Our circle of friends often changes dramatically throughout high school, college, and into adulthood, especially when we move to new places or leave our hometowns. We tend to lose touch with people over time. Those who were once “best friends” we now go years without even speaking to.

    In theory, it’s easier to stay in touch with people now more than ever; old friends and family are just a call, text, or email away, yet we rarely take advantage of these opportunities.

    It’s never too late to check in on past connections. It can seem awkward at first to reach out to those we haven’t seen in years, but often they will appreciate the gesture and you both will enjoy reconnecting and reminiscing about your shared past.

    The simple act of checking in on people on a regular basis (such as holidays, birthdays, reunions, etc.) can preserve our social connections over time and remind us all the positive relationships and social support we have. Each person you stay in touch with is another layer of meaning in your life.

    “I wish that I had let myself be happier.”

    People are too busy these days to be happy.

    We get easily trapped in the hustle and bustle of daily life with work, school, chores, family, and other responsibilities and obligations. In the midst of all this, many forget the simple art of stepping back and finding happiness in the moment.

    You don’t need to wait for something life-changing to be happy. Many people don’t realize that happiness is in their control and you can start finding it in little things, like savoring positive experiences, counting your blessings, having things to look forward to, and prioritizing positive activities. These are habits that are available to anyone no matter what their current situation is in life. You don’t need to be rich or famous; in fact, sometimes those people are the most distracted and least happy.

    If happiness is a skill, then it’s something that’s worth learning. It isn’t magic, it’s a direct result of how you think, act, and view your world.

    The Time That Remains

    If you are reading this right now, then you still have power over how you live the rest of your life. Every new breath is a symbol of this power.

    Which of the big five regrets do you relate to the most? Living too much by other people’s expectations, focusing too much on work, not communicating your true feelings, losing touch with old friends and family, or simply not finding time for more happiness?

    These are important questions worth reflecting on. Take a moment to imagine yourself on your deathbed, which regrets would hurt the most? What can you still do about it?


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Irregular Meals, Night Shifts, and Metabolic Harms  | NutritionFacts.org

    Irregular Meals, Night Shifts, and Metabolic Harms  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What can shift workers do to moderate the adverse effects of circadian rhythm disruption?

    Shift workers may have higher rates of death from heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, and cardiovascular disease, as well as higher rates of death from cancer. Graveyard shift, indeed! But, is it just because they’re eating out of vending machines or not getting enough sleep? Highly controlled studies have recently attempted to tease out these other factors by putting people on the same diets with the same sleep—but at the wrong time of day. Redistributing eating to the nighttime resulted in elevated cholesterol and increases in blood pressure and inflammation. No wonder shift workers are at higher risk. Shifting meals to the night in a simulated night-shift protocol effectively turned about one-third of the subjects prediabetic in just ten days. Our bodies just weren’t designed to handle food at night, as I discuss in my video The Metabolic Harms of Night Shifts and Irregular Meals.

    Just as avoiding bright light at night can prevent circadian misalignment, so can avoiding night eating. We may have no control over the lighting at our workplace, but we can try to minimize overnight food intake, which has been shown to help limit the negative metabolic consequences of shift work. When we finally do get home in the morning, though, we may disproportionately crave unhealthy foods. In one experiment, 81 percent of participants in a night-shift scenario chose high-fat foods, such as croissants, out of a breakfast buffet, compared to just 43 percent of the same subjects during a control period on a normal schedule.

    Shiftwork may also leave people too fatigued to exercise. But, even at the same physical activity levels, chronodisruption can affect energy expenditure. Researchers found that we burn 12 to 16 percent fewer calories while sleeping during the daytime compared to nighttime. Just a single improperly-timed snack can affect how much fat we burn every day. Study subjects eating a specified snack at 10:00 am burned about 6 more grams of fat from their body than on the days they ate the same snack at 11:00 pm. That’s only about a pat and a half of butter’s worth of fat, but it was the identical snack, just given at a different time. The late snack group also suffered about a 9 percent bump in their LDL cholesterol within just two weeks.

    Even just sleeping in on the weekends may mess up our metabolism. “Social jetlag is a measure of the discrepancy in sleep timing between our work days and free days.” From a circadian rhythm standpoint, if we go to bed late and sleep in on the weekends, it’s as if we flew a few time zones west on Friday evening, then flew back Monday morning. Travel-induced jet lag goes away in a few days, but what might the consequences be of constantly shifting our sleep schedule every week over our entire working career? Interventional studies have yet put it to the test, but population studies suggest that those who have at least an hour of social jet lag a week (which may describe more than two-thirds of people) have twice the odds of being overweight. 

    If sleep regularity is important, what about meal regularity? “The importance of eating regularly was highlighted early by Hippocrates (460–377 BC) and later by Florence Nightingale,” but it wasn’t put to the test until the 21st century. A few population studies had suggested that those eating meals irregularly were at a metabolic disadvantage, but the first interventional studies weren’t published until 2004. Subjects were randomized to eat their regular diets divided into six regular eating occasions a day or three to nine daily occasions in an irregular manner. Researchers found that an irregular eating pattern can cause a drop in insulin sensitivity and a rise in cholesterol levels, as well as reduce the calorie burn immediately after meals in both lean and obese individuals. The study participants ended up eating more, though, on the irregular meals, so it’s difficult to disentangle the circadian effects. The fact that overweight individuals may overeat on an irregular pattern may be telling in and of itself, but it would be nice to see such a study repeated using identical diets to see if irregularity itself has metabolic effects.

    Just such a study was published in 2016: During two periods, people were randomized to eat identical foods in a regular or irregular meal pattern. As you can see in the graph below and at 4:47 in my video, during the irregular period, people had impaired glucose tolerance, meaning higher blood sugar responses to the same food.

    They also had lower diet-induced thermogenesis, meaning the burning of fewer calories to process each meal, as seen in the graph below and at 4:55 in my video.

    The difference in thermogenesis only came out to be about ten calories per meal, though, and there was no difference in weight changes over the two-week periods. However, diet-induced thermogenesis can act as “a satiety signal.” The extra work put into processing a meal can help slake one’s appetite. And, indeed, “lower hunger and higher fullness ratings” during the regular meal period could potentially translate into better weight control over the long term. 

    The series on chronobiology is winding down with just two videos left in this series: Shedding Light on Shedding Weight and Friday Favorites: Why People Gain Weight in the Fall.

    If you missed any of the other videos, see the related posts below. 
     

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Circadian Rhythms and Our Blood Sugar Levels  | NutritionFacts.org

    Circadian Rhythms and Our Blood Sugar Levels  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The same meal eaten at the wrong time of day can double blood sugar. 

    We’ve known for more than half a century that our glucose tolerance—the ability of our body to keep our blood sugars under control—declines as the day goes on. As you can see in the graph below and at 0:25 in my video How Circadian Rhythms Affect Blood Sugar Levels, if you hook yourself up to an IV and drip sugar water into your vein at a steady pace throughout the day, your blood sugars will start to go up at about 8:00 pm, even though you haven’t eaten anything and the infusion rate didn’t change.

    The same amount of sugar is going into your system every minute, but your ability to handle it deteriorates in the evening before bouncing right back in the morning. A meal eaten at 8:00 pm can cause twice the blood sugar response as an identical meal eaten at 8:00 am, as shown in the graph below and at 0:51 in my video. It’s as if you ate twice as much. Your body just isn’t expecting you to be eating when it’s dark outside. Our species may have only discovered how to use fire about a quarter million years ago. We just weren’t built for 24-hour diners. 

    One of the tests for diabetes is called the glucose tolerance test, which sees how fast our body can clear sugar from our bloodstream. You swig down a cup of water with about four and a half tablespoons of regular corn syrup mixed in, then have your blood sugar measured two hours later. By that point, your blood sugar should be under 140 mg/dL. Between 140 and 199 is considered to be a sign of prediabetes, and 200 and up is a sign of full-blown diabetes, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:37 in my video. 

    The circadian rhythm of glucose tolerance is so powerful that a person can test normal in the morning but as a prediabetic later in the day. Prediabetics who average 163 mg/dL at 7:00 am may test out as frank diabetics at over 200 mg/dL at 7:00 pm, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:53 in my video. 

    Choosing lower glycemic foods may help promote weight loss, but timing is critical. Due to this circadian pattern in glucose tolerance, a low-glycemic food at night can cause a higher blood sugar spike than a high-glycemic food eaten in the morning, as you can see below and at 2:05 in my video.

    We’re so metabolically crippled at night that researchers found that eating a bowl of All Bran cereal at 8:00 pm caused as high a blood sugar spike as eating Rice Krispies at 8:00 am, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:23 in my video.

    High glycemic foods at night would seem to represent the worst of both worlds. So, if you’re going to eat refined grains and sugary junk, it might be less detrimental in the morning, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:32 in my video.  

    The drop in glucose tolerance over the day could therefore help explain the weight-loss benefits of frontloading calories towards the beginning of the day. Even just taking lunch earlier versus later may make a difference, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:48 in my video.

    People randomized to eat a large lunch at 4:30 pm suffered a 46 percent greater blood sugar response compared to an identical meal eaten just a few hours earlier at 1:00 pm. A meal at 7:00 am can cause 37 percent lower blood sugars than an identical meal at 1:00 pm, as you can see below, and at 3:04 in my video.

    Now, there doesn’t seem to be any difference between a meal at 8:00 pm and the same meal at midnight; they both seem to be too late, as you can see below, and at 3:15 in my video.

    But, eating that late, at midnight or even 11:00 pm, can so disrupt your circadian rhythm that it can mess up your metabolism the next morning, resulting in significantly higher blood sugars after breakfast, compared to eating the same dinner at 6:00 pm the evening before, as shown in the graph below and at 3:32 in my video.

    So, these revelations of chronobiology bring the breakfast debate full circle. Skipping breakfast not only generally fails to cause weight loss, but it worsens overall daily blood sugar control in both diabetic individuals and people who are not diabetic, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:44 in my video.

    Below and at 3:53, you can see a graph showing how the breakfast skippers have higher blood sugars even while they’re sleeping 20 hours later. This may help explain why those who skip breakfast appear to be at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the first place. 

    Breakfast skippers also tend to have higher rates of heart disease, as well as having higher rates of atherosclerosis, in general. Is this just because “skipping breakfast tends to cluster with other unhealthy choices, including smoking” and sicklier eating habits overall? The link between skipping breakfast and heart disease—even premature death in general—seems to survive attempts to control for these confounding factors, but you don’t really know until you put it to the test.

    Does skipping breakfast lead to higher cholesterol, for example? Yes, researchers found a significant rise in LDL (bad) cholesterol in study participants randomized to skip breakfast; they were about 10 points higher within just two weeks, as you can see below and at 4:45 in my video.

    The Israeli study with the caloric distribution of 700 calories for breakfast, 500 for lunch, and 200 for dinner that I’ve discussed previously found that the triglycerides of the king-prince-pauper group (those eating more at breakfast versus dinner) got significantly better—a 60-point drop—while those of the pauper-prince-king group got significantly worse (a 26-point rise). So, consuming more calories in the morning relative to the evening may actually have a triple benefit: more weight loss, better blood sugar control, and lower heart disease risk, as you can see below and at 5:18 in my video. 

    If you’re going to skip any meal, whether you’re practicing intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding (where you try to fit all of your food intake into a certain time window each day), it may be safer and more effective to skip dinner rather than breakfast.

    I’m back with the next installment of the chronobiology series! I previously explored eating breakfast for weight loss (Is Breakfast the Most Important Meal for Weight Loss? and Is Skipping Breakfast Better for Weight Loss?), introduced chronobiology (How Circadian Rhythms Can Control Your Health and Weight), and looked at the science on eating more in the mornings than the evenings (Eat More Calories in the Morning to Lose Weight, Breakfast Like a King, Lunch Like a Prince, Dinner Like a Pauper, and Eat More Calories in the Morning Than the Evening).

    Next, you’ll see How to Sync Your Central Circadian Clock to Your Peripheral Clocks.

    The series will wrap up in the next couple of weeks. See videos and blogs in related posts below.

    Note: The Israeli 700/500/200 study that I mentioned is detailed in the Breakfast Like a King, Lunch Like a Prince, Dinner Like a Pauper video if you want to know more. Also, check the corresponding blog in related posts. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Lose Weight by Eating More in the Morning  | NutritionFacts.org

    Lose Weight by Eating More in the Morning  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    A calorie is not a calorie. It isn’t only what you eat, but when you eat.

    Mice are nocturnal creatures. They eat during the night and sleep during the day. However, if you only feed mice during the day, they gain more weight than if they were fed a similar amount of calories at night. Same food and about the same amount of food, but different weight outcomes, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:18 in my video Eat More Calories in the Morning to Lose Weight, suggesting that eating at the “wrong” time may lead to disproportionate weight gain. In humans, the wrong time would presumably mean eating at night. 

    Recommendations for weight management often include advice to limit nighttime food consumption, but this was largely anecdotal until it was first studied experimentally in 2013. Researchers instructed a group of young men not to eat after 7:00 pm for two weeks. Compared to a control period during which they continued their regular habits, they ended up about two pounds lighter after the night-eating restriction. This is not surprising, given that dietary records show the study participants inadvertently ate fewer calories during that time. To see if timing has metabolic effects beyond just foreclosing eating opportunities, you’d have to force people to eat the same amount of the same food, but at different times of the day. The U.S. Army stepped forward to carry out just such an investigation.

    In their first set of experiments, Army researchers had people eat a single meal a day either as breakfast or dinner. The results clearly showed the breakfast group lost more weight, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:35 in my video. When study participants ate only once a day at dinner, their weight didn’t change much, but when they ate once a day at breakfast, they lost about two pounds a week. 

    Similar to the night-eating restriction study, this is to be expected, given that people tend to be hungrier in the evening. Think about it. If you went nine hours without eating during the day, you’d be famished, but people go nine hours without eating overnight all the time and don’t wake up ravenous. There is a natural circadian rhythm to hunger that peaks around 8:00 pm and drops to its lowest level around 8:00 am, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:09 in my video. That may be why breakfast is typically the smallest meal of the day. 

    The circadian rhythm of our appetite isn’t just behavioral, but biological, too. It’s not just that we’re hungrier in the evening because we’ve been running around all day. If you stayed up all night and slept all day, you’d still be hungriest when you woke up that evening. To untangle the factors, scientists used what’s called a “forced desynchrony” protocol. Study participants stayed in a room without windows in constant, unchanging, dim light and slept in staggered 20-hour cycles to totally scramble them up. This went on for more than a week, so the subjects ended up eating and sleeping at different times throughout all phases of the day. Then, the researchers could see if cyclical phenomena are truly based on internal clocks or just a consequence of what you happen to be doing at the time.  

    For instance, there is a daily swing in our core body temperature, blood pressure, hormone production, digestion, immune activity, and almost everything else, but let’s use temperature as an example. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:21 in my video, our body temperature usually bottoms out around 4:00 am, dropping from 98.6°F (37°C) down to more like 97.6°F (36.4°C). Is this just because our body cools down as we sleep? No. By keeping people awake and busy for 24 hours straight, it can be shown experimentally that it happens at about the same time no matter what. It’s part of our circadian rhythm, just like our appetite. It makes sense, then, if you are only eating one meal per day and want to lose weight, you’d want to eat in the morning when your hunger hormones are at their lowest level. 

    Sounds reasonable, but it starts to get weird.

    The Army scientists repeated the experiment, but this time, they had the participants eat exactly 2,000 calories either as breakfast or as dinner, taking appetite out of the picture. The subjects weren’t allowed to exercise either. Same number of calories, so the same change in weight, right? No. As you can see in the graph below and at 4:18 in my video, the breakfast-only group still lost about two pounds a week compared to the dinner-only group. Two pounds of weight loss eating the same number of calories. That’s why this concept of chronobiology, meal timing—when to eat—is so important. 

    Isn’t that wild? Two pounds of weight loss a week eating the same number of calories! That was a pretty extreme study, though. What about just shifting a greater percentage of calories to earlier in the day? That’s the subject of my next video: Breakfast Like a King, Lunch Like a Prince, Dinner Like a Pauper. First, let’s take a break from chronobiology to look at the Benefits of Garlic for Fighting Cancer and the Common Cold. Then, we’ll resume checking other videos in the related posts below.

    If you missed the first three videos in this extended series, also check out related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Efficacy of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Efficacy of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Are there any safe and effective dietary supplements for weight loss?

    In a previous discussion, I noted that an investigation found that four out of five bottles of commercial herbal supplements bought at major U.S. retailers—GNC, Walgreens, Target, and Walmart—didn’t contain any of the herbs listed on their labels, instead “often containing little more than cheap fillers like powdered rice, asparagus and houseplants…”

    You might hope your supplement just contains houseplants. Weight-loss supplements are infamous for being “adulterated with prescription and over-the-counter” drugs. In a sampling of 160 weight-loss supplements that “were claimed as 100% natural,” more than half were tainted with drugs and active pharmacological ingredients, ranging from antidepressants like Prozac to erectile dysfunction medications like Viagra. Diuretic drugs are frequent contaminants, which makes sense. In my previous videos on ketogenic diets, I talk about rapid water loss being “the $33-billion diet gimmick” that has sold low-carb diets for more than a century. But why the Viagra?

    At least the spiked Viagra and Prozac are legal drugs. Researchers in Denver tested every weight-loss supplement they could find within a ten-mile radius. Alarmingly, they found that a third were adulterated with banned ingredients. The most common illegal adulterant of weight-loss supplements is sibutramine, which was sold as Meridia before it was yanked off the market back in 2010 for heart attack and stroke risk. Now, it is also blamed for cases of slimming supplement–induced psychosis.

    An analysis of weight-loss supplements bought off the internet that were advertised with claims like “purely natural products,” “harmless,” or “traditional herbal” found that a third of them contained high doses of the banned drug sibutramine and the rest had caffeine. Wouldn’t you be able to tell if caffeine was added to a supplement? Perhaps not, if it also had temazepam, a controlled substance (benzodiazepine) “downer” sedative found in half of the caffeine-tainted supplements.

    Doesn’t the FDA demand recalls of adulterated supplements? Yes, but they often just pop back up on store shelves. Twenty-seven supplements were purchased at least six months after recalls were released, and two-thirds still contained banned substances. That’s 17 out of 27 with the same pharmaceutical adulterant found originally, and 6 containing one or more additional banned ingredients. Aren’t the manufacturers penalized for noncompliance? Yes, but “the fines for violations are small compared to the profits.”

    One of the ways supplement makers can skirt the law is by labeling them as “not intended for human consumption because it shifts the responsibility from the seller to the user”—for example, labeling the fatal fat-burner DNP as “an industrial- or research chemical.” This is how designer street drugs can be sold openly at gas stations and convenience stores as “bath salts.” Another way is to claim synthetic stimulants added to slimming supplements are actually natural food constituents, like listing the designer drug dimethylamylamine (DMAA) as “geranium oil extract.” The FDA banned it in 2012 after it was determined that DMAA “was not found in geraniums.” Who eats geraniums anyway? Despite being tentatively tied to cases of sudden death and associated with hemorrhagic stroke, DMAA has continued to be found in weight-loss supplements with innocuous names like Simply Skinny Pollen made by Bee Fit with Trish.

    There is little doubt that certain banned supplements, like ephedra, could help people lose weight. “There’s only one problem, and it’s a big one: This supplement may kill you,” wrote a founding member of the American Board of Integrative Medicine.

    Are there any safe and effective dietary supplements for weight loss? As I discuss in my video Friday Favorites: Are Weight-Loss Supplements Safe and Effective?, when popular slimming supplements were put to the test in a randomized placebo-controlled trial, not a single one could beat out placebo sugar pills. “A systematic review of systematic reviews” of diet pills came to a similar conclusion: None appears to generate appreciable impacts “on body weight without undue risks.” That was the conclusion reached in a similar review out of the Weight Management Center at Johns Hopkins, which ended with: “In closing, it is fitting to highlight that perhaps the most general and safest alternative/herbal approach to weight control is to substitute low-energy density [low-calorie] foods for high-energy density and processed foods, thereby reducing total energy intake.” In other words, eat more whole plant foods and fewer animal foods and junk. “By taking advantage of the low-energy density [low-calorie] and health-promoting effects of plant-based foods, one may be able to achieve weight loss, or at least assist weight maintenance without cutting” down on the volume of food consumed or compromising its nutrient value.

    Learn more about the risks of supplements in my video Are Weight Loss Supplements Safe?.

    I referred to a keto diet video I did, check out the related posts below the links to other videos and blogs in that series.

    Learn more about optimal weight loss in my book, How Not to Diet. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Safety of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Safety of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Only 2 out of 12 supplement companies were found to have weight-loss products that were even accurately labeled.

    According to a national survey, one-third of adults who have made serious attempts at weight loss have tried using dietary supplements, for which Americans spend billions of dollars every year. Most people mistakenly thought that over-the-counter appetite suppressants, herbal products, and weight-loss supplements had to be approved for safety by a governmental agency, like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), before being sold to the public or at least include some kind of warning on the label about potential side effects. Nearly half even thought they had to demonstrate some sort of effectiveness. None of that is true.

    As I discuss in my video Friday Favorites: Are Weight Loss Supplements Safe and Effective?, the “FDA has estimated that dietary supplements cause 50,000 adverse events annually,” most commonly liver and kidney damage. Of course, prescription drugs don’t just have adverse effects; they kill more than 100,000 Americans every year. But, you at least notionally have the opportunity to parse out the risks versus benefits of prescription drugs, thanks to testing and monitoring requirements typically involving thousands of individuals.

    When the manufacturer of Metabolife 356, a supplement containing ephedrine, had it tested on 35 people, only minor side effects were found, such as dry mouth, headache, and insomnia. However, once unleashed on a broad population, nearly 15,000 adverse effects were reported, including heart attacks, strokes, seizures, and deaths, before it was pulled from the market.

    Given the lack of government oversight, there is no guarantee that what’s on the label is even in the bottle, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:55 in my video. FDA inspectors have found that 70 percent of supplement manufacturers violated so-called Good Manufacturing Practices, which are considered the minimum quality standards. This includes things like basic sanitation and ingredient identification. Not 7 percent in violation, but 70 percent.

    DNA testing of herbal supplements across North America found that most could not be authenticated. In a significant percentage of the supplements tested, the main labeled ingredient was missing completely and substituted with something else. For example, a so-called St. John’s wort supplement contained nothing but senna, a laxative that can cause anal blistering. Only 2 out of 12 supplement companies had products that were accurately labeled.

    This problem isn’t limited to fly-by-night phonies in some dark corner of the internet either. The New York State Attorney General commissioned DNA testing of 78 bottles of commercial herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Walmart, Target, and GNC “and found that four out of five…did not contain any of the herbs on their labels.” Instead, the capsules “often contained little more than cheap fillers like powdered rice, asparagus and houseplants…”

    What about weight-loss medications? See Are Weight Loss Pills Safe? and Are Weight Loss Pills Effective?. Also, see related posts below.

    Take a deep dive into the best way to lose weight with my book How Not to Diet. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fighting Inflammation with Flaxseeds  | NutritionFacts.org

    Fighting Inflammation with Flaxseeds  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory, aging-associated oxylipins can be normalized by eating ground flaxseed. 

    I previously explored the “Potent Antihypertensive Effect of Dietary Flaxseed in Hypertensive Patients” study in my video Flaxseeds for Hypertension. That was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial where researchers disguised ground flaxseed in baked goods versus flax-free placebo muffins and saw an extraordinary drop in high blood pressure. As you can imagine, the flaxseed industry was overjoyed, praising the “impressive” findings, as was I. After all, high blood pressure is “the single largest risk factor” for death in the world. Yes, we give people medications, lots and lots of medications, but most people don’t take them. Nine out of ten people take less than 80 percent of their prescribed blood pressure pills. 
     
    It’s not difficult to understand why. “Patients are asked to follow an inconvenient and potentially costly regimen, which will likely have a detrimental effect on health-related quality of life, to treat a mostly asymptomatic condition that commonly does not cause problems for many years.” So, they may feel worse instead of better, due to the side effects. Then, some think the answer is to give them even more drugs to counteract the effects of the first drugs, like giving men Viagra to counteract the erectile dysfunction caused by their blood pressure pills. 
     
    How about using a dietary strategy instead, especially if it can be just as effective? And, indeed, the drop in blood pressure the researchers saw in the flaxseed study “was greater than the average decrease observed with the standard dose of anti-hypertensive medications.” Flaxseeds are cheaper, too, compared to even single medications, and most patients are on multiple drugs. Plus, flaxseeds have good side effects beyond their anti-hypertensive actions. Taking tablespoons of flaxseed a day is a lot of fiber for people living off of cheeseburgers and milkshakes their whole lives, and your gut bacteria may need a little time to adjust to the new bounty. So, those who start with low-fiber diets may want to take it a little slow with the flaxseeds at first. 
     
    Not all studies have shown significant blood pressure–lowering effects, though. There have been more than a dozen trials by now, involving more than a thousand subjects. And, yes, when you put them all together, overall, there were “significant reductions in both SBP and DBP”—systolic blood pressure (the upper number) and diastolic blood pressure (the lower number)—“following supplementation with various flaxseed products.” But none was as dramatic as what the researchers had found in that six-month trial. The longer trials tended to show better results, and some of the trials just used flaxseed oil or some kind of flaxseed extract. We think this is because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. “Each of the components of interest within flaxseed, ALA, lignans, fiber, and peptides”—the omega-3s, the cancer-fighting lignans, all the soluble fiber, and the plant proteins, for instance—“all contribute towards BP reduction.” Okay, but how? Why? What is the mechanism? 
     
    Some common blood-pressure medications like Norvasc or Procardia work in part by reducing the ability of the heart to contract or by slowing down the heart. So, might it be that’s how flaxseeds work, too? But, no. In my video Benefits of Flaxseeds for Inflammation, I profile the “Dietary Flaxseed Reduces Central Aortic Blood Pressure Without Cardiac Involvement but Through Changes in Plasma Oxylipins” study. What are oxylipins? 
     
    “Oxylipins are a group of fatty acid metabolites” involved in inflammation and, as a result, have been implicated in many pro-inflammatory conditions, including aging and cardiovascular disease. “The best-characterized oxylipins about cardiovascular disease are derived from the w-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid,” a long-chain omega-6 fatty acid. These are found preformed in animal products, particularly chicken and eggs, and can be made inside the body from junky oils rich in omega-6, such as cottonseed oil, as noted below and at 3:49 in my video. But, as this study is titled, “Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory oxylipins in older subjects are normalized by flaxseed consumption.” 

    That’s how we think flaxseed consumption reduces blood pressure in patients with hypertension: by inhibiting the enzyme that makes these pro-inflammatory oxylipins. I’ll spare you from acronym overload, but eating flaxseeds inhibits the activity of the enzyme that makes these pro-inflammatory oxylipins, called leukotoxin diols, which in turn may lower blood pressure. “Identifying the biological mechanism adds confidence to the antihypertensive actions of dietary flaxseed,” but that’s not all oxylipins do. Oxylipins may also play a role in the aging process. However, we may be able to “beneficially disrupt these biological changes associated with inflammation and aging” with a nutritional intervention like flaxseed. Older adults around age 50 have higher levels of this arachidonic acid–derived oxylipin compared to younger adults around age 20, as you can see in the graph below and at 4:56 in my video. “These elevated concentrations of pro-inflammatory oxylipins in the older age group…may…explain the higher levels of inflammation in older versus younger individuals.” As we get older, we’re more likely to be stricken with inflammatory conditions like arthritis. So, this “elevation of pro-inflammatory oxylipins…may predispose individuals to chronic disease conditions.”

    What if you took those older adults and gave them muffins, like the ones with ground flaxseed? That’s just what a group of researchers did. Four weeks later, the subjects’ levels dropped down to like 20-year-olds’ levels, as seen in the graph below and at 5:32 in my video, “demonstrating that a potential therapeutic strategy to correct the deleterious pro-inflammatory oxylipin profile is via a dietary supplementation with flaxseed.”

    What about flax and cancer? See the related posts below. 

    I also have a video on diabetes: Flaxseeds vs. Diabetes. 

    If you’re interested in weight loss, see Benefits of Flaxseed Meal for Weight Loss. 

    What about the cyanide content of flax? I answered that in Friday Favorites: How Well Does Cooking Destroy the Cyanide in Flaxseeds and Should We Be Concerned About It?.

    What else can help fight inflammation? Check out in related posts below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Neurotoxin in Star Fruit  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Neurotoxin in Star Fruit  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Starfruit contains a neurotoxin known as caramboxin that can cause irreversible brain damage at high enough doses. 
     
    If someone walks into the emergency room with intractable hiccups, one of the questions the ER physician should ask is: Have you been eating star fruit? 
     
    In my video cautioning about oxalate-rich foods, Kidney Stones and Spinach, Chard, and Beet Greens: Don’t Eat Too Much, I talked about star fruit nephrotoxicity—that is, kidney toxicity. “Excessive consumption of star fruit has been associated with the development of oxalate nephropathy,” kidney damage. Star fruits aren’t that big. Less than a cup of star fruit juice or “three fruits of star fruit” can result in acute star fruit nephrotoxicity. Indeed, “ingestion of even modest quantities of star fruits can produce oxalate nephropathy” (kidney problems). “It is essential to prevent star fruit nephrotoxicity by educating the public and especially diabetics to avoid consuming star fruit, especially on an empty stomach or in a dehydrated state.”  
     
    Let’s talk about the neurotoxicity. As I discuss in my video Neurotoxicity Effects of Starfruit, we’ve known about the neurotoxic effects for more than a quarter century, but few seem to be familiar with the syndrome. As you can see below and at 1:17 in my video, it most commonly starts with hiccups, then can worsen rapidly, especially in those who already have compromised kidney function. Why? Because “this fruit contains a powerful neurotoxin that can accumulate in the blood, cross the blood–brain barrier…and eventually cause irreversible damage” to the brain. The toxin itself, named caramboxin, is normally excreted by the kidneys, so it is especially toxic to those with renal insufficiency—that is, compromised kidney function—so much so that for those with severe chronic kidney disease, a single-star fruit can put someone in seizures within three hours, a coma, then death within three days. 

    In a series of about a hundred cases of toxicity, consumption ranged between just half a star fruit up to 50 star fruits, with an average of about 4, but most of those participants had some sort of pre-existing kidney disease. The average number of star fruits eaten by those in the normal kidney function group before their toxic dose was more like 15. So, people with normal kidney function may be more likely to suffer from kidney damage than brain damage, which starts with the consumption of around four star fruit. 
     
    The bottom line is that those with chronic kidney disease should avoid star fruit to avoid severe intoxication. In Brazil, where the fruit is popular, there are laws to alert people about the risks. Because of its neurotoxins, star fruit should be prohibited for patients with chronic kidney disease, but even those with normal kidney function may want to avoid the fruit—just something to think about before you reach for the stars. 
     
    For more on kidney health, see related videos below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Safety of Fasting to Lose Weight  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Safety of Fasting to Lose Weight  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why should fasts lasting longer than 24 hours and particularly for three or more days only be done under the supervision of a health professional and preferably in a live-in clinic? 
     
    Fasting for a week or two can actually interfere with the loss of body fat, as shown at the start of my video Is Fasting for Weight Loss Safe?. But, eventually, after the third week of fasting, fat loss starts to overtake the loss of lean body mass in obese individuals, as seen in the graph below and at 0:14 in my video. Is it safe to go that long without food? 

    Proponents speak of fasting as a cleansing process, but some of what is being purged from our bodies are essential vitamins and minerals. People who are heavy enough can fast up to 382 days without calories, but no one can go even a fraction of that long without vitamins. Scurvy, for example, can be diagnosed within as few as four weeks without any vitamin C. Beriberi, deficiency of thiamine (vitamin B1), may start even earlier in fasting patients. And, once it manifests, it can result in brain damage within days, which can eventually become irreversible.  
     
    Even though fasting patients report problems such as nausea and indigestion after taking supplements, all of the months-long fasting cases I’ve discussed previously were given daily multivitamins and mineral supplementation as necessary. Without supplementation, hunger strikers and those undergoing prolonged fasts for therapeutic or religious purposes (like the Baptist pastor hoping “to enhance his spiritual powers for exorcism”) have ended up paralyzed, become comatose, or worse. 
     
    Nutrient deficiencies aren’t the only risk. After reading about all of the successful reports of massive weight loss from prolonged fasting in the medical literature, one doctor decided to give it a try with his patients. Of the first dozen he tried it on, two died. In retrospect, the two patients who died had started out with heart failure and had been on diuretics. Fasting itself produces pronounced diuresis, meaning loss of water and electrolytes through the urine, so it was the combination of fasting on top of the water pills that likely depleted their potassium and triggered their fatal heart rhythms. The doctor went out of his way to point out that both of the people who died started out “in severe heart failure, complicated by gross obesity; but both had improved greatly whilst undergoing starvation therapy.” That seems like a small consolation since they were both dead within a matter of weeks. 
     
    Not all therapeutic fasting fatalities were complicated by concurrent medication use, though. One researcher writes: “At first he did very well and experienced the usual euphoria…His pulse, blood pressure, and electrolytes remained satisfactory, but in the middle of the third week of treatment, he suddenly collapsed and died. This line of treatment is certainly tempting because it does produce weight loss and the patient feels so much better, but the report of case-fatalities”—the whole part about killing people—“must make it a very suspect line of management.” 
     
    Contrary to the popular notion that the heart muscle is specially spared during fasting, the heart appears to experience similar muscle wasting. This was “described in the victims of the Warsaw ghetto” during World War II in a remarkable series of detailed studies carried out by the ghetto physicians before they themselves succumbed. In a case entitled “Gross Fragmentation of Cardiac Fiber After Therapeutic Starvation for Obesity,” a 20-year-old woman successfully “achieved her ideal weight” after losing 128 pounds by fasting for 30 weeks. “After a breakfast of one egg,” she had a heart attack and died. On autopsy, as you can see below and at 3:44 in my video, the muscle fibers in her heart showed evidence of widespread disintegration. The pathologists suggested that fasting regimens “should no longer be recommended as a safe means of weight reduction.” 
    Breaking the fast appears to be the most dangerous part. After World War II, as many as one out of five starved Japanese prisoners of war tragically died following liberation. Now known as “refeeding syndrome,” multiorgan system failure can result from resuming a regular diet too quickly. This is because there are critical nutrients such as thiamine and phosphorus that are used to metabolize food. Therefore, in the critical refeeding window, if too much food is taken before these nutrients can be replenished, demand may exceed supply. Whatever residual stores you still carry can be driven down even further, with potentially fatal consequences. This is why rescue workers are taught to always give thiamine before food to victims who have been trapped or otherwise unable to eat. Thiamine is responsible for the yellow color of “banana bags,” a term you might have heard used in medical dramas to describe an IV fluid concoction often given to malnourished alcoholics to prevent a similar reaction. (You can see a photo of them below and at 4:53 in my video.) Anyone “with negligible food intake for more than five days” may be at risk of developing refeeding problems. 
    Medically-supervised fasting has gotten much safer now that there are proper refeeding protocols. We now know what warning signs to look for and who shouldn’t be fasting in the first place, such as those who have advanced liver or kidney failure, porphyria, uncontrolled hyperthyroidism, and pregnant and breastfeeding women. The most comprehensive safety analysis of medically supervised, water-only fasting was recently published by the TrueNorth Health Center in California. Out of 768 visits to its facility for fasts up to 41 days, were there any adverse events? There were 5,961 of them! Most of these were mild, known reactions to fasting, such as fatigue, nausea, insomnia, headache, dizziness, upset stomach, and back pain. Only two serious events were reported, and no fatalities. You can see the chart below and at 5:58 in my video. 
    “Fasting periods lasting longer than 24 hr, and particularly those lasting 3 or more days, should be done under the supervision of a physician and preferably in a [live-in] clinic.” In other words, don’t try this at home! This is not just legalistic mumbo-jumbo. For example, normally, your kidneys dive into sodium conservation mode during fasting, but should that response break down, you could rapidly develop an electrolyte abnormality that may only manifest with non-specific symptoms, like fatigue or dizziness, which could easily be dismissed until it’s too late. 
     
    The risks of any therapy must be premised on the severity of the disease. The consequences of obesity are considered so serious that effective therapies could have “considerable acceptable toxicity.” For example, many consider major surgery for obesity to be a justifiable risk, but the keyword is effective. 
     
    Therapeutic fasting for obesity has largely been abandoned by the medical community not only because of its uncertain safety profile but its questionable short- and long-term efficacy. Remember, for a fast that only lasts a week or two, you might be able to lose as much body fat or even more on a low-calorie diet than a no-calorie diet. 
     
    Fasting for a week or two can actually interfere with the loss of body fat. For more background on this, see Is Fasting Beneficial for Weight Loss? and Benefits of Fasting for Weight Loss Put to the Test.
     
    If you’re wondering what the best way to lose weight is, I wrote a whole book about it! Check out How Not to Diet. 
     
    Interested in learning more about fasting? See related videos below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link