ReportWire

Tag: Stomach cancer

  • 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

  • A King’s Breakfast, a Prince’s Lunch, and a Pauper’s Dinner  | NutritionFacts.org

    A King’s Breakfast, a Prince’s Lunch, and a Pauper’s Dinner  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Harness the power of your circadian rhythms for weight loss by making breakfast or lunch your main meal of the day.

    In my last chronobiology video, we learned that calories eaten at breakfast are significantly less fattening than the same number of calories eaten at dinner, as you can see at 0:14 in my video Breakfast Like a King, Lunch Like a Prince, Dinner Like a Pauper, but who eats just one meal a day? 

    What about simply shifting our daily distribution of calories to earlier in the day? Israeli researchers randomized overweight and obese women into one of two isocaloric groups, meaning each group was given the same number of total calories. One group got a 700-calorie breakfast, a 500-calorie lunch, and a 200-calorie dinner, and the other group got the opposite—200 calories for breakfast, 500 for lunch, and 700 for dinner. Since all of the study participants were eating the same number of calories overall, the king-prince-pauper group should have lost the same amount of weight as the pauper-prince-king group, right? But, no. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:01 in my video, the bigger breakfast group lost more than twice as much weight, in addition to slimming about an extra two inches off their waistline. By the end of the 12-week study, the king-prince-pauper group lost 11 more pounds than the bigger dinner group, dropping 19 pounds compared to only 8 pounds lost by the pauper-prince-king group—despite eating the same number of calories. That’s the power of chronobiology, the power of our circadian rhythm. 

    What was the caloric distribution of the king-prince-pauper group getting 700 calories at breakfast, 500 at lunch, and 200 at dinner? They got 50 percent of calories at breakfast, 36 percent at lunch, and only 14 percent of calories at dinner, which is pretty skewed. What about 20 percent for dinner instead? A 50% – 30% – 20% spread, compared to 20% – 30% – 50%?

    Again, the bigger breakfast group experienced “dramatically increased” weight loss, a difference of about nine pounds in eight weeks with no significant difference in overall caloric intake or physical activity between the groups, as shown in the graph below and at 1:57 in my video

    Instead of 80 percent of calories consumed at breakfast and lunch, what about 70 percent compared to 55 percent? Researchers randomized overweight “homemakers” to eat 70 percent of their calories at breakfast, a morning snack, and lunch, leaving 30 percent for an afternoon snack and dinner, or a more balanced 55 percent from the time they woke up through lunch. In both cases, only a minority of calories were eaten for dinner, as you can see below, and at 2:25 in my video. Was there any difference between eating 70 percent of calories through lunch versus only 55 percent? Yes, those eating more calories earlier in the day had significantly more weight loss and slimming. 

    Concluded the researchers: “Stories about food and nutrition are in the news on an almost daily basis, but information can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Clear messages should be proposed to reach the greatest number of people. One clear communication from physicians could be ‘If you want to lose weight, eat more in the morning than in the evening.’” 

    Even just telling people to eat their main meal at lunch rather than dinner may help. Despite comparable caloric intakes, participants in a weight-loss program randomized to get advice to make lunch their main meal beat out those who instead were told to make dinner their main meal.

    The proverb “Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper” evidently has another variant: “Eat breakfast yourself, share lunch with a friend, and give dinner away to your enemy.” I wouldn’t go that far, but there does appear to be a metabolic benefit to frontloading the bulk of your calories earlier in the day.

    The evidence isn’t completely consistent, though. A review of dietary pattern studies questioned whether reducing evening intake would facilitate weight loss, citing a study that showed the evening-weighted group did better than the heavy-morning-meal group. Perhaps that was because the morning meal group was given “chocolate, cookies, cake, ice cream, chocolate mousse or donuts” for breakfast. So, chronobiology can be trumped by a junk-food methodology. Overall, the what is still more important than the when. Caloric timing may be used to accelerate weight loss, but it doesn’t substitute for a healthy diet. When he said there was a time for every purpose under heaven, Ecclesiastes probably wasn’t talking about donuts.

    When I heard about this, what I wanted to know was how. Why does our body store less food as fat in the morning? I explore the mechanism in my next video, Eat More Calories in the Morning Than the Evening.

    This is the fifth video in an 11-part series on chronobiology. If you missed the first four, check out the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • John Rich Slams Taylor Swift For Staying Silent About Toby Keith’s Death After He Helped Launch Her Career

    John Rich Slams Taylor Swift For Staying Silent About Toby Keith’s Death After He Helped Launch Her Career

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Source YouTube: Fox Business, CBS Sunday Morning

    The country music legend Toby Keith passed away on Monday night at the age of 62 following a lengthy battle with stomach cancer. We then reported on how Keith had previously helped kickstart the career of Taylor Swift in a big way. In the wake of Keith’s death, however, Swift has stayed silent and declined to publicly pay tribute to him.

    Now, the country music star John Rich is calling her out for this in a big way.

    Rich Calls Out Swift

    Newsweek reported that Rich took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to respond to journalist Matt Couch after he shared a 2005 video in which Swift gushed over Keith following him signing her to his label.

    “Going to be interesting to see what she says about Toby Keith,” Couch wrote. “Without Toby Keith there wouldn’t be a Taylor Swift.. Toby signed her to his record label and gave her, her start.. Hope she recognizes that today.. like she should..”

    Rich responded by questioning why Swift would stay silent about the death of a man who had helped her career so much.

    “When is@taylorswift13 going to share some words about Toby Keith? The man who discovered her, got her the 1st record deal? Taylor, where are you today? #TobyKeith,” Rich wrote.

    Daily Mail reported that in the video shared by Couch, a 15 year-old Swift praised Keith after he signed her to his record label, as he was a major stakeholder in Big Machine Records at the time.

    “You’re in the room and you can feel it. There’s a power there,” Swift stated in the footage. “And you’re just like ‘oh my god.’ So I don’t think I’ll ever get to a point where I won’t see him and be like: ‘oh my god, that’s Toby Keith.’”

    Backstory: Here’s How Toby Keith Helped Kickstart The Careers Of Taylor Swift And Blake Shelton

    Keith Performed At Trump Inauguration

    Of course, this was years before Swift became a radical liberal who enjoys constantly preaching about leftwing politics to her adoring fans. Perhaps her silence about Keith’s death could be over him defying the left to perform at the 2017 inauguration of Donald Trump.

    “I don’t apologize for performing for our country or military,” Keith said in a statement to Entertainment Weekly at the time. “I performed at events for previous presidents [George W.] Bush and [Barack] Obama and over 200 shows in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USO.”

    In 2017, Keith defended Trump after his infamous  “grab ’em by the p****” comment, pointing out that “Guys talk like that everywhere.”

    “Bill Clinton, everyone was on him about getting a BJ,” Keith said, according to Newsweek. “I was like, ‘It doesn’t affect the way he’s running the country.”

    Keith went on to be awarded the National Medal of Arts by Trump.

    Swift’s Politics

    In contrast, Swift has frequently used her platform to bash Trump, and she campaigned hard for Joe Biden in 2020. That year, Swift accused Trump of “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism” in response to comments he made condemning the violence that spread throughout the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd.

    “After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before threatening violence?” she wrote on social media at the time, according to The Mail. “When the looting starts the shooting starts’??? We will vote you out in November. @realdonaldtrump.”

    Related: Megyn Kelly Reveals Why Taylor Swift Would Be Crazy To Endorse Biden – ‘If She’s Smart…’

    Swift would not be where she is today if it were not for Keith, so her silence on his death is nothing short of deafening. While there is no confirmation that politics is what led Swift to stay silent on his passing, it would unfortunately not be surprising if this were to be the case.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad



    [ad_2]

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Kid Rock Pays Tribute To His Friend Toby Keith After He Dies At 62

    Kid Rock Pays Tribute To His Friend Toby Keith After He Dies At 62

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Source YouTube: Fox News, News 9 YouTube

    The legendary country music star Toby Keith sadly passed away last night at the age of 62 after a lengthy battle with stomach cancer. Now, Keith’s fellow singer Kid Rock is speaking out to pay tribute to him.

    Kid Rock Honors Toby Keith

    “He was such an incredible talent, and he loved his family like he loved his country,” Kid Rock told Fox News. “And we should not forget what a fun guy he was.”

    “I was thinking just when I heard the news 30 minutes ago, memories started going through my head of all the award shows and after-parties, whether it was in the back of Losers picking guitars or we were at a golf tournament or out in Los Angeles,” he continued. “So many different spots throughout the years. He was just a great, great guy. We called him Big Dog. He was a large man.”

    Kid Rock went on to praise Keith for the love that he had for the United States military and the brave men and women who wear the uniform. 

    “We used to joke about who went over there more because me and him definitely have tens, if not 20 times, that we had been there,” Kid Rock concluded. “Spending Christmas and Thanksgiving, just whenever we were called we went to do it.”

    Related: Sad Details Emerge About Toby Keith’s Death After He Passes At 62

    Keith Passes Away

    This came after Keith’s family announced that the country music star died on Monday night.

    “Toby Keith passed peacefully last night on February 5th, surrounded by family,” read a statement on Keith’s website.
    “He fought his fight with grace and courage. Please respect the privacy of his family at this time.” 

    Tributes have been pouring in for Keith in the wake of this announcement.

    “Toby Keith did things his way – amazing artist, songwriter, patriot and man of faith,” said the singer Lee Greenwood. “I admired him and how he rolled. He and I shared a deep love for our military and I’m proud that he took his music to dangerous places in order to give American spirit to those protecting freedom.”

    “I was pleased that he called me the OG and was honored to work with him a few times through the years,” Greenwood added. “Please join our family in praying for the Covel family. I am confident that Toby was met at the pearly gates by patriots who have gone before and is resting in the arms of Jesus.”

    Related: Toby Keith Launches Comeback After Stomach Cancer Diagnosis – Returning To Concert Stage For First Time

    Carrie Underwood And Jason Aldean Weigh In

    The country music star Carrie Underwood also paid tribute to Keith, saying, “Saddle up the horses, Jesus, ‘cause a true blue COWBOY just made his ride up to heaven!!!”

    “Introduce him to all the Okies and sign that boy up for the choir!” she continued. “We’re gonna miss you, Toby, but my heart has no doubt that you are standing in the presence of our King right now!!! See you again someday, friend.”

    Jason Aldean paid tribute to Keith as well, saying, “Just waking up to the news of Toby Keith’s passing. Today is a sad day for Country music and its fans. Toby was a huge presence in our business and someone we all looked up to and respected. You and your music will be forever remembered big man.”

    Keith was a true legend, and there will never be another one like him. Please join us in saying a prayer for his loved ones during this difficult time.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad



    [ad_2]

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • How a Common Stomach Bug Causes Cancer

    How a Common Stomach Bug Causes Cancer

    [ad_1]

    At first, doctors didn’t believe that bacteria could live in the stomach at all. Too acidic, they thought. But in 1984, a young Australian physician named Barry Marshall gulped down an infamous concoction of beef broth laced with Helicobacter pylori bacteria. On day eight, he started vomiting. On day 10, an endoscopy revealed that H. pylori had colonized his stomach, their characteristic spiral shape unmistakeable under the microscope.

    Left untreated, H. pylori usually establishes infections that persist for an entire lifetime, and they’re common: Half of the world’s population harbors H. pylori inside their stomach, as do more than one in three Americans. In most cases, the microbe settles into an asymptomatic chronic infection, but in some, it becomes far more troublesome. It can, for example, cause enough damage to the stomach lining to create ulcers. Worse still, H. pylori can lead to cancer. This single bacterium is by far the No. 1 risk factor in stomach cancers worldwide. By one estimate, some 70 percent can be attributed to H. pylori.

    But what still puzzles doctors years later is why H. pylori has such different consequences for different people. Why is it asymptomatic in most but carcinogenic in others? Although the full answer is complex, one key factor seems to be mutations in H. pylori itself. Not every strain is created equal. The presence of select genes intensifies H. pylori’s pathogenicity, and even a single mutation in a single gene, scientists recently found, enhances the link to cancer. A small genetic tweak in a common stomach bug could have profound consequences for us, its unwitting hosts.


    H. pylori has lived inside of us for a long time. Our ancestors who left Africa likely carried it inside them as they crossed continents and oceans, built and felled civilizations. And over the course of what some scientists hypothesize to be more than 100,000 years of co-evolution, H. pylori has exquisitely adapted to the harsh, acidic conditions of the human stomach.

    It survives, for example, by producing “copious amounts” of an enzyme that neutralizes stomach acid, Richard Peek, a gastroenterologist at Vanderbilt, told me. H. pylori can also burrow into the mucus-gel lining of the stomach using powerful, whiplike flagella. The mucus lining offers a relative haven from stomach acid, but another prize lies underneath too: stomach cells, rich in nutrients that the bacteria needs to survive.

    The way that H. pylori steals nutrients could be the key to how it ends up causing cancer. The bacterium isn’t necessarily out to hurt its human host. “H. pylori doesn’t want you to get an ulcer or to get cancer, but it needs to replicate to high enough levels in the stomach that it can be transmitted to another person,” Nina Salama, a biologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, told me. (The bacteria seem to spread through an infected person’s saliva, vomit, or feces.) But to replicate, it needs nutrients, in particular iron, which our cells probably hoard to starve pathogens.

    In response, certain strains of H. pylori have evolved genetic changes that might make its iron-mining more efficient. But this also causes more collateral damage to the host’s stomach, enough damage, perhaps, to eventually trigger cancer. First, the bacteria uses a protein called HtrA—essentially “a pair of molecular scissors,” Peek said—to cut the bonds that hold stomach cells together, so the microbes can slip between. A single mutation in this scissor protein makes it better at cutting, a group based in Germany found in a recent study, and this mutation is disproportionately found in H. pylori strains isolated from people who developed stomach cancer.

    Once H. pylori has wedged itself in between cells, it also has clever ways of accessing the nutrients inside. Certain strains carry a set of about 18 genes that collectively encode a molecular needle through which H. pylori injects bacterial proteins, triggering a cascade of changes to the cell. These hijacked cells end up giving up their iron more easily, but they also become worse at essential functions such as fixing damaged DNA. This set of approximately 18 genes, collectively called the “cag pathogenicity island,” are in fact disproportionately found in strains from cancer patients. Stomach cancer thus might be a secondary consequence of the microbe’s aggressive search for nutrients. For the H. pylori, “there’s no selective pressure to cause cancer in 80 years. The selective pressure is to acquire iron now,” Karen Guillemin, a microbiologist at the University of Oregon, said.

    But not everyone infected with one of these cancer-linked strains will develop cancer. Other factors likely play a role too: diet, environment, and genetics of the individual patient  Stomach-cancer rates vary quite widely around the world, with the highest prevalence in East Asia. In Japan, doctors routinely test for H. pylori in people with no symptoms, and prescribe antibiotics if the tests come back positive. But some scientists have argued against aggressive treatment, pointing at hints that humans derive some benefits from living with H. pylori too. Those infected, for example, tend to have lower rates of asthma and allergy. Genetic signatures associated with more pathogenic H. pylori strains, Peek told me, would help identify those at highest risk, who could most benefit from antibiotics.

    Marshall, the Australian doctor who infected himself with H. pylori, ultimately recovered just fine. His self-experiment, in addition to other studies with his collaborator Robin Warren, proved that the bacterium does indeed infect the stomach and does indeed cause stomach ulcers, which later spurred the work linking H. pylori to cancer. Understanding exactly how and why H. pylori becomes pathogenic is still key to finding the way to treat it, but in the past 40 years the significance of H. pylori to human health has become indisputable—so much so that in 2005, Marshall and Warren won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link