ReportWire

Tag: Stroke

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

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

    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:

    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

    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.

    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

    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. 

    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

    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. 

    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

    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.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • After a stroke, this musician found his singing voice again with help from a special choir

    After a stroke, this musician found his singing voice again with help from a special choir

    In the 1980s and ’90s, Ron Spitzer played bass and drums in rock bands — Tot Rocket and the Twins, Western Eyes and Band of Susans. He sang and wrote songs, toured the country and recorded albums. When the bands broke up, he continued to make music with friends.

    But a stroke in 2009 put Spitzer in a wheelchair, partially paralyzing his left arm and leg. He gave away his drum kit. His bass sat untouched. His voice was a whisper.

    Now music is part of his healing. Spitzer sings each week in a choir for people recovering from stroke at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

    “I’ve found my voice, quite literally,” Spitzer said.

    AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports on the power of singing to heal stroke victims.

    Scientists are studying the potential benefits of music for people with dementia, traumatic brain injuries, Parkinson’s disease and stroke. Music lights up multiple regions of the brain, strengthening neural connections between areas that govern language, memories, emotions and movement.

    And music seems to increase levels of a specific protein in the brain that’s important for making new connections between neurons, said Dr. Preeti Raghavan, a stroke rehabilitation expert at Johns Hopkins Medicine and volunteer for the American Stroke Association.

    “It increases the possibility that the brain will rewire,” Raghavan said.

    Choirs like the one at Mount Sinai offer the hope of healing through music while also providing camaraderie, a place where stroke survivors don’t have to explain their limitations.

    “We’re all part of the same tribe,” Spitzer said.

    Strokes often damage cells in the brain’s left-hemisphere language center, leaving survivors with difficulty retrieving words, a condition called aphasia. Yet the ability to sing fluently can remain, said Jessica Hariwijaya, a research fellow at Mount Sinai who is studying the stroke choir.

    Singing can help stroke survivors improve their ability to speak. The National Aphasia Society maintains a list of music and arts programs, including choirs that meet online, for people with the condition.

    Spitzer’s stroke damaged the right side of his brain, which some scientists identify as important for processing musical pitch patterns. He lost the ability to sing familiar music. Once, a Beatles song came on the radio and he tried to sing along but the tune was gone from his mind. He called it an “out-of-body experience.”

    “It was like, ‘This isn’t me,’” he said

    Rigorous research is in its early days, with the National Institutes of Health supporting studies on how music works in the brain and how it might be used to treat symptoms of various conditions.

    That level of research will be important for music therapy to be more widely reimbursed by health insurers, Raghavan said.

    The Mount Sinai study will gauge how participation in the choir affects speech and mood, as researchers compare 20 patients randomly assigned to choir therapy with 20 patients receiving standard care. The study also will measure the effects on the patients’ caregivers who participate in the choir.

    Now 68, Spitzer has completed other rehabilitation programs that helped him regain physical skills. He walks with a cane, can yell like any New Yorker and has recovered his singing voice.

    “I attribute a good amount of this recovery to the stroke choir,” he said. “For me, just getting back to being able to sing a tune was very invigorating.”

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Source link

  • The Stroke Risk of Vegetarians  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Stroke Risk of Vegetarians  | NutritionFacts.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

    Eating to Lower Lp(a)  | NutritionFacts.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How to Treat High Lp(a), an Atherosclerosis Risk Factor  | NutritionFacts.org

    How to Treat High Lp(a), an Atherosclerosis Risk Factor  | NutritionFacts.org

    What could help explain severe coronary disease in someone with a healthy lifestyle who is considered to be at low cardiovascular disease risk? A young man ended up in the ER after a heart attack and was ultimately found to have severe coronary artery disease. Given his age, blood pressure, and cholesterol, his ten-year risk of a heart attack should have only been about 2 percent, but he had a high lipoprotein(a), also known as Lp(a). In fact, it was markedly high at 80 mg/dL, which may help explain it. You can see the same in women: a 27-year-old with a heart attack with a high Lp(a). What is Lp(a), and what can we do about it? 

    As I discuss in my video Treating High Lp(a): A Risk Factor for Atherosclerosis, Lp(a) is an “underestimated cardiovascular risk factor.” It causes coronary artery disease, heart attacks, strokes, peripheral arterial disease, calcified aortic valve disease, and heart failure. And these can occur in people who don’t even have high cholesterol—because Lp(a) is cholesterol, as you can see below and at 1:15 in my video. It’s an LDL cholesterol molecule linked to another protein, which, like LDL, transfers cholesterol into the lining of our arteries, contributing to the inflammation in atherosclerotic plaques. But “this increased risk caused by Lp(a) has not yet gained recognition by practicing physicians.” 

    “The main reason for the limited clinical use of Lp(a) is the lack of effective and specific therapies to lower Lp(a) plasma levels.” Because “Lp(a) concentrations are approximately 90% genetically determined,” the conventional thinking has been you’re just kind of born with higher or lower levels and there isn’t much you can do about it. Even if that were the case, though, you might still want to know about it. If it were high, for instance, that would be all the more reason to make sure all the other risk factors that you do have more control over are as good as possible. It may help you quit smoking, for example, and motivate you to do everything you can to lower your LDL cholesterol as much as possible.  

    Lp(a) levels in the blood can vary a thousand-fold between individuals, “from less than 0.1 mg/dL to as high as 387 mg/dL.” You can see a graph of the odds of heart disease at different levels in the graph below and at 2:20 in my video. Less than 20 mg/dL is probably optimal, with greater than 30 to 50 mg/dL considered to be elevated. Even when the more conservative threshold of greater than 50 mg/dL is used, that describes about 10 to 30 percent of the global population, an estimated 1.4 billion people. So, if we’re in the one in five people with elevated levels, what can we do about it? 

    The way we know that Lp(a) causes atherosclerosis is that we can put it to the ultimate test. There is something called apheresis, which is essentially like a dialysis machine where they can take out your blood, wash out some of the Lp(a), and give your blood back to you. And when you do that, you can reverse the progression of the disease. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:06 in my video, atherosclerosis continues to get worse in the control group, but it gets better in the apheresis group. This is great for proving the role of Lp(a), but it has limited clinical application, given the “cost, limited access to centers, and the time commitment required for biweekly sessions of 2 to 4 h each.” 

    It causes a big drop in blood levels, but they quickly creep back up, so you have to keep going in, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:26 in my video, costing more than $50,000 a year. 

    There has to be a better way. We’ll explore the role diet can play, next.  

    I’ve been wanting to do videos about Lp(a), but there just wasn’t much we could do about it until now. So, how do we lower Lp(a) with diet? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion in my next video.

    What can we do to minimize heart disease risk? My video How Not to Die from Heart Disease is a good starting point. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What about diet soda? See related posts below. 

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

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How do pets react to California’s extreme heat?

    How do pets react to California’s extreme heat?

    (FOX40.COM) – California’s extreme heat temperatures may be dangerous for humans, but they are also problematic for pets too.
    • Video Above: Most popular pets

    Every year hundreds of pets die from heat-related illnesses. Some animal fatalities occur from being left outdoors during heat waves, and others from being left in parked vehicles during times of elevated temperatures.

    According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, the temperature inside a vehicle can rise almost 20 degrees in just 10 minutes, and almost 30 degrees in 20 minutes. At one hour, a vehicle’s inside temperature can be more than 40 degrees higher than the outside temperature – even on a 70-degree day.

    The National Weather Service of Sacramento advised pet owners to never leave their animals unattended in a vehicle, even with windows cracked. Studies show that rolled-down windows have little effect in preventing heat-related illnesses.

    “Your furry friends are impacted by the heat too!” NWS said in a social media post. “Animals can die of a heatstroke within 15 minutes.”

    Signs of heat stroke in dogs and pets

    The California Department of Public Health warned of signs of heat-related illness to look for in animals:

    • Breathing quickly or panting louder/heavier than usual. Open-mouthed breathing/panting in cats is not normal and is a sign of being extremely hot, stressed, or sick.
    • Weakness and/or collapse
    • Dry or sticky gums
    • Pale, muddy, or red-colored gums (normal is light pink and moist)
    • Drooling
    • Vomiting or diarrhea
    • Excessively tired, dizzy, or confused
    • Bruising or bleeding​

    To prevent heat-related illness and/or death, CDPH advised pet owners to provide their animals with fresh cool water in tip-proof bowl, don’t force them to exercise when it is hot and humid, bring pets inside during periods of extreme heat, ensure pets have plenty of shade, provide protective booties against hot asphalt/concrete, and keep pets well-groomed.

    Veronica Catlin

    Source link

  • Xylitol sugar substitute linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke, study finds

    Xylitol sugar substitute linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke, study finds

    Xylitol is the latest sugar substitute to be linked to potential negative health impacts.

    In a study from the Cleveland Clinic, published Thursday in the European Heart Journal, researchers found higher amounts of xylitol are associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. 

    Xylitol, a sugar alcohol found naturally in some plants, is not the most common sweetening agent in sugar-free food products in the U.S. but is often found in sugarless gum and some toothpastes.

    The study, which included more than 3,000 participants in the U.S. and UK, was observational, meaning it does not prove causation. Still, it prompts pause when it comes to the use of artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to gain popularity as healthy alternatives.  

    “This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combatting conditions like obesity or diabetes,” said research lead Dr. Stanley Hazen in a news release. “It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot related events.” 

    The authors note further studies are warranted to better understand the potential health risks. 

    Last year, the same research team found erythritol, a zero-calorie sugar substitute used to sweeten low-cal, low-carb and “keto” products, to have similar effects on the heart.

    While this study also didn’t definitively show causation, then-CBS News medical contributor Dr. David Agus said there was “certainly enough data to make you very worried.”

    In response to the erythritol study, Robert Rankin, executive director of the Calorie Control Council, an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, told CBS News the results are “contrary to decades of scientific research showing low- and no-calorie sweeteners like erythritol are safe, as evidenced by global regulatory permissions for their use in foods and beverages, and should not be extrapolated to the general population, as the participants in the intervention were already at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” 

    CBS News has reached out to the Calorie Control Council for comment on the latest research involving xylitol. 

    Source link

  • DC Council member Vincent Gray suffers 2nd stroke in 3 years – WTOP News

    DC Council member Vincent Gray suffers 2nd stroke in 3 years – WTOP News

    The Ward 7 council member had been working to improve his mobility for months, but a spokesperson called Gray’s most recent stroke “a setback in that regard.”

    In this file photo, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray prepares to testify before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs at a hearing on statehood for D.C., on Capitol Hill Monday, Sept. 15, 2014. Federal prosecutors announced Wednesday that Gray would not face charges in connection to the probe of how his 2010 election campaign was funded. Seven others have pleaded guilty to various charges stemming from the four-year investigation.
    (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)(AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

    D.C. Council member and former Mayor Vincent Gray suffered another stroke in April and has been receiving physical therapy ever since.

    In an emailed statement to WTOP, spokesperson Chuck Thies wrote Gray’s recovery from a “recent, minor stroke is proceeding.” The Ward 7 council member had been working to improve his mobility for months, but Thies called Gray’s most recent stroke “a setback in that regard.”

    “What we know for certain is that the Councilmember’s cognitive abilities are unaffected by this stroke or the one he experienced in 2021,” Thies wrote.

    Gray is undergoing daily physical therapy and plans to continue on council business while he recovers. In a separate statement, Thies confirmed that Gray still plans to attend George Washington University’s commencement on the National Mall on Sunday, where he is set to be awarded an honorary doctoral degree in public service.

    The 81-year-old commented on his health Thursday after Chairman Phil Mendelson wished him a speedy recovery on X. In a social media post, Gray called the stroke “a health setback,” and added that he has had “no subsequent issues.”

    It is Gray’s second stroke in three years. In 2021, he was hospitalized for bronchitis when he had a mild stroke. He still worked on other council business while in the hospital.

    In December of 2023, Gray announced that he won’t be running for reelection in 2024, closing out a nearly two-decade-long career in public service. His term is set to end on January 2025.

    Gray began his first term on the council in 2005 and served as D.C. mayor from 2011-2015.

    The Washington Post was first to report Gray’s health status.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Jose Umana

    Source link

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

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

    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. 
     

    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

    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. 

    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

    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. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

    The Efficacy of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    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. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

    The Safety of Weight-Loss Supplements  | NutritionFacts.org

    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. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Coffee, Tea And Good Health

    Coffee, Tea And Good Health

    Coffee and tea have been seen as villains for the body.  An entire industry has popped up around alternatives to just good coffee or a piping hot cuppa tea. There is a rough estimate the world drinks three cups of tea for every cup of coffee. And tea is the second most popular beverage in the world (behind water). Now science is indicate Coffee, tea and good health may go together.

    The study, published in PLOS Medicine, surveyed data on 360,000 people between the ages of 50 and 74, looking for their coffee and tea drinking habits and incidents of dementia and strokes over the years. After the initial survey was conducted, these same participants were followed up with 11 years later, allowing researchers to compare and contrast.

    RELATED: Coffee Protects You From This Disease According To New Research

    Photo by Kira auf der Heide via Unsplash

    The study concluded participants who drank two to three cups of any of these two drinks a day fared better than those who didn’t drink them at all. The sweet spot was found when people consumed the amount of each beverage daily (4 to 6 cups total), resulting in a 28% lower risk of dementia and 32% lower risk of a stroke.

    In an email exchange with CNN, Dr. Lee H. Schwamm, chair of the American Stroke Association Advisory Committee and chair in Vascular Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital, explained while the study was intriguing there was no way of establishing causation from this initial data.

    RELATED: This Type Of Coffee Is Best For Your Heart Health

    “We cannot impute causality, and say ‘drinking more coffee or tea is good for your brain.’ What we can only say in this study, people who reported moderate coffee/tea drinking were less likely to have a stroke or dementia occur in the 10 years of follow-up,” he said.

    This Type Of Coffee Is Best For Your Heart Health
    Photo by Jenny Ueberberg via Unsplash

    RELATED: Here’s When You Should Drink Coffee For Maximum Productivity

    Coffee has long been associated with preventing a wide range of diseases and improving heart health. Still, it’s always important to approach caffeine in moderation, managing your coffee intake without keeping too much of a stern hold on it. When it comes to tea, studies have found links suggest lower odds of cardiovascular disease, better teeth, and even protection against cancer.

    In short, go for the warm drink in the morning, and don’t overthink it if you get the urge to have more later on in the day.

    Maria Loreto

    Source link

  • Under bombing in eastern Ukraine and disabled by illness, an unknown painter awaits his fate

    Under bombing in eastern Ukraine and disabled by illness, an unknown painter awaits his fate


    SLOVIANSK, Ukraine — Mykola Soloviov, 88, is a painter the world does not know. His landscapes of eastern Ukraine, records of a lost time, lie tucked away in a modest home under threat of Russian attack.

    Soloviov can’t hear or walk and barely speaks. Disabled since a 2017 stroke, he spends his days bedridden in an apartment in Sloviansk, a city 25 kilometers (15 miles) from the front line in the region of Donetsk.

    Waves of Russian missile attacks have continued to pound civilian areas across Ukraine as the war approaches its second anniversary next month, killing scores of Ukrainian civilians, often in their own homes. Eastern Ukraine, where troops live among the civilian population, is often hit the hardest.

    But his wife, Liudymla, doesn’t want Mykola and his paintings to die in anonymity. She wants the world to know he’s not just another civilian caught in the middle of a war.

    From the sofa where he lies motionless for much of the day, Mykola’s lively eyes are fixed on the window, his only view into the changing world he can no longer comprehend.

    He’d paint the same scenes again and again. “It’s not about what you paint, it’s about how you paint it,” he used to tell his wife when she asked why.

    Employed for much of his life as a painter in a factory, Mykola would spend hours by the window, gazing at the view and producing his works. Liudmyla, 78, held up a painting of that view: expertly layered soft colors bring out the purity of fresh winter snow.

    On Saturday, the window was a hole framed by shattered glass, showing emergency crews cleaning up debris from the kindergarten across the yard. Men in military fatigues picked their way across ground pockmarked by artillery craters and covered in debris left in the wake of a Russian air attack.

    Earlier that day, a Russian Iskander missile hit a ceramics workshop a few meters away from the Soloviovs’ home, leveling it and shattering their windows.

    The blast jolted Liudymla awake, who ran to her paralyzed husband’s side and covered him with blankets as bitterly cold air wafted in.

    “How can I feel? There is no joy in my life,” she said. “We are living on needles.” Her mind is occupied with all the things she must do for her husband. “I already changed (the blankets) and cooked for him, but it is cold inside my house.”

    Sloviansk was never a luxurious place but it had allowed the couple to build a life. Both were the children of parents who moved to the city, known for its factories and riverside resorts, looking for work. Mykola’s family came from Russia, and Liudmyla’s from western Ukraine. When she was 16, she helped her father build them a house, making cinder blocks and planing boards after school.

    On Saturday, she watched as workers sliced wooden boards to cover the holes left when the Russian attack shattered windows in dozens of apartments.

    The Associated Press asked her about the explosion, but she changed the subject back to her husband’s paintings.

    Liudmyla leafs through an old photo album containing images of Mykola’s paintings, the closest thing he has to an artist’s monograph, and then brings out a few of the originals she’s packed away for safe-keeping.

    The paintings are unknown in Sloviansk, let alone the world. An old newspaper clipping contains a short article, describing a gallery of 60 of his works “charming” and “cleverly composed.”

    Occasionally Mykola glances at her holding up his paintings, his face brightening.

    “He has been drawing since childhood,” she said, “but stopped when he got sick.”

    Soloviov often returned to the banks of the Kazenny Torets River to capture the changing seasons. “He was painting this river all the time, in summer, winter,” Liudymla said, her voice trailing off.

    Mykola never aimed for realism, but his paintings captured the feeling of the pastoral landscapes, waterways and abundant greenery that defined Sloviansk’s landscape before the war. His loose and fluid brush work convey vibrancy and nostalgia for the passing seasons; vivid colors show his deep attachment to the land.

    In 2014, Sloviansk was a flashpoint in the war against Russia’s invasion and one of the first cities to be seized by Moscow’s forces. Liudmyla’s sister was badly wounded by shrapnel during the fighting, dying of complications four years later.

    By the time of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Mykola was too sick to be moved. His family, including his 49-year-old son Vitallii, stayed in Sloviansk, despite rapidly deteriorating conditions.

    “There are places to go, for example, to western Ukraine or the Vinnytsia region, where my cousin lives,” Liudmyla said, “but it is very problematic because he cannot move around on his own. And now I don’t know what to do and where to go.”

    In recent months a missile strike destroyed Vitallii’s home and he moved in with his parents.

    “I will never leave my father,” he said, rolling cigarettes in the kitchen. “No matter the bombs.”

    Outside, the screech of a saw cutting wood rang out. Her neighbors were still in line, waiting for their turn to seal off their homes from the elements.

    Internet searches yield no results for Mykola’s name, or his art, but Liudymla preserves his paintings and his clippings as though they were important historical documents.

    Just then, Vitallii tells her the heating system is damaged.

    “One problem after another,” she sighs.

    Soloviov has not uttered a word throughout the interview. His shriveled hand motions for the blanket, but his gaze is fixed on that window.



    Source link