ReportWire

Tag: vegetarians

  • Can Vegan Fecal Transplants Lower TMAO Levels? | NutritionFacts.org

    If the microbiome of those eating plant-based diets protects against the toxic effects of TMAO, what about swapping gut flora?

    “Almost 2,500 years ago, Hippocrates stated that ‘All disease begins in the gut.’” When we feed our gut bacteria right with whole plant foods, they feed us right back with beneficial compounds like butyrate, which our gut bugs make from fiber. On the other hand, if we feed them wrong, they can produce detrimental compounds like TMAO, which they make from cheese, eggs, seafood, and other meat.

    We used to think that TMAO only contributed to cardiovascular diseases, like heart disease and stroke, but, more recently, it has been linked to psoriatic arthritis, associated with polycystic ovary syndrome, and everything in between. I’m most concerned about our leading killers, though. Of the top ten causes of death in the United States, we’ve known about its association with increased risk of heart disease and stroke, killers number one and five, but recently, an association has also been found between blood levels of TMAO and the risks of various cancers, which are our killer number two. The link between TMAO and cancer could be attributed to the inflammation caused by TMAO, but it could also be oxidative stress (free radicals), DNA damage, or a disruption in protein folding.

    What about our fourth leading killer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), like emphysema? TMAO is associated with premature death in patients with exacerbated COPD, though it’s suspected that it’s due to them dying from more cardiovascular disease.

    The link to stroke is a no-brainer—no pun intended. It is due to the higher blood pressure associated with higher TMAO levels, as well as the greater likelihood of clots forming in those with atrial fibrillation. Those with higher TMAO levels also appear to have worse strokes and four times the odds of death.

    Killer number six is Alzheimer’s disease. Can TMAO even get up into our brains? Yes, TMAO is present in human cerebrospinal fluid, which bathes the brain, and TMAO levels are higher in those with mild cognitive dysfunction and those with Alzheimer’s disease dementia. “In the brain, TMAO has been shown to induce neuronal senescence [meaning, deterioration with age], increase oxidative stress, impair mitochondrial function, and inhibit mTOR signaling, all of which contribute to brain aging and cognitive impairment.”

    Killer number seven is diabetes, and people with higher TMAO levels are about 50% more likely to have diabetes. Killer number eight is pneumonia, and TMAO predicts fatal outcomes in pneumonia patients even without evident heart disease. Kidney disease is killer number nine, and TMAO is strongly related to kidney function and predicts fatal outcomes there as well. Over a period of five years, more than half of chronic kidney disease patients who started out with average or higher TMAO levels were dead, whereas among those in the lowest third of levels, nearly 90% remained alive.

    How can we lower the TMAO levels in our blood? Because TMAO originates from dietary sources, we could limit our intake of choline- and carnitine-rich foods. They’re so widespread in foods,” though we’re talking about meat, eggs, and dairy. “Therefore, restriction of foods rich in TMA-containing nutrients may not be practical.” Can we just get a vegan fecal transplant? “Vegan donors provided the investigators with a fresh morning fecal sample…”

    If you remember, if you give a vegan a steak, despite all that carnitine, they make almost no TMAO compared to a meat-eater, presumably because the vegan hasn’t been fostering steak-eating bugs in their gut. See below and at 3:40 in my video Can Vegan Fecal Transplants Lower TMAO Levels?.

    Remarkably, even if you give plant-based eaters the equivalent of a 20-ounce steak every day for two months, only about half start ramping up production of TMAO, showing just how far their gut flora has to change. The capacity of veggie feces to churn out TMAO is almost nonexistent. Instead of eating healthier, what about getting some vegan poop?

    In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, research subjects either got vegan poop or their own poop back through a hose snaked down their nose, and it didn’t work.

    First of all, the vegans recruited for the study started out making TMAO themselves, in contrast to the other study, where they didn’t make any at all. This may be because the earlier study required the vegans to have been vegan for at least a year, and this study didn’t. So, there wasn’t much of a change in TMAO running through their bodies two weeks after getting the vegan poop, but the vegan poop they got seemed to start out with some capacity to produce TMAO in the first place.

    So, the failure to improve after the vegan fecal transplant “could be related to limited baseline microbiome differences and continuation of an omnivorous diet” after the vegan-donor transplant. What’s the point of trying to reset your microbiome if you’re just going to eat meat? Well, the researchers didn’t want to switch people to a plant-based diet since they knew that alone can change our microbiome, and they didn’t want to introduce any extra factors. The bottom line is that it seems there may not be any shortcuts. We may just have to eat a healthier diet.

    Doctor’s Note

    Want to become a donor? Find out How to Become a Fecal Transplant Super Donor.

    For more on TMAO, check out related posts below. 

    See the microbiome topic page for even more.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fungal Toxins for Breakfast? | NutritionFacts.org

    One of the few food contaminants found at higher levels in those eating plant-based diets are mycotoxins, fungal toxins in moldy food ingredients, such as oats.

    In France, exposure to dietary contaminants was compared between vegetarians and meat-eaters, and the results showed that exposures to persistent organic pollutants like PCBs and dioxins were dramatically lower among those eating more plant-based foods. This was due to their avoidance of foods of animal origin, though they did have higher estimated exposure to some mycotoxins, fungal toxins present in moldy food.

    There are many types of mold on the planet, possibly millions, and the vast majority are harmless. However, over the last several years, certain mold toxins, such as aflatoxin and ochratoxin, have been popping up in breakfast cereals. Hundreds of samples were taken off store shelves, and about half were found to be contaminated with ochratoxin, but those store shelves were in Pakistan, which has a sub-tropical climate with monsoons and flash floods, leading to fungal propagation. Similar results have since popped up in Europe, in Serbia, for instance. They’ve also been found in Spain and seen in Portugal. Then, mycotoxins were discovered in breakfast cereals in Canada. What about breakfast cereals sold in the United States?

    Researchers collected 144 samples and, similar to other countries, found that about half contained ochratoxin, but only about 7% exceeded the maximum limit established by the European Commission. What is the significance of finding ochratoxin in U.S. breakfast cereals? In the largest study to date, which included nearly 500 samples of cereal off store shelves across the United States, overall detection rates were about 40%, though only 16 of the samples violated the European standards. All the cereals with ochratoxin were oat-based; however, about 1 in 13 of the oat-based cereal samples tested were contaminated.

    Ochratoxin has become increasingly regulated by many countries to minimize chronic exposure. Shown below and at 2:23 in my video Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals are the current regulations for mycotoxins in cereal-based baby foods, for example, worldwide.

    Some countries are very strict, like in the European Union; other countries are less so, and one country in particular has no standards at all. Ochratoxin is not currently regulated at all in the United States.

    What about sticking to organic products? One might expect them to be worse due to the fact that fungicides are not allowed in organic production. However, “mycotoxin concentrations are usually similar or reduced in organic compared with conventional products.” For example, in one of the breakfast cereal studies, researchers found similar contamination, and the same was found for infant foods. It cannot be concluded that organic is better than conventional from a mycotoxin perspective. “Despite no use of fungicides, an organic system appears generally able to maintain mycotoxin contamination at low levels.” But how much is that saying, given how widespread it is? How concerned should we be about the public health effects from “long-term exposure to this potent mycotoxin”?

    If you look at blood samples taken from populations going back decades, sometimes 100% of people turn up positive for ochratoxin circulating in their bloodstream. In some sense, mycotoxins “are unavoidable contaminants of food,” since they are not easy to detect and many of them can remain hidden. And, once foods have become contaminated, mycotoxins aren’t destroyed by cooking. So, are there some foods we should simply try to avoid due to a higher risk of contamination? That’s exactly the question I’m going to address next.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the first video in a four-part series on mold toxins. Check related posts below for the other three.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Plant-Based Hospital Menus | NutritionFacts.org

    The American Medical Association passed a resolution encouraging hospitals to offer healthy plant-based food options.

    “Globally, 11 million deaths annually are attributable to dietary factors, placing poor diet ahead of any other risk factor for death in the world.” Given that diet is our leading killer, you’d think that nutrition education would be emphasized during medical school and training, but there is a deficiency. A systematic review found that, “despite the centrality of nutrition to a healthy lifestyle, graduating medical students are not supported through their education to provide high-quality, effective nutrition care to patients…”

    It could start in undergrad. What’s more important? Learning about humanity’s leading killer or organic chemistry?

    In medical school, students may average only 19 hours of nutrition out of thousands of hours of instruction, and they aren’t even being taught what’s most useful. How many cases of scurvy and beriberi, diseases of dietary deficiency, will they encounter in clinical practice? In contrast, how many of their future patients will be suffering from dietary excesses—obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease? Those are probably a little more common than scurvy or beriberi. “Nevertheless, fully 95% of cardiologists [surveyed] believe that their role includes personally providing patients with at least basic nutrition information,” yet not even one in ten feels they have an “expert” grasp on the subject.

    If you look at the clinical guidelines for what we should do for our patients with regard to our number one killer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, all treatment begins with a healthy lifestyle, as shown below and at 1:50 in my video Hospitals with 100-Percent Plant-Based Menus.

    “Yet, how can clinicians put these guidelines into practice without adequate training in nutrition?”

    Less than half of medical schools report teaching any nutrition in clinical practice. In fact, they may be effectively teaching anti-nutrition, as “students typically begin medical school with a greater appreciation for the role of nutrition in health than when they leave.” Below and at 2:36 in my video is a figure entitled “Percentage of Medical Students Indicating that Nutrition is Important to Their Careers.” Upon entry to different medical schools, about three-quarters on average felt that nutrition is important to their careers. Smart bunch. Then, after two years of instruction, they were asked the same question, and the numbers plummeted. In fact, at most schools, it fell to 0%. Instead of being educated, they got de-educated. They had the notion that nutrition is important washed right out of their brains. “Thus, preclinical teaching”— the first two years of medical school—“engenders a loss of a sense of the relevance of the applied discipline of nutrition.”

    Following medical school, during residency, nutrition education is “minimal or, more typically, absent.” “Major updates” were released in 2018 for residency and fellowship training requirements, and there were zero requirements for nutrition. “So you could have an internal medicine graduate who comes out of a terrific program and has learned nothing—literally nothing—about nutrition.”

    “Why is diet not routinely addressed in both medical education and practice already, and what should be done about that?” One of the “reasons for the medical silence in nutrition” is that, “sadly…nutrition takes a back seat…because there are few financial incentives to support it.” What can we do about that? The Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School identified a dozen different policy levers at all stages of medical education and the kinds of policy recommendations there could be for the decision-makers, as you can see here and at 3:48 in my video.

    For instance, the government could require doctors working for Veterans Affairs (VA) to get at least some courses in nutrition, or we could put questions about nutrition on the board exams so schools would be pressured to teach it. As we are now, even patients who have just had a heart attack aren’t changing their diet. Doctors may not be telling them to do so, and hospitals may be actively undermining their future with the food they serve.

    The good news is that the American Medical Association (AMA) has passed a resolution encouraging hospitals to offer healthy food options. What a concept! “Our AMA hereby calls on [U.S.] Health Care Facilities to improve the health of patients, staff, and visitors by: (a) providing a variety of healthy food, including plant-based meals, and meals that are low in saturated and trans fat, sodium, and added sugars; (b) eliminating processed meats from menus; and (c) providing and promoting healthy beverages.” Nice!

    “Similarly, in 2018, the State of California mandated the availability of plant-based meals for hospital patients,” and there are hospitals in Gainesville (FL), the Bronx, Manhattan, Denver, and Tampa (FL) that “all provide 100% plant-based meals to their patients on a separate menu and provide educational materials to inpatients to improve education on the role of diet, especially plant-based diets, in chronic illness.”

    Let’s check out some of their menu offerings: How about some lentil Bolognese? Or a cauliflower scramble with baked hash browns for breakfast, mushroom ragu for lunch, and, for supper, white bean stew, salad, and fruit for dessert. (This is the first time a hospital menu has ever made me hungry!)

    The key to these transformations was “having a physician advocate and increasing education of staff and patients on the benefits of eating more plant-based foods.” A single clinician can spark change in a whole system, because science is on their side. “Doctors have a unique position in society” to influence policy at all levels; it’s about time we used it.

    For more on the ingrained ignorance of basic clinical nutrition in medicine, see the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Treat the Cause | NutritionFacts.org

    Treat the underlying cause of chronic lifestyle diseases.

    It’s been said that more than 2,000 years ago, Hippocrates declared, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” In actuality, it appears that he never actually said those words, but there’s “no doubt about the relevance of food…and its role in health and disease states” in his writings. Regardless, 2,000 years ago, disease was thought to arise from a bad sense of “humors,” as you can see here and at 0:32 in my video Lifestyle and Disease Prevention: Your DNA Is Not Your Destiny.

    Now, we have science, and there is “an overwhelming body of clinical and epidemiological evidence illustrating the dramatic impact of a healthy lifestyle on reducing all-cause mortality”—meaning death from all causes put together—“and preventing chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.” But don’t those diseases just run in our family? What if we just have bad genes?

    According to the esteemed former chair of nutrition at Harvard, for most of the diseases that have contributed “importantly” to mortality in Western peoples, we’ve long known that non-genetic factors often account for at least 80% to 90% of risk. We know this because rates of the leading killers, like major cancers and cardiovascular diseases, vary up to 100-fold around the world, and, “when groups migrate from low- to high-risk countries, their disease rates almost always change to those of the new environment.” Modifiable behavioral factors have been identified, “including specific aspects of diet, overweight, inactivity, and smoking that account for over 70% of stroke and colon cancer, over 80% of coronary heart disease, and over 90% of adult-onset [type 2] diabetes”—diseases that can largely be prevented by our own actions.

    If most of the power is in our own hands, why do we allocate massively more resources to treatment than prevention? And speaking of prevention, “even preventive strategies are heavily biased towards pharmacology rather than supporting improvements in diet and lifestyle that could be more cost-effective. For example, treatment of [high] serum cholesterol with statins alone could cost approximately 30 billion dollars per year in the United States and would have only a modest impact on coronary heart disease incidence. The inherent problem is that most pharmacologic strategies don’t address the underlying causes of ill health in Western countries, which are not drug deficiencies.”

    Ironically, the chronic diseases that are most amenable to lifestyle treatment are the same ones most profitably treated by drugs. Why? If you don’t change your diet, you have to pop the pills every day for the rest of your life. So, the cash-cow drugs are the very drugs we need the least. “Even though the most widely accepted, well-established chronic disease practice guidelines uniformly call for lifestyle change as the first line of therapy, physicians often do not follow these recommendations.” “By ignoring the root causes of disease and neglecting to prioritize lifestyle measures for prevention, the medical community is placing people at harm.”

    “Traditional medical care relies primarily on the application of pharmacologic and surgical interventions after the development of illness,” whereas lifestyle medicine relies primarily on “the use of optimal nutrition (a whole foods, plant-based diet) and exercise in the prevention, arrest, and reversal of chronic conditions leading to premature disability and death. It looks in a holistic way at the underlying causes of illness.”

    Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, director of PharmedOut, a wonderful organization I’m proud to support, wrote a great editorial entitled “Doctors Must Not Be Lapdogs to Drug Firms.” “The illusion that the relationship between medicine and the drug industry is collegial, professional, and personal is carefully maintained by the drug industry, which actually views all transactions with physicians in finely calculated financial terms…The drug industry is happy to play the generous and genial uncle until physicians want to discuss subjects that are off limits, such as the benefits of diet or exercise, or the relationship between medicine and pharmaceutical companies…Let us not be a lapdog to Big Pharma. Rather than sitting contentedly in our master’s lap, let us turn around and bite something tender.”

    Doctor’s Note

    The organization I mentioned, PharmedOut, is a project of Georgetown University Medical Center.

    For more on Lifestyle Medicine, see related videos below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Ideal vs. Normal Cholesterol Levels  | NutritionFacts.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For more on cholesterol, see the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fasting and Plant-Based Diets for Migraines and Traumatic Brain Injuries  | NutritionFacts.org

    What effects do fasting and a plant-based diet have on TBI and migraines?

    An uncontrolled and unpublished study purported to show a beneficial effect of fasting on migraine headaches, but fasting may be more likely to trigger a migraine than help it. In fact, “skipped meals are among the most consistently identified dietary triggers” of headaches in general. In a review of hundreds of fasts at the TrueNorth Health Center in California, the incidence of headache was nearly one in three, but TrueNorth also published a remarkable case report on post-traumatic headache.

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that more than a million Americans sustain traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) every year. Chronic pain is a common complication, affecting perhaps three-quarters of those who suffer such an injury. There are drugs, of course, to treat post-traumatic headache. There are always drugs. And if drugs don’t work, there is surgery, cutting the nerves to the head to stop the pain.

    What about fasting and plants? A 52-year-old woman presented with a highly debilitating, difficult-to-manage, unremitting, chronic post-traumatic headache. And when I say chronic, I mean chronic; she experienced pain for 16 years. She then achieved long-term relief after fasting, followed by an exclusively plant-foods diet, free of added sugar, oil, or salt.

    Before then, she had tried drug after drug after drug after drug after drug—with no relief, suffering in constant pain for years. Before the fast, she started out in constant pain. Then, after the fast, the intensity of the pain was cut in half, and though she was still having daily headaches, at least there were some pain-free periods. Six months later, she tried again, and eventually her headaches became mild, lasting less than ten minutes, and infrequent. She continued that way for months and even years, as you can see below and at 1:45 in my video Fasting for Post-Traumatic Brain Injury Headache. 

    Now, of course, it’s hard to disentangle the effects of the fasting from the effects of the whole food, plant-based diet she remained on for those ensuing years. You’ve heard of analgesics (painkillers). Well, there are some foods that may be pro-algesic (pain-promoting), such as foods high in arachidonic acid, including meats, dairy, and eggs. So, the lowering of arachidonic acid—from which our body makes a range of pro-inflammatory compounds—may be accomplished by eating a more plant-based diet. So, maybe that contributed to the benefit in the fasting case, since many plant foods are high in anti-inflammatory components. In terms of migraine headaches, more plant foods and less animal foods may help, but you don’t know until you put it to the test.

    Researchers figured a plant-based diet may offer the best of both worlds, so they designed a randomized, controlled, crossover study where those with recurrent migraines were randomized to eat a strictly plant-based diet or take a placebo pill. Then, the groups switched. During the placebo phase, half of the participants said their pain improved, and the other half said their pain remained the same or got worse. But, during the dietary phase, they almost all got better, as you can see here and at 3:11 in my video.

    During that first phase, the diet group experienced significant improvements in the number of headaches, pain intensity, and days with headaches, as well as a reduction in the amount of painkillers they needed to take. In fact, it worked a little too well. Many individuals were unwilling to return to their previous diets after they completed the diet phase of the trial, thereby refusing to complete the study. Remember, the participants were supposed to go back to their regular diets and take a placebo pill, but they felt so much better on the plant-based diet that they refused. We’ve seen this with other trials, where those trying plant-based diets felt so good, they often refused to abandon them, harming the study. So, plant-based diets can sometimes work a little too well.

    All my videos on fasting are available in a digital download here.  

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Might Meat Trigger Parkinson’s Disease?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What does the gut have to do with developing Parkinson’s disease?

    Parkinson’s disease is an ever-worsening neurodegenerative disorder that results in death and affects about 1 in 50 people as they get older. A small minority of cases are genetic, running in families, but 85% to 90% of cases are sporadic, meaning they seem to pop up out of nowhere. Parkinson’s is caused by the death of a certain kind of nerve cell in the brain. Once about 70% of them are gone, the symptoms start. What kills off those cells? It still isn’t completely clear, but the abnormal clumping of a protein called alpha-synuclein or α-synuclein is thought to be involved. Why? Researchers injected blended Parkinson’s brains into the heads of rats and monkeys, and Parkinson’s pathology and symptoms were induced. It can even happen when injecting just the pure, clumped α-synuclein strands themselves. How, though, do these clumps naturally end up in the brain?

    As I discuss in my video The Role Meat May Play in Triggering Parkinson’s Disease, it all seems to start in the gut. The part of the brain where the pathology often first appears is directly connected to the gut, and we have direct evidence of the spread of Parkinson’s pathology from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to the brain: α-synuclein from brains of Parkinson’s patients is taken up in the gut wall and creeps up the vagal nerves from the gut into the brain—at least that was the case in rats. If only we could go back and look at people’s colons before they got Parkinson’s. Indeed, we can. Old colon biopsies from people who would later develop Parkinson’s were dredged up, and, years before symptoms arose, you could see the α-synuclein in their gut.

    Research supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation has found that you can reliably distinguish the colons of patients from controls by the presence of this Parkinson’s protein lodged in the gut wall. But how did it get there in the first place? Are “vertebrate food products…a potential source of prion-like α-synuclein”? Indeed, nearly all the animals with backbones that we consume—cows, chickens, pigs, and fish—express the protein α-synuclein. So, when we eat common meat products, when we eat skeletal muscle, we’re eating nerves, blood cells, and the muscle cells themselves. Every pound of meat contains, on average, half a teaspoon of blood, and that alone could be an α-synuclein source to potentially trigger a clumping cascade of our own α-synuclein in the gut. Though “it may seem intuitive that dietary α-synuclein could seed aggregation in the gut,” this kind of buildup, what evidence do we have that it’s actually happening?

    We have some pretty interesting data. There’s a surgical procedure called a vagotomy, in which the big nerve that goes from our gut to our brain—the vagus nerve—is cut as an old-timey treatment for stomach ulcers. Would cutting communication between the gut and the brain reduce Parkinson’s risk? Apparently so, suggesting that the gut to brain’s vagal nerve may be critically involved in the development of Parkinson’s disease.

    Of course, “many people regularly consume meat and dairy products, but only a small fraction of the general population will develop PD,” Parkinson’s disease. So, there must be other factors at play that “may provide an opportunity for unwanted dietary α-synuclein to enter the host, and initiate disease.” For example, our gut becomes leakier as we age, so might that play a role? What else makes our gut leaky? “Dietary fiber deprivation has also been shown to degrade the intestinal barrier and enhance pathogen entry.” So, this raises “possibilities for food-based therapies.”

    Parkinson’s patients have significantly less Prevotella in their gut, a friendly fiber-eating flora that bolsters our intestinal barrier function. So, low levels of Prevotella are linked to a leaky gut, which has been linked to intestinal α-synuclein deposition, but fiber-rich foods may bring Prevotella levels back up. “Therefore, it is possible that by adopting a plant-based diet, in addition to the beneficial effects of phytonutrients, increasing overall fiber intake may modify gut microbiota and gut permeability [leakiness] in beneficial ways for people with PD.”

    So, does a vegan diet—one with lots of fiber and no meat—reduce risk for Parkinson’s? Parkinson’s “appears to be rare in quasi-vegan cultures,” with rates that are about five times lower in rural sub-Saharan Africa, for instance. All this time, we were thinking the benefits seen for Parkinson’s from plant-based diets were due to the antioxidants and anti-inflammatory nature of the animal-free diets, but maybe it’s also due to the increased intestinal exposure to fiber and decreased intestinal exposure to ingested nerves, muscles, and blood.

    Wasn’t that fascinating? For more on Parkinson’s, see the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • A Longer Life on Statins?  | NutritionFacts.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fiber or Low FODMAP for SIBO?  | NutritionFacts.org

    It may not be the number of bacteria growing in our small intestine, but the type of bacteria, which can be corrected with diet.

    When researchers tested more than a thousand patients suffering for longer than six months from symptoms typical with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), such as excess gas, bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, but who do not appear to have anything more serious going on, like inflammatory bowel disease, a significant percentage were found to be suffering from lactose intolerance—intolerance to the milk sugar lactose. In infancy, we have an enzyme called lactase in our small intestine that digests milk sugar, but, understandably, most of us lose it after weaning. “Although genetic mutation has led to persistence of lactase in adults, about 75% of the world’s population malabsorbs lactose after age 30” and have lactose intolerance. However, a third of the patients were diagnosed with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO).

    “The evidence for SIBO and IBS is shrouded in controversy, predominantly because of the fact that the [breath] tests used in clinical practice to diagnose SIBO are not valid,” as I’ve explored before. As well, the implications of having more versus fewer bacteria growing in the small intestine are unclear since the number doesn’t seem to correlate with the symptoms. It turns out it isn’t the number of bugs growing in the small intestine, but the type of bugs. So, it’s “small intestinal microbial dysbiosis”—not overgrowth in general, but the wrong kind of growth—that appears to underlie symptoms associated with functional gastrointestinal disorders, like IBS.

    How can we prevent this from happening? The symptoms appear to be correlated with a significant drop in the number of Prevotella. Remember them? Prevotella are healthy fiber feeders, “suggestive of a higher fiber intake in healthy individuals,” while the bugs found more in symptomatic patients ate sugar, which “may reflect a higher dietary intake of simple sugars.” However, correlation doesn’t mean causation. To prove cause and effect, we have to put it to the test, which is exactly what researchers did.

    “Switching a group of healthy individuals who habitually ate a high­-fibre diet (>11g per 1,000 calories) to a low­-fibre diet (<10g per day) containing a high concentration of simple sugars for 7 days produced striking results. First, 80% developed de novo [new] gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating and abdominal pain that resolved on resumption of their habitual high-fibre diet. Second, diet­-related changes in the small intestinal microbiome were predictive of symptoms (such as bloating and abdominal discomfort) and linked to an alteration in duodenal [intestinal] permeability.” In other words, they developed a leaky gut within seven days. And, while some went from SIBO positive to SIBO negative and others from SIBO negative to SIBO positive, it didn’t matter because the number of bacteria growing didn’t correlate with symptoms. It was the type of bacteria growing, as you can see below, and at 3:12 in my video Fiber vs. Low FODMAP for SIBO Symptoms.

    No wonder their guts got leaky. Levels of short-chain fatty acids plummeted. Those are the magical by-products our good gut bugs make from fiber, which “play an important role in epithelial [intestinal] barrier integrity,” meaning they keep our gut from getting leaky.

    So, while we don’t have sound data to suggest that something like a low FODMAP diet has any benefit for patients with SIBO symptoms, there have been more than a dozen randomized controlled trials that have put fiber to the test. Overall, researchers found there was a significant improvement in symptoms among those randomized to increase their fiber intake. That may help explain why “high-fiber, plant-based diets can prevent many diseases common in industrialized societies.” Such diets have this effect “on the composition and metabolic activity of the colonic microbiota.” Our good gut bugs take plant residues like fiber and produce “health-promoting and cancer-suppressing metabolites” like short-chain fatty acids, which have profound anti-inflammatory properties. “All the evidence points to a physiological need for ~50 g fiber per day, which is the amount contained in the traditional African diet and associated with the prevention of westernized diseases.” That is approximately twice the typical recommendation and three times more than what most people get on a daily basis. Perhaps it should be no surprise that we need so much. Even though we split from chimpanzees millions of years ago, “there is still broad congruency” in the composition of our respective microbiomes to this day. While they’re still eating their 98 to 99 percent plant-based diets to feed their friendly flora with fiber, we’ve largely removed fiber-rich foods from our food supply. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Boosting BDNF Levels in Our Brain to Treat Depression  | NutritionFacts.org

    We can raise BDNF levels in our brain by fasting and exercising, as well as by eating and avoiding certain foods.

    There is accumulating evidence that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) may be playing a role in human depression. BDNF controls the growth of new nerve cells. “So, low levels of this peptide could lead to an atrophy of specific brain areas such as the amygdala and the hippocampus, as it has been observed among depressed patients.” That may be one of the reasons that exercise is so good for our brains. Start an hour-a-day exercise regimen, and, within three months, there can be a quadrupling of BDNF release from our brain, as seen below and at 0:35 in my video How to Boost Brain BDNF Levels for Depression Treatment.

    This makes sense. Any time we were desperate to catch prey (or desperate not to become prey ourselves), we needed to be cognitively sharp. So, when we’re fasting, exercising, or in a negative calorie balance, our brain starts churning out BDNF to make sure we’re firing on all cylinders. Of course, Big Pharma is eager to create drugs to mimic this effect, but is there any way to boost BDNF naturally? Yes, I just said it: fasting and exercising. Is there anything we can add to our diet to boost BDNF?

    Higher intakes of dietary flavonoids appear to be protectively associated with symptoms of depression. The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study followed tens of thousands of women for years and found that those who were consuming the most flavonoids appeared to reduce their risk of becoming depressed. Flavonoids occur naturally in plants, so there’s a substantial amount in a variety of healthy foods. But how do we know the benefits are from the flavonoids and not just from eating more healthfully in general? We put it to the test.

    Some fruits and vegetables have more flavonoids than others. As shown below and at 1:51 in my video, apples have more than apricots, plums more than peaches, red cabbage more than white, and kale more than cucumbers. Researchers randomized people into one of three groups: more high-flavonoid fruits and vegetables, more low-flavonoid fruits and vegetables, or no extra fruits and vegetables at all. After 18 weeks, only the high-flavonoid group got a significant boost in BDNF levels, which corresponded with an improvement in cognitive performance. The BDNF boost may help explain why each additional daily serving of fruits or vegetables is associated with a 3 percent decrease in the risk of depression. 

    What’s more, as seen here and at 2:27 in my video, a teaspoon a day of the spice turmeric may boost BNDF levels by more than 50 percent within a month. This is consistent with the other randomized controlled trials that have so far been done. 

    Nuts may help, too. In the PREDIMED study, where people were randomized to receive weekly batches of nuts or extra-virgin olive oil, the nut group lowered their risk of having low BDNF levels by 78 percent, as shown below and at 2:46.

    And BDNF is not implicated only in depression, but schizophrenia. When individuals with schizophrenia underwent a 12-week exercise program, they got a significant boost in their BDNF levels, which led the researchers to “suggest that exercise-induced modulation of BDNF may play an important role in developing non-pharmacological treatment for chronic schizophrenic patients.”

    What about schizophrenia symptoms? Thirty individuals with schizophrenia were randomized to ramp up to 40 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week or not, and there did appear to be an improvement in psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations, as well as an increase in their quality of life, with exercise. In fact, researchers could actually visualize what happened in their brains. Loss of brain volume in a certain region appears to be a feature of schizophrenia, but 30 minutes of exercise, three times a week, resulted in an increase of up to 20 percent in the size of that region within three months, as seen here and at 3:46 in my video. 

    Caloric restriction may also increase BDNF levels in people with schizophrenia. So, researchers didn’t just have study participants eat less, but more healthfully, too—less saturated fat and sugar, and more fruits and veggies. The study was like the Soviet fasting trials for schizophrenia that reported truly unbelievable results, supposedly restoring people to function, and described fasting as “an unparalleled achievement in the treatment of schizophrenia”—but part of the problem is that the diagnostic system the Soviets used is completely different than ours, making any results hard to interpret. There was a subgroup that seemed to correspond to the Western definition, but they still reported 40 to 60 percent improvement rates from fasting, but fasting wasn’t all they did. After the participants fasted for up to a month, they were put on a meat- and egg-free diet. So, when the researchers reported these remarkable effects even years later, they were for those individuals who stuck with the meat- and egg-free diet. Evidently, the closer the diet was followed, the better the effect, and those who broke the diet relapsed. The researchers noted: “Not all patients can remain vegetarian, but they must not take meat for at least six months, and then in very small portions.” We know from randomized controlled trials that simply eschewing meat and eggs can improve mental states within just two weeks, so it’s hard to know what role fasting itself played in the reported improvements.

    A single high-fat meal can drop BDNF levels within hours of consumption, and we can prove it’s the fat itself by seeing the same result after injecting fat straight into our veins. Perhaps that helps explain why increased consumption of saturated fats in a high-fat diet may contribute to brain dysfunction—that is, neurodegenerative diseases, long-term memory loss, and cognitive impairment. It may also help explain why the standard American diet has been linked to a higher risk of depression, as dietary factors modulate the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Doctor’s Note:

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating with Hypothyroidism and Hyperthyroidism  | NutritionFacts.org

    Is the apparent protection of plant-based diets for thyroid health due to the exclusion of animal foods, the benefits of plant foods, or both?

    Several autoimmune diseases affect the thyroid gland, and Graves’ disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis are the most common. Graves’ disease results in hyperthyroidism, an overactive thyroid gland. Though slaughter plants are supposed to remove animals’ thyroid glands as they “shall not be used for human food,” should some neck meat slip in, you can suffer a similar syndrome called Hamburger thyrotoxicosis. That isn’t from your body making too much thyroid hormone, though. Rather, it’s from your body eating too much thyroid hormone. Graves’ disease is much more common, and meat-free diets may be able to help with both diseases, as plant-based diets may be associated with a low prevalence of autoimmune disease in general, as observed, for example, in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Maybe it’s because plants are packed with “high amounts of antioxidants, possible protective factors against autoimmune disease,” or because they’re packed with anti-inflammatory compounds. After all, “consuming whole, plant-based foods is synonymous with an anti-inflammatory diet.” But you don’t know until you put it to the test.

    It turns out that the “exclusion of all animal foods was associated with half the prevalence of hyperthyroidism compared with omnivorous diets. Lacto-ovo [dairy-and-egg] and pesco [fish] vegetarian diets were associated with intermediate protection.” But, for those eating strictly plant-based, there is a 52 percent lower odds of hyperthyroidism.

    As I discuss in my video The Best Diet for Hypothyroidism and Hyperthyroidism, this apparent protection “may be due to the exclusion of animal foods, the [beneficial] effects of plant foods, or both. Animal foods like meat, eggs, and dairy products may contain high oestrogen concentrations, which have been linked to autoimmunity in cell and animal studies.” Or it could be because the decrease in animal protein by excluding animal foods may downregulate IGF-1, which is not just a cancer-promoting growth hormone, but may play a role in autoimmune diseases. The protection could also come from the goodness in plants that may “protect cells against autoimmune processes,” like the polyphenol phytochemicals, such as flavonoids found in plant foods. Maybe it’s because environmental toxins build up in the food chain. For example, fish contaminated with industrial pollutants, like PCBs, are associated with an increased frequency of thyroid disorders.

    But what about the other autoimmune thyroid disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, which, assuming you’re getting enough iodine, is the primary cause of hypothyroidism, an underactive thyroid gland? Graves’ disease wasn’t the only autoimmune disorder that was rare or virtually unknown among those living in rural sub-Saharan Africa, eating near-vegan diets. They also appeared to have less Hashimoto’s.

    There is evidence that those with Hashimoto’s have compromised antioxidant status, but we don’t know if it’s cause or effect. But if you look at the dietary factors associated with blood levels of autoimmune anti-thyroid antibodies, animal fats seem to be associated with higher levels, whereas vegetables and other plant foods are associated with lower levels. So, again, anti-inflammatory diets may be useful. It’s no surprise, as Hashimoto’s is an inflammatory disease—that’s what thyroiditis means: inflammation of the thyroid gland.

    Another possibility is the reduction in intake of methionine, an amino acid concentrated in animal protein, thought to be one reason why “regular consumption of whole-food vegan diets is likely to have a favourable influence on longevity through decreasing the risk of cancer, coronary [heart] disease, and diabetes.” Methionine restriction improves thyroid function in mice, but it has yet to be put to the test for Hashimoto’s in humans.

    If you compare the poop of patients with Hashimoto’s to controls, the condition appears to be related to a clear reduction in the concentration of Prevotella species. Prevotella are good fiber-eating bugs known to enhance anti-inflammatory activities. Decreased Prevotella levels are also something you see in other autoimmune conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. How do you get more Prevotella? Eat more plants. If a vegetarian goes on a diet of meat, eggs, and dairy, within as few as four days, their levels can drop. So, one would expect those eating plant-based diets to have less Hashimoto’s, but in a previous video, I expressed concern about insufficient iodine intake, which could also lead to hypothyroidism. So, which is it? Let’s find out.

    “In conclusion, a vegan diet tended to be associated with lower, not higher, risk of hypothyroid disease.” Why “tended”? The associated protection against hypothyroidism incidence and prevalence studies did not reach statistical significance. It wasn’t just because they were slimmer either. The lower risk existed even after controlling for body weight. So, researchers think it might be because animal products may induce inflammation. The question I have is: If someone who already has Hashimoto’s, what happens if they change their diet? That’s exactly what I’ll explore next.

    This is the third in a four-video series on thyroid function. The first two were Are Vegans at Risk for Iodine Deficiency? and Friday Favorites: The Healthiest Natural Source of Iodine.

    Stay tuned for the final video: Diet for Hypothyroidism: A Natural Treatment for Hashimoto’s Disease. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • A Healthy, Natural Source of Iodine?  | NutritionFacts.org

    How much nori, dulse, or arame approximates the recommended daily allowance for iodine?

    Dairy milk supplies between a quarter and a half of the daily iodine requirement in the United States, though milk itself has “little native iodine.” The iodine content in cow’s milk is mainly determined by factors like “the application of iodine-containing teat disinfectants,” and the “iodine residues in milk originate mainly from the contamination of the teat surface…” Indeed, the teats of dairy cows are typically sprayed or dipped with betadine-type disinfectants, and the iodine just kind of leaches into their milk, as you can see at 0:35 in my video Friday Favorites: The Healthiest Natural Source of Iodine. 

    Too bad most of the plant-based milks on the market aren’t enriched with iodine, too. Fortified soy milk is probably the healthiest of the plant milks, but even if it were enriched with iodine, what about the effects soy may have on thyroid function? When I searched the medical literature on soy and thyroid, this study popped up: “A Cost-Effective, Easily Available Tofu Model for Training Residents in Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Thyroid Nodule Targeting Punctures”—an economical way to train residents to do thyroid biopsies by sticking the ultrasound probe right on top a block of tofu and get to business, as you can see below and at 1:10 in my video. It turns out that our thyroid gland looks a lot like tofu on ultrasound.

    Anyway, “the idea that soya may influence thyroid function originated over eight decades ago when marked thyroid enlargement was seen in rats fed raw soybeans.” (People living in Asian countries have consumed soy foods for centuries, though, “with no perceptible thyrotoxic effects,” which certainly suggests their safety.) The bottom line is that there does not seem to be a problem for people who have normal thyroid function. However, soy foods may inhibit the oral absorption of Synthroid and other thyroid hormone replacement drugs, but so do all foods. That’s why we tell patients to take it on an empty stomach. But you also have to be getting enough iodine, so it may be particularly “important for soy food consumers to make sure their intake of iodine is adequate.”

    What’s the best way to get iodine? For those who use table salt, make sure it’s iodized. “Currently, only 53% of salt sold for use in homes contains iodine, and salt used in processed foods typically is not iodized.” Ideally, we shouldn’t add any salt at all, of course, since it is “a public health hazard.” A paper was titled: “Salt, the Neglected Silent Killer.” Think it’s a little over the top? Dietary salt is the number one dietary risk factor for death on planet Earth, wiping out more than three million people a year, twice as bad as not eating your vegetables, as you can see here and at 2:38 in my video. 

    In that case, what’s the best source of iodine then? Sea vegetables, as you can see below and at 2:50. We can get a little iodine here and there from a whole variety of foods, but the most concentrated source by far is seaweed. We can get up to nearly 2,000 percent of our daily allowance in just a single gram, about the weight of a paperclip. 

    “Given that iodine is extensively stored in the thyroid, it can safely be consumed intermittently,” meaning we don’t have to get it every day, “which makes seaweed use in a range of foods attractive and occasional seaweed intake enough to ensure iodine sufficiency.” However, some seaweed has overly high iodine content, like kelp, and should be used with caution. Too much iodine can cause hyperthyroidism, a hyperactive thyroid gland. A woman presented with a racing heartbeat, insomnia, anxiety, and weight loss, thanks to taking just two tablets containing kelp a day.

    In my last video, I noted how the average urinary iodine level of vegans was less than the ideal levels, but there was one kelp-eating vegan with a urinary concentration over 9,000 mcg/liter. Adequate intake is when you’re peeing out 100 to 199 mcg/liter, and excessive iodine intake is when you break 300 mcg/liter. Clearly, 9,437 mcg/liter is way too much. 
     
    As you can see below and at 3:57 in my video, the recommended average daily intake is 150 mcg per day for non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding adults, and we may want to stay below 600 mcg a day on a day-to-day basis, but a tablespoon of kelp may contain about 2,000 mcg. So, I’d stay away from kelp because it has too much iodine, and I’d also stay away from hijiki because it contains too much arsenic. 

    This can give you an approximate daily allowance of iodine from some common seaweed preparations: two nori sheets, which you can just nibble on them as snacks like I do; one teaspoon of dulse flakes, which you can just sprinkle on anything; one teaspoon of dried arame, which is great to add to soups; or one tablespoon of seaweed salad.

    If iodine is concentrated in marine foods, “this raises the question of how early hominins living in continental areas could have met their iodine requirements.” What do bonobos do? They’re perhaps our closest relatives. During swamp visits, they all forage for aquatic herbs.  

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the second in a four-video series on thyroid function. If you missed the previous one, check out Are Vegans at Risk for Iodine Deficiency?.

    Coming up are The Best Diet for Hypothyroidism and Hyperthyroidism and Diet for Hypothyroidism: A Natural Treatment for Hashimoto’s Disease.

    What else can seaweed do? See the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Vegans and Iodine Deficiency Risk  | NutritionFacts.org

    Most plant-based milks are not fortified with iodine.

    “Adequate dietary iodine is required for normal thyroid function.” In fact, the two thyroid hormones are named after how many iodine atoms they contain: T3 and T4. “Given that iodine is extensively stored in the thyroid gland itself, it can safely be consumed intermittently,” so we don’t need to consume it every day. However, our overall diet does need a good source of it. Unfortunately, the common sources aren’t particularly health-promoting: iodized salt and dairy foods. (Iodine-based cleansers like betadine are used on cows “to sanitize the udders, resulting in leaching of iodine in the milk.”) Iodine may also be added to cattle feed, and some commercially produced breads contain food additives with iodine.

    If you put people on a paleo-type diet and cut out their dairy and table salt, they can develop an iodine deficiency, even though they double their intake of seafood, which can also be a source of iodine. What about those switching to diets centered around whole plant foods? They also cut down on ice cream and Wonder Bread, and if they aren’t eating anything from the sea, like seaweed or other sea vegetables, they can run into the same problem.

    A three-year-old’s parents reported striving to feed her only the healthiest foods, and her diet included only plant-based, unsalted, and unseasoned foods. She got no unprocessed foods, but she also got no vitamin supplementation, which could be deadly. Without vitamin B12, those on strictly plant-based diets can develop irreversible nerve damage, but in this case, a goiter arose first, due to inadequate iodine intake.

    In another case of “veganism as a cause of iodine-deficient hypothyroidism,” a toddler became ill after weaning. Before weaning, he was fine because his mother kept taking her prenatal vitamins, which fortunately contained iodine.

    Most vegetarians and vegans are apparently unaware of the importance of iodine intake during pregnancy, “for the neurodevelopment of the unborn child, similar to their omnivorous counterparts.” The American Thyroid Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended that women, even just planning on getting pregnant, should take a daily supplement containing 150 micrograms (mcg) of iodine, yet only 60 percent of prenatal vitamins marketed in the United States contain this essential mineral. So, despite the recommendations, about 40 percent of prenatal vitamins don’t contain it. “Therefore, it is extremely important that women, especially when pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning a pregnancy, read the labels of their multivitamin supplements to ensure that they are receiving an adequate amount of iodine.”

    Women of reproductive age have an average iodine level of 110 mcg/liter, which is fine for nonpregnant individuals, but we’d really like women to get at least 150 mcg/liter during pregnancy. (It’s basically a 24-hour urine test, in which iodine sufficiency is defined as 100 mcg/liter of urine in nonpregnant adults; the average vegan failed to reach this in the largest study done to date, one out of Boston.)

    The recommended average daily intake is 150 mcg per day for most people, which we can get in about a cup and a half of cow’s milk. Regrettably, plant-based milks aren’t typically fortified with iodine and average only about 3 mcg per cup. Although many plant-based milks are fortified with calcium, researchers found in the largest systematic study to date that only 3 out of 47 were fortified with iodine. Those that were fortified had as much as cow’s milk, but those that weren’t fell short, as you can see at 3:30 in my video Are Vegans at Risk for Iodine Deficiency?. 

    Plant-based milk companies brag about enriching their milks with calcium and often vitamins B12, D, and A, but only rarely are attempts made to match iodine content. The only reason cow’s milk has so much is that producers enrich the animals’ feed or it comes dripping off their udders. So, why don’t plant-milk companies add iodine, too? I was told by a food scientist at Silk that my carrageenan video played a role in the company switching to another thickener. Hopefully, Silk will see this video, too, and consider adding iodine, or maybe another company will snatch the opportunity for a market advantage.  

    The researchers conclude that individuals who consume plant-based milks not fortified with iodine may be at risk for iodine deficiency, unless they consume alternative dietary iodine sources, the healthiest of which are sea vegetables, which we’ll cover next.

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the first in a four-video series on thyroid function. The next three are: 

    For more on iodine, see the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Chemical Safety, Cultivated Meat, and Our Health  | NutritionFacts.org

    More than 95 percent of human exposure to industrial pollutants like dioxins and PCBs comes from fish, other meat, and dairy.

    By cultivating muscle meat directly, without associated organs like intestines, the incidence of foodborne diseases “could be significantly reduced,” as could exposure to antibiotics, “pesticides, arsenic, dioxins, and hormones associated with conventional meat.” Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved seven hormone drugs to bulk up the production of milk and meat. “In the European Union, there exists a total ban on such use,” however. Even without injected hormones, though, animal products naturally have hormones because they come from animals. “Eggs, example given, contribute more to the dietary intake of estradiol [estrogens] than beef, whether the animal is legally treated with hormones or not.” After all, eggs come straight from a hen’s ovaries, so, of course, they’re swimming with hormones. But if you’re directly growing just muscle meat or egg white protein, you don’t need to include reproductive organs, adrenal glands, or any of the associated hormones.

    “Chemical safety is another concern for meat produced under current production systems.” There are chemical toxicants and industrial pollutants that build up in the food chain, such as pesticides, PCBs, heavy metals, and flame retardants, but there is no food chain with cultivated meat. We could produce all the tuna we wanted, with zero mercury.

    When the World Health Organization determined that processed meat was a known human carcinogen and unprocessed meat a probable human carcinogen, it wasn’t even talking about the carcinogenic environmental pollutants. When researchers tested retail meat for the presence of “33 chemicals with calculated carcinogenic potential,” like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides like DDT, and dioxin-like PCBs, they concluded that, in order to reduce the risk of cancer, we should limit beef, pork, or chicken consumption to a maximum of five servings a month.

    Why cultivate meat at all when you can just buy organic? Surprisingly, “consumption of organic meat does not diminish the carcinogenic potential associated with the intake of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).” A number of studies have recently compared the presence of environmental contaminants in organic meat versus conventional meat, and the researchers found, surprisingly, that organic meat was sometimes more contaminated. Not only organic beef either. Higher levels were also found in pork and poultry.

    If you look at the micropollutants and chemical residues in both organic and conventional meat, several environmental contaminants, including dioxins, PCBs, lead, and arsenic, were measured at significantly higher levels in the organic samples. As you can see below and at 2:56 in my video, The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Chemical Safety, the green is organic meat, and the blue is conventional. 

    Cooking helps to draw off some of the fat where the PCBs are concentrated, as shown here and at 3:01.

    Seafood seems to be an exception. Steaming, for example, generally increases contaminant levels, increasing contaminant exposure and concentrating mercury levels as much as 47 percent, as you can see here and at 3:15 in my video. Better not to have toxic buildup in the first place.

    More than 95 percent of human exposure to industrial pollutants like dioxins and PCBs comes from foods like meat, including fatty fish, and dairy, but the pollutants don’t appear magically. The only way the chicken, fish, and other meat lead to human exposure is because the animals themselves built up a lifetime of exposure in our polluted world, from incinerators, power plants, sewer sludge, and on and on, as you can see here and at 3:40 in my video.

    Unlike conventional meat production, a slaughter-free harvest would not only mean no more infected animals, but no more contaminated animals either. In terms of pollutants, it would be like taking a time machine back before the Industrial Revolution.

    Doctor’s Note:

    Cultivated meat means less contamination with fecal residues, toxic pollutants, antibiotics, and hormones; up to 99 percent less environmental impact; and zero pandemic risk. Cultivated meat allows people to have their meat and eat it, too, without affecting the rest of us.

    This is the final video in this cultivated meat series. If you missed the first two, check out the videos on Food Safety and Antibiotic Resistance.

    I previously did a video series on plant-based meats; see the related posts below.

    All videos in the plant-based meat series are also available in a digital download from a webinar I did. SeeThe Human Health Implications of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat for Pandemic Prevention and Climate Mitigation.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Antibiotic Resistance, Cultivated Meat, and Our Health  | NutritionFacts.org

    Medically important antibiotics are being squandered by animal agriculture to compensate for typical factory farming practices.

    Cultivating muscle meat directly from cells instead of raising and slaughtering animals would reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses “due to fecal contamination during slaughtering and evisceration of carcasses” because there would be no feces, no slaughter, and no carcasses to eviscerate. In addition, cultivating meat would also reduce the threat from antibiotic resistance.

    To compensate for overcrowded, stressful, and unhygienic conditions on factory farms, animals are typically dosed en masse with antibiotics. A lot of antibiotics. About 20 million pounds of medically important antibiotics a year, as you can see here and at 0:57 in my video, The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Antibiotic Resistance. 

    In the United States, for example, farm animals are given about 2 million pounds of penicillin drugs and 15 million pounds of tetracyclines annually. This is madness. 

    Antibiotic drugs important to human medicine go right into the feed and water of animals like cows, pigs, and chickens, by the ton and by the thousands of tons, as shown below and at 1:02 in my video. And that is all without a prescription.

    Ninety-seven percent of the tens of millions of pounds of antibiotics given to farm animals in the United States are bought over the counter—without a prescription or even an order from a veterinarian, as seen here and a 1:24. To get even a few milligrams of penicillin, we need a doctor’s prescription, because these are miracle wonder drugs that can’t be squandered. Meanwhile, farmers can just back their trucks up to the feedstore. 

    Now, half the Salmonella in retail meat—chicken, turkey, beef, and pork—is resistant to tetracycline, as shown below and at 1:50 in my video. About a quarter of the bugs are now resistant to three or more entire classes of antibiotics, including some resistant to “cephalosporins such as ceftriaxone [which] are critically important drugs we use to treat severe Salmonella infections, especially in children.” 

    Such agricultural applications for antimicrobials are now considered an “urgent threat to human health.” “The link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans is unequivocal.”

    As shown here and at 2:20 in my video, it all starts with the poop. 

    Antibiotic-resistant bugs are selected for and then can spread via meat or produce contaminated by poop or they can spread through the wind, the air, or the water, or be carried by insects. There are many pathways by which resistant superbugs can escape. So, even if you don’t eat meat, you can be “put at risk by the pathogens released from stressed, immunocompromised, contaminant-filled livestock” dosed with antibiotics. That’s one of the reasons the American Public Health Association called for a moratorium on factory farms, due in part to all the pollution from concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) to the surrounding communities. 

    Every year, more than five tons of animal manure are produced for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Again, it all starts with the poop. But cultivated meat means no guts, no poop, no fecal infections, and no antibiotics necessary. It also means no fecal or antibiotic residues left in “foodstuffs such as milk, egg, and meat” that can potentially cause a variety of side effects beyond just the transfer of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.

    And, as you can see here and at 3:30 in my video, things are getting worse, not better. U.S. animal agriculture is using more antibiotics now than ever.

    This isn’t only because more animals are being raised for food, either. Antibiotic sales in the United States are outpacing meat production. Yes, meat production is going up, but there is a serious rise in antibiotic sales for meat production, as shown below and at 3:46.

    With the combined might of Big Ag and Big Pharma (who profit from selling all the drugs), it’s hard to imagine anything changing on the political side. The only hope may be a change in the production side.

    “The unstoppable rise of super-resistant strains of bacteria is a serious worldwide problem, resulting in 700 000 deaths every year,” and the projections for global antibiotic use in the production of farm animals are “ominous,” estimated to exceed 100,000 tons of antibiotics pumped into animals raised for food by 2030. Quite simply, we may be “on the path to untreatable infections” by using even some of our “last resort antibiotics,” like carbapenems, just to shave a few cents off a pound of meat.

    And it’s not just foodborne bacteria. Mad cow disease, swine flu, and bird flu have the potential to kill millions of people. Skeptical? I’ve got a book for you to read, whose author’s “superb storytelling ability makes every page of the book interesting and fascinating for both specialist and layperson.” (Thanks, Virology Journal, for the wonderful book review and calling my book “a must read.”)

    Given the threat of the chickens coming home to roost, an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health thought that “it is curious, therefore, that changing the way humans treat animals—most basically, ceasing to eat them or, at the very least, radically limiting the quantity of them that are eaten—is largely off the radar as a significant preventative measure. Such a change, if sufficiently adopted or imposed, could still reduce the chances of the much-feared influenza epidemic…Yet humanity does not consider this option.”

    That may be moot, though, because we could cultivate all the chicken we want, without guts or lungs.

    It’s hard to stress the importance of that American Journal of Public Health editorial. As devastating as COVID-19 has been, it may just be a dress rehearsal for an even greater threat waiting in the wings—the wings of chickens.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the leading candidate for the next pandemic is a bird flu virus known as H7N9, which is a hundred times deadlier than COVID-19. Instead of 1 in 250 patients dying, H7N9 has killed 40 percent of the people it infects.

    The last time a bird flu virus jumped directly to humans and caused a pandemic, it triggered the deadliest plague in human history—the 1918 pandemic that killed 50 million people. That had a 2 percent death rate. What if we had a pandemic infecting billions where death was closer to a flip of a coin?

    The good news is that there is something we can do about it. Just as eliminating the exotic animal trade and live animal markets may go a long way toward preventing the next coronavirus pandemic, reforming the way we raise domestic animals for food may help forestall the next killer flu. The bottom line is that it’s not worth risking the lives of millions of people for the sake of cheaper chicken.

    If you missed the previous video, see The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Food Safety. Up next is The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Chemical Safety. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Food Safety and Cultivated Meat  | NutritionFacts.org

    What are the direct health implications of making clean meat—that is, meat without animals?

    In a 1932 article in Popular Mechanics entitled “Fifty Years Hence,” Winston Churchill predicted that we would one day “escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.” Indeed, growing meat straight from muscle cells could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 96 percent, lower water usage by as much as 96 percent, and lower land usage by 99 percent.

    If we are to avoid dangerous climate change by the middle of the century, global meat consumption simply cannot continue to rise at the current rate. And there have certainly been initiatives like Meatless Mondays to try to get people to cut down, but so far, “they do not appear to be contributing in any significant way to the translation of the idea of eating less meat into the mainstream.” So, “in the light of people’s continued desire to eat meat, it seems the problems associated with consumption are unlikely to be fully resolved by attitude change. Instead, they must be addressed from an alternate perspective: changing the product.”

    From an environmental standpoint, it seems like a slam dunk. From an animal welfare standpoint, it could get rid of factory farms and slaughter plants for good, and I wouldn’t have to stumble across articles like this in the scientific literature: “Discerning Pig Screams in Production Environments.” I mean, what more do we need to know about modern animal agriculture than the fact that, “in recent years, a number of so-called…‘ag-gag’ laws have been proposed and passed…across the USA,” banning undercover photographing or videotaping inside such operations to keep us all in the dark.

    What about the human health implications of cultivated meat? I get the animal welfare, environment, and food security benefits, but what about “the potential for cultured meat to have health/safety benefits to individual consumers”? Nutritionally, the most important advantage is being able to swap out the type the fat. Right now, producers are growing straight muscle tissue, so it could be marbled with something less harmful than animal fat, though, of course, there’s still animal protein.

    When it comes to health, the biggest, clearest advantage is food safety, reducing the risk of foodborne pathogens. There has been a sixfold increase in food poisoning over the last few decades, with tens of millions “sickened annually by infected food in the United States alone,” including hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of annual deaths. Contaminated meats and other animal products are the most common cause.

    When the cultivated meat industry calls its products clean meat, that’s not just a nod to clean energy. Food-poisoning pathogens like E. coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella are fecal bacteria. They are a result of fecal contamination. They’re intestinal bugs, so we don’t have to worry about them if we’re making meat without the intestines.

    Yes, there are all sorts of “methods to remove visible fecal contamination” in slaughter plants these days and even experimental imaging technologies designed to detect more “diluted fecal contaminations,” but we are still left at the retail level with about 10 percent of chicken contaminated with Salmonella and 40 percent of retail chicken contaminated with Campylobacter. What’s more, most poultry and about half of retail ground beef and pork chops are contaminated with E. coli, an indicator of fecal residue, as shown here and at 3:47 in my video The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Food Safety. We don’t have to cook the crap out of cultivated meat, though, because there isn’t any crap to begin with.

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the first in a three-video series on cultivated meat. Stay tuned for The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Antibiotic Resistance and The Human Health Effects of Cultivated Meat: Chemical Safety.

    I previously did a video series on plant-based meats. Check them in the related posts below.

    The videos are also all available in a digital download from a webinar I did: The Human Health Implications of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat for Pandemic Prevention and Climate Mitigation.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating to Treat Crohn’s Disease  | NutritionFacts.org

    Switching to a plant-based diet has been shown to achieve far better outcomes than those reported on conventional treatments for both active and quiescent stages of Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis.

    Important to our understanding and the prevention of the global increase of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we know that “dietary fiber reduces risk, whereas dietary fat, animal protein, and sugar increase it.” “Despite the recognition of westernization of lifestyle as a major driver of the growing incidence of IBD, no countermeasures against such lifestyle changes have been recommended, except that patients with Crohn’s disease should not smoke.”

    We know that “consuming whole, plant-based foods is synonymous with an anti-inflammatory diet.” Lists of foods with inflammatory effects and anti-inflammatory effects are shown here and at 0:50 in my video, The Best Diet for Crohn’s Disease.

    How about putting a plant-based diet to the test?

    Cutting down on red and processed meats didn’t work, but what about cutting down on all meat? A 25-year-old man “with newly diagnosed CD…failed to enter clinical remission despite standard medical therapy. After switching to a diet based exclusively on grains, legumes [beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils], vegetables, and fruits, he entered clinical remission without need for medication and showed no signs of CD on follow-up colonoscopy.”

    It’s worth delving into some of the details. The conventional treatment he was started on is infliximab, sold as REMICADE®, which can cause a stroke and may increase our chances of getting lymphoma or other cancers. (It also costs $35,000 a year.) It may not even work in 35 to 40 percent of patients, and that seemed to be the case with the 25-year-old man. So, his dose was increased after 37 weeks, but he was still suffering after two years on the drug. Then he completely eliminated animal products and processed foods from his diet and finally experienced a complete resolution of his symptoms.

    “Prior to this, his diet had been the typical American diet, consisting of meat, dairy products, refined grains, processed foods, and modest amounts of vegetables and fruits. Having experienced complete clinical remission for the first time since his Crohn’s disease diagnosis, the patient decided to switch to a whole food, plant-based diet permanently, severely reducing his intake of processed foods and limiting animal products to one serving, or less, per week.” Whenever his diet slipped, his symptoms started coming back, but he could always eliminate them by eating healthier again. After six months adhering to these diet and lifestyle changes, including stress relief and exercise, a follow-up “demonstrated complete mucosal healing [of the gut lining] with no visible evidence of Crohn’s disease.”

    We know that “a diet consisting of whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables has been shown to be helpful in the prevention and treatment of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, gallbladder disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and many cancers. Although further research is required, this case report suggests that Crohn’s disease might be added to this list of conditions.” That further research has already been done! About 20 patients with Crohn’s disease were placed on a semi-vegetarian diet—no more than half a serving of fish once a week and half a serving of meat once every two weeks—and they achieved a 100 percent remission rate at one year and 90 percent at two years.

    Some strayed from the diet, though. What happened to them? As you can see below and at 3:32 in my video, after one year, half had relapsed, and, at year two, only 20 percent had remained in remission. But those who stuck with the semi-veg diet had remarkable success. It was a small study with no formal control group, but it represents the best-reported result in Crohn’s relapse prevention published in the medical literature to date. 

    Nowadays, Crohn’s patients are often treated with so-called biologic drugs, expensive injected antibodies that suppress the immune system. They have effectively induced and maintained remission in Crohn’s disease, but not in everybody. The current remission rate in Crohn’s with early use of REMICADE® is 64 percent. So, 30 to 40 percent of patients “are likely to experience a disabling disease course even after their first treatment.” What about adding a plant-based diet? Remission rates jumped up to 100 percent for those who didn’t have to drop out due to drug side effects. Even after excluding milder cases, researchers found that 100 percent of those with serious, even “severe/fulminant disease, achieved remission.”

    If we look at gold standard systematic reviews, they conclude that the effects of dietary interventions on inflammatory bowel diseases—Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis—are uncertain. However, this is because only randomized controlled trials were considered. That’s totally understandable, as that is the most rigorous study design. “Nevertheless, people with IBD deserve advice based on the ‘best available evidence’ rather than no advice at all…” And switching to a plant-based diet has been shown to achieve “far better outcomes” than those reported on conventional treatments in both active and quiescent stages in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. For example, below and at 5:37 in my video, you can see one-year remission rates in Crohn’s disease (100 percent) compared to budesonide, an immunosuppressant corticosteroid drug (30 to 40 percent), a half elemental diet, such as at-home tube feedings (64 percent), the $35,000-a-year drug REMICADE® (46 percent), or the $75,000-a-year drug Humira (57 percent). 

    Safer, cheaper, and more effective. That’s why some researchers have made the “recommendation of plant-based diets for inflammatory bowel disease.”

    It would seem clear that treatment based on addressing the cause of the disease is optimal. Spreading the word about healthier diets could help halt the scourge of inflammatory bowel disease, but how will people hear about this amazing research without some kind of public education campaign? That’s what NutritionFacts.org is all about.

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the third in a series on inflammatory bowel disease. If you missed the first two, see Preventing Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Diet and The Best Diet for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment.

    My previous Crohn’s videos include Preventing Crohn’s Disease with Diet and Does Nutritional Yeast Trigger Crohn’s Disease?. 

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Eating to Keep Ulcerative Colitis in Remission  | NutritionFacts.org

    Plant-based diets can be 98 percent effective in keeping ulcerative colitis patients in remission, far exceeding the efficacy of other treatments.

    “One of the most common questions physicians treating patients with IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] are asked is whether changing diet could positively affect the course of their disease.” Traditionally, we had to respond that we didn’t know. That may now be changing, given the “evidence in the literature that hydrogen sulfide may play a role in UC,” ulcerative colitis. And, since the sulfur-containing amino acids concentrated in meat cause an increase in colonic levels of this rotten egg gas, perhaps we should “take off the meat.” Indeed, animal protein isn’t associated only with an increased risk of getting inflammatory bowel disease in the first place, but also IBD relapses once you have the disease.

    This is a recent development. “Because the concept of IBD as a lifestyle disease mediated mainly by a westernized diet is not widely appreciated, an analysis of diet in the follow-up period [after diagnosis] in relation to a relapse of IBD has been ignored”—but no longer. Ulcerative colitis patients in remission and their diets were followed for a year to see which foods were linked to the return of their bloody diarrhea. Researchers found that the “strongest relationship between a dietary factor and an increased risk of relapse observed in this study was for a high intake of meat,” as I discuss in my video The Best Diet for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment.

    What if people lower their intake of sulfur-containing amino acids by decreasing their consumption of animal products? Researchers tried this on four ulcerative colitis patients, and without any change in their medications, the patients experienced about a fourfold improvement in their loose stools. In fact, they felt so much better that the researchers didn’t think it was ethical to try switching the patients back to their typical diets. “Sulfur-containing amino acids are the primary source of dietary sulfur,” so a “low-sulfur” diet essentially means “a shift from a more traditional western diet (high in animal protein and fat, and low in fiber) to more of a plant-based diet (high in fiber, lower in animal protein and fat).” “Altogether, westernized diets are pro-inflammatory, and PBD [plant-based diets] are anti-inflammatory.”

    What can treatment with a plant-based diet do after the onset of ulcerative colitis during a low-carbohydrate weight-loss diet? A 36-year-old man lost 13 pounds on a low-carb diet, but he also lost his health; he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. When he was put on a diet centered around whole plant foods, his symptoms resolved without medication. He achieved remission. That was just one case, though. Case reports are akin to glorified anecdotes. The value of case reports lies in their ability to inspire researchers to put them to the test, and that’s exactly what they did.

    Until then, there had never been a study published that focused on using plant-based diets for treating ulcerative colitis. Wrote the researchers, a group of Japanese gastroenterologists, “We consider that the lack of a suitable diet is the biggest issue faced in the current treatment of IBD. We regard IBD as a lifestyle disease caused mainly by our omnivorous (Western) diet. We have been providing a plant-based diet (PBD) to all patients with IBD” for more than a decade and have published extraordinary results, far better than have been reported elsewhere in the medical literature to date. (I profiled some of their early work in one of the first videos that went up on NutritionFacts.org.) The researchers found a plant-based diet to be “effective in the maintenance of remission” in Crohn’s disease by 100 percent at one year and 90 percent at two years. What about a plant-based diet for relapse prevention in ulcerative colitis?

    “Educational hospitalization” involved bringing patients into the hospital to control their diet and educate them about the benefits of plant-based eating (so they’d be more motivated to continue it at home). “Most patients (77%) experienced some improvement, such as disappearance or decrease of bloody stool during hospitalization.” Fantastic!

    Here’s the really exciting part. The researchers then followed the patients for five years, and 81 percent of them remained in remission for the entire five years, and 98 percent kept the disease at bay for at least one year. That blows away other treatments. Those relapse rates are far lower than those reported with medication. Under conventional treatment, other studies found that about half of the individuals relapse, compared to only 2 percent of those taught to eat healthier.

    “A PBD was previously shown to be effective in both the active and quiescent stages of Crohn’s disease. The current study showed that a PBD is effective in both the active and quiescent stages of UC as well.” So, the researchers did another study on even more severely affected cases with active disease and found the same results, with plant-based eating beating conventional drug therapy by far. People felt so much better that they were still eating more plant-based food even six years later. The researchers conclude that a plant-based diet is effective for treating ulcerative colitis to prevent a relapse.

    Why? Well, plant-based diets are rich in fiber, which feeds our good gut bugs. “This observation might partly explain why a PBD prevents a variety of chronic diseases. Indeed, the same explanation applies to IBD, indicating that replacing an omnivorous diet with a PBD in IBD is the right approach.” 
     
    It’s like using plant-based diets to treat the cause of heart disease, our number one killer. Plant-based eating isn’t only safer and cheaper, but it also works better with no noted adverse side effects. Let’s compare that to the laundry list of side effects of immunosuppressants used for ulcerative colitis, like cyclosporine, which you can see below and at 5:40 in my video. 

    We now have even fancier drugs costing about $60,000 a year, about $5,000 a month, and they don’t even work very well; clinical remission at one year is only about 17 to 34 percent. And, instead of no adverse side effects, the drugs can give us a stroke, give us heart failure, and can even give us cancer, including a rare type of cancer that often results in death. Also, a serious brain disease known as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, which can kill us, and for which there is no known treatment or cure. One drug lists an “increased risk of death” but touts that it’s just “a small pill” in an “easy-to-open bottle.” I’d skip the pills (and their potential side effects) and stick with plant-based eating.

    Doctor’s Note:

    If you missed the previous video, see Preventing Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Diet and stay tuned for The Best Diet for Crohn’s Disease Treatment, coming up next. 
     
    Check the related posts below for some older videos on IBD that may be of interest to you.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link