NutritionFacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org The Latest in Nutrition Research Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:07:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 How Fruits and Vegetables Can Treat Asthmahttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/07/02/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-treat-asthma/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-treat-asthma http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/07/02/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-treat-asthma/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:00:23 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26718 In my video Preventing Asthma With Fruits and Vegetables, I highlighted an international study of asthma and allergies involving more than a million kids. The study found a consistent inverse relationship between prevalence rates of asthma, allergies, and eczema and the intake of plants, starch, grains, and vegetables. Researchers speculated “over a decade ago that […]]]>

In my video Preventing Asthma With Fruits and Vegetables, I highlighted an international study of asthma and allergies involving more than a million kids. The study found a consistent inverse relationship between prevalence rates of asthma, allergies, and eczema and the intake of plants, starch, grains, and vegetables. Researchers speculated “over a decade ago that if these findings could be generalized, and if the average daily consumption of these foods increased, an important decrease in symptom prevalence could be achieved.” No need to speculate any more, though, because plants were finally put to the test.

Researchers have proposed that “by eating fewer fruits and vegetables, the susceptibility to potentially harmful inhaled substances of the population as a whole may be increased because of the reduction in antioxidant defenses of the lungs.” The thin lining of fluid that forms the interface between our respiratory tract and the external environment is our first line of defense against oxidative damage. Oxidative damage is important in asthma, contributing to airway contraction, excessive mucous production, and hypersensitivity. Antioxidants protect against oxidative stress, so our lung lining contains a range of antioxidants our body makes itself, as well as those obtained from our diet, particularly from fruits and vegetables.

We can even quantify the level of oxidative stress in people by measuring the level of oxidation products in their exhaled breath, which drops as we start eating more fruits and vegetables, and drops further as we combine more plants with fewer animal foods.

Do those with asthma really have lower levels of antioxidants than people without asthma? Compared to healthy controls, subjects with asthma had lower whole blood levels of total carotenoids and lower levels of each of the individual phytonutrients they measured: cryptoxanthin, lycopene, lutein, alpha-carotene and beta-carotene compared to healthy controls.

Therefore, they posit, “the accumulating evidence does suggest that diet has an influence in modulating the response of the lung to inhaled allergens and irritants. However, it is possible that the reduced carotenoid levels in asthma are a result of increased utilization in the presence of excess free radicals.” So it’s like a chicken-or-the-egg phenomenon.

We know antioxidant-rich diets have been associated with reduced asthma prevalence. However, direct evidence that altering intake of antioxidant-rich foods actually affects asthma was lacking, until now.

There are two ways to test the effects of fruits and vegetables on asthma. Add fruits and vegetables to people’s diets and see if their asthma improves, or take asthmatics and remove fruits and vegetables from their diets and see if they get worse.

The first such study of its kind, highlighted in my video, Treating Asthma With Fruits and Vegetables, placed subjects with asthma on a low antioxidant diet. After just a matter of days, there was a significant worsening of lung function and asthma control. The researchers conclude that, “This finding is highly significant for subjects with asthma, as it indicates that omitting antioxidant-rich foods from the diet, for even a short time frame, will have a detrimental effect on asthma symptoms.”

Ironically, the low antioxidant diet consumed by subjects, where they were restricted to one serving of fruit and up to two servings of vegetables per day, is typical of Western diets. In other words, the low antioxidant diet they used to worsen people’s asthma, crippling their lung function, was just like the standard American diet.

As about “half the population usually consumes a diet with an intake of fruit and vegetables equivalent to that in the study diet or less, it appears likely that this dietary pattern, which must be considered suboptimal for lung health, may have a significant impact on asthma management, indicating the potential for typical Western dietary patterns to contribute to a worsening of lung function and asthma control.”

Within just days, cutting down fruit and vegetable intake can impair lung function, but does adding fruits and vegetables help with asthma? That was the second phase of the study.

Asthmatics on the standard American diet had about a 40% chance of relapsing into an asthma exacerbation within three months. However, put them on seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day instead of three, and we cut their exacerbation rate in half, down to 20%. Imagine if there were a drug that could work as powerfully as a few fruits and vegetables.

If manipulating antioxidant intake by increasing fruit and vegetable intake can so powerfully reduce asthma exacerbation rates, why not just take antioxidant pills instead? I cover that in my video Treating Asthma With Plants vs. Supplements?

And if a few extra servings of fruits and vegetables can make that kind of difference, what about a whole diet composed of plants? Check out Treating Asthma and Eczema With Plant-Based Diets.

What else might antioxidant-rich diets help with? See:

How many antioxidants should we shoot for? See:

Where are antioxidants found the most?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/07/02/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-treat-asthma/feed/ 12
How Fruits and Vegetables Can Prevent Asthmahttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/30/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-prevent-asthma/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-prevent-asthma http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/30/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-prevent-asthma/#comments Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:00:45 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26714 Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children and the prevalence is increasing around the world. Despite this, most research dollars are spent on adult chronic disease. “One might ask,” a group of researchers posited “whether this is because our politicians and senior administrators feel themselves to be more likely to suffer from the […]]]>

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children and the prevalence is increasing around the world. Despite this, most research dollars are spent on adult chronic disease. “One might ask,” a group of researchers posited “whether this is because our politicians and senior administrators feel themselves to be more likely to suffer from the latter, and thus ignore allergic diseases as they mostly impact children and young adults” – who don’t vote.

An enormous study about asthma and allergies in childhood, highlighted in my video, Preventing Asthma with Fruits and Vegetables, was published that includes more than a million children in nearly a hundred countries, making it the most comprehensive survey of asthma and allergies ever undertaken. The researchers found striking worldwide variations in the prevalence and severity of asthma, allergies, and eczema—a 20 to 60-fold difference in prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic runny nose, and atopic eczema around the world. The large variability suggests a crucial role of local characteristics that are determining the differences in prevalence between one place and another.

What kind of environmental factors? Why does the prevalence of itchy eyes and runny noses range anywhere from 1% in India, for example, and up to 45% of kids elsewhere? There were some associations with regional air pollution and smoking rates, but the most significant associations were with diet. Adolescents showed a consistent pattern of decreases in symptoms of wheeze (current and severe), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and atopic eczema with increases in per capita consumption of plant foods. The more their calories and protein came from plant sources, the less allergies they tended to have.

In general, there seems to be an association between an increase in asthma prevalence and a decrease in consumption of fresh fruits, green vegetables, and other dietary sources of antioxidants, helping to explain why the prevalence of asthma and respiratory symptoms is lower in populations with high intake of foods of plant origin. High intakes of fat and sodium, and low intakes of fiber and carbohydrates, are linked with asthma, while traditional and vegetarian diets are associated with lower rates. For example, if we look closer within India, in a study of more than 100,000 people, “those who consumed meat (daily or occasionally) were more likely to report asthma than those who were strictly vegetarian.” This also meant avoiding eggs.

Eggs have been associated (along with soft drink consumption) with increased risk of respiratory symptoms and asthma in schoolchildren. On the other hand, consumptions of soy foods and fruits were associated with reduced risk of respiratory symptoms. In fact, removing eggs and dairy from the diet may improve lung function in asthmatic children in as little as eight weeks. Therefore, it may be a combination of eating fewer animal foods and more plants.

High vegetable intake, for example, has been found protective in children, potentially cutting the odds of allergic asthma in half. And fruit has also shown a consistent protective association for current and severe wheeze and runny nose in adolescents, and for current and severe asthma, allergies, and eczema in children.

Why is this? I’ve talked about the endocrine-disrupting industrial pollutants (see Dietary Sources of Alkylphenol Endocrine Disruptors) building up in the meat supply that may increase the risk of allergic disease, but the increase in asthma may be a combination of both a more toxic environment and a more susceptible population. One review notes that, “The dietary changes which have occurred over recent years may have led to a reduction in these natural antioxidant defenses, resulting in a shift of the antioxidant status of the whole population and leading to increased susceptibility to oxidant attack and airway inflammation.”

In adults, for example, the risk of airway hyper-reactivity may increase seven-fold among those with the lowest intake of vitamin C from plant foods, while those with the lowest intake of saturated fats may have a 10-fold protection, presumably because of saturated fat’s role in triggering inflammation.

The protective effect of plant-based food may also be mediated through effects on intestinal microflora. It turns out that differences in the indigenous intestinal flora might affect the development and priming of the immune system in early childhood. Kids with allergies, for example, tend to be less likely to harbor lactobacilli, the good bacteria that’s found in fermented foods, and naturally on many fruits and vegetables. Lactobacillus probiotics may actually help with childhood asthma, which may help explain why children raised on largely organic vegetarian diets may have a lower prevalence of allergic reactions. Infants raised this way tend to have more good lactobacilli in their guts compared to controls, though they were also more likely to have been born naturally, breastfed longer, and not been given antibiotics, so we can’t really tell if it’s the diet until we put it to the test (See Treating Asthma with Fruits and Vegetables).

More on preventing allergic diseases can be found in my videos Preventing Childhood Allergies and Preventing Allergies in Adulthood.

More on protecting lung function with fruits and vegetables can be found in Preventing COPD With Diet.

Surprised probiotics can affect immune function? Check out my video Preventing the Common Cold with Probiotics? And if you think that is wild, wait until you see Gut Feelings: Probiotics and Mental Health.

What might be in plants that’s so beneficial? See Anti-inflammatory Antioxidants.

What might be in animal products that is harmful to lung function? There are endocrine-disrupting industrial pollutants that build up in the food chain that may be playing a role. See my video Alkylphenol Endocrine Disruptors and Allergies. Also there’s an inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid found predominantly in chicken and eggs that may contribute to inflammation as well. See Inflammatory Remarks About Arachidonic Acid.

Choosing fragrance-free personal care products may also help reduce airway reactivity: Throw Household Products Off the Scent.

 I compare the efficacy of plants to pills (Treating Asthma With Plants vs. Supplements?) and explore the role an entire diet filled with plants might play in Treating Asthma and Eczema With Plant-Based Diets.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: EdTech Stanford University School of Medicine / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/30/how-fruits-and-vegetables-can-prevent-asthma/feed/ 12
Our Tax Dollars Subsidize Unhealthy Foodshttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/25/our-tax-dollars-subsidize-unhealthy-foods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=our-tax-dollars-subsidize-unhealthy-foods http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/25/our-tax-dollars-subsidize-unhealthy-foods/#comments Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:00:31 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26706 Why do food companies sell junk? Because unhealthy commodities are highly profitable. This is in part because of their “low production cost, long shelf-life, and high retail value,” which create perverse incentives for industries to market and sell more junk. In a study highlighted in my video, Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods, researchers at the […]]]>

Why do food companies sell junk? Because unhealthy commodities are highly profitable. This is in part because of their “low production cost, long shelf-life, and high retail value,” which create perverse incentives for industries to market and sell more junk. In a study highlighted in my video, Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods, researchers at the University of Cambridge stated, “Coca-Cola’s net profit margins, for example, are about a quarter of the retail price, making soft drink production, alongside tobacco production, among the most profitable industrial activities in the world.” One of the reasons production costs are so low is that we tax-payers subsidize them.

Distinguished UNC Professor of Nutrition, Barry Popkin, writes:

“For more than a century, Western governments have invested heavily in lowering the costs of animal products and some basic cash crops [such as sugar]. Accordingly, Western diets have shifted during the past century, especially after World War II, to include more animal sourced foods—meat, poultry, dairy, seafood, and eggs [as well as more sugar and corn syrup]. During this same period, however, we have begun to realize that a healthy diet actually requires fewer animal products and empty calories, and more vegetables, fruits, beans, and whole grains. Redressing this balance is a complex task requiring not only a shift in agricultural investment and policy, but also changes in social preferences that have developed over decades, in part due to dollar menu meat.”

Why is chicken so cheap? In the nine years that followed the passage of the ‘96 Farm Bill, corn and soy were subsidized below the cost of production to make cheap animal feed. So, U.S. tax-payers effectively handed the chicken and pork industry around $10 billion dollars each.

What if we instead subsidized healthy foods? Or taxed harmful ones? Every dollar spent taxing processed foods or milk would net an estimated $2 in healthcare cost savings. Every dollar spent making vegetables cheaper would net $3, and subsidizing whole grains could net over a one thousand percent return on our investment.

Unfortunately, we can’t count on Big Broccoli. The produce sector lacks the extensive funding that went to create the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the American Egg Board.

Even if we removed the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies for animal products, it might not be sufficient to tip the balance in favor of healthier diets. According to Professor Popkin, “We have created societies in the West that value and consume meat, dairy, poultry, fish and seafood. Over several generations, a particular way of life has been promoted that has shifted expectations about diet to include large amounts of animal-sourced foods”—the concept that a meal centers around some hunk of meat.

The idea that animal products should form the basis of our diet has been scientifically debunked, but remains the social aspiration of billions of people. As we in the West slowly come to accept that our diets and eating habits are not healthy, it is to be hoped that this will change policies not only here, but throughout the world.

For more on the power Big Food’s hold over our political system, check out videos such as:

My video series on corporate influence over our federal nutrition guidelines may also be enlightening:

And if we really wanted to save our country money we could start by trying to wipe out some of our leading killer chronic diseases:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Rakka / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/25/our-tax-dollars-subsidize-unhealthy-foods/feed/ 22
Reducing Arsenic in Chicken and Ricehttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/23/reducing-arsenic-in-chicken-and-rice/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reducing-arsenic-in-chicken-and-rice http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/23/reducing-arsenic-in-chicken-and-rice/#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:00:58 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26701 In 2013, Maryland became the first state to ban the feeding of an arsenic-containing drug to chickens. This arsenic-containing drug is used to control parasites and gives chicken meat an “appealing pink color.” In 2011, the FDA found that the livers of chickens fed this drug had elevated levels of inorganic arsenic, a known human […]]]>

In 2013, Maryland became the first state to ban the feeding of an arsenic-containing drug to chickens. This arsenic-containing drug is used to control parasites and gives chicken meat an “appealing pink color.” In 2011, the FDA found that the livers of chickens fed this drug had elevated levels of inorganic arsenic, a known human carcinogen. In response, the drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, voluntarily pulled the drug off the U.S. market. However, it’s still sold overseas—including to places that continue to export chicken back to us—and a similar arsenic-containing drug for use in poultry is still available in the United States. The Maryland ban was still some help, though; it kept Maryland farmers from using stockpiles of the drug.

How much arsenic gets into the actual meat and not just the internal organs? We didn’t know until recently. In a study highlighted in my video, How Many Cancers Caused by Arsenic-Laced Chicken?, researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health coordinated the purchase of chicken breasts off grocery store shelves in ten cities across the country. They found that 70% of the samples of chicken meat from poultry producers that didn’t prohibit arsenic drugs were contaminated with the cancer-causing form of arsenic at levels that exceeded the safety thresholds originally set by the FDA (before the FDA relented and admitted that there’s really no safe level of this kind of arsenic).

When the drug was first approved, scientists believed that its organic arsenic base would be excreted unchanged (organic arsenic is much less dangerous than inorganic arsenic). Guess what appears to convert the drug into the carcinogenic form? Cooking. When chicken meat is cooked, levels of the arsenic-containing drug go down and levels of carcinogenic arsenic go up, suggesting the drug may degrade into the cancer-causing inorganic arsenic form during cooking.

How much cancer are we talking about? If we estimate that about three-quarters of Americans eat chicken, then the arsenic in that chicken has potentially been causing more than 100 cases of cancer every year. The John Hopkins researchers conclude that “eliminating the use of arsenic-based drugs in [poultry and pig] production could reduce the burden of arsenic-related disease in the U.S. population.”

Arsenic-containing drugs fed to chickens is one of the ways arsenic gets into rice. When we feed arsenic to chickens, the resulting arsenic-bearing poultry manure is introduced to the environment, soil, and water, and rice sucks it up from contaminated soil and can transfer it to people who don’t even eat chicken. There is massive environmental contamination from the poultry industry; nearly two million pounds of arsenic has been poured into the environment every year by the U.S chicken industry alone.

We’re even seeing arsenic in foods sweetened with organic brown rice syrup. It reminds me of the arsenic in apple juice story. Although the U.S. made lead and arsenic-based pesticides illegal years ago, they still persist in the soil, so even organic products are not immune.

There are other sources of arsenic (such as naturally occurring arsenic deposits), but arsenic-containing poultry drugs have been deliberately administered to animals intended for human consumption for 70 years. Consequently, exposures resulting from use of these drugs are far more controllable than are exposures from environmental sources. And the good news is that, thanks to a lawsuit from the Center for Food Safety and other consumer groups, three out of the four arsenic-containing drugs fed to poultry have been officially pulled from the market.

I’ve previously addressed this issue in my video Arsenic in Chicken. It’s nice to see there’s been some progress!

The antibiotics the poultry industry continues to feed chickens present another public health hazard. See my videos:

Cooking may also create other carcinogens from the muscle itself:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able

Image Credit: Stu Spivak / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/23/reducing-arsenic-in-chicken-and-rice/feed/ 30
How Contaminated Are Our Children?http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/18/how-contaminated-are-our-children/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-contaminated-are-our-children http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/18/how-contaminated-are-our-children/#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:00:30 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26698 In a study highlighted in my video, California Childen Are Contaminated, researchers analyzed the diets of California children ages two through seven to determine the cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures. It turns out food may be the primary route of exposure to toxic heavy metals, persistent pollutants, and pesticides. “Though food-borne toxic […]]]>

In a study highlighted in my video, California Childen Are Contaminated, researchers analyzed the diets of California children ages two through seven to determine the cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures. It turns out food may be the primary route of exposure to toxic heavy metals, persistent pollutants, and pesticides. “Though food-borne toxic contaminants are a concern for all ages, they are of greatest concern for children, who are disproportionately impacted because they’re still developing and have greater intake of food and fluids relative to their weight. Pediatric problems that have been linked to preventable environmental toxin exposures include cancer, asthma, lead poisoning, neurobehavioral disorders, learning and developmental disabilities, and birth defects.”

The good news is that changing one’s diet can change one’s exposure. Quoting from the study, “A diet high in fish and animal products, for example, results in greater exposure to persistent pollutants like DDT and dioxins and heavy metals than does a plant-based diet because these compounds bioaccumulate up the food chain.” Plants are at the bottom of the food chain. The sample of California kids, however, was not eating a plant-based diet. Cancer benchmark levels were exceeded by all 364 children for arsenic, the banned pesticide dieldrin, a metabolite of DDT called DDE, and dioxins.

Children exceeded safety levels by a greater margin than adults. This is especially of concern for children because all of these compounds are suspected endocrine disruptors and thus may impact normal development. Cancer risk ratios were exceeded by over a factor of 100 for both arsenic and dioxins.

Which foods were the worst? For preschoolers, the number one food source of arsenic was poultry, though for their parents, it was tuna. The number one source of lead was dairy, and for mercury it was seafood. And the number one source of the banned pesticides and dioxins was dairy. (See Preventing Parkinson’s Disease With Diet.)

The researchers also recommended children should eat lower quantities of chips, cereal, crackers, and other crispy carbs to reduce acrylamide intake. 

The California study didn’t split up the groups by gender, but a similar study in Europe found that men had higher levels of some of these pollutants than women. For example, levels of the banned pesticide chlordane were higher in men, but women who never breastfed were right up there alongside men, with the lowest levels found in women who breastfed over 12 months. Therefore, it is likely that the lactation-related reduction in blood pollutant levels partly explains the lower body burdens among women compared with men. So cows can lower their levels by giving some to us, then we can pass it along to our children.

What non-cancer effects might some of these pollutants have? They can affect our immune system. Studies clearly demonstrate the “ability of dioxins and related compounds to have a long-lasting and deleterious impact on immune function.” This manifests as increased incidences of respiratory infections, ear infections, cough, and sore throat. At first, most of the data was for during infancy, but now we have follow-up studies showing that the immunosuppressive effects of these toxins may persist into early childhood, so we should try to reduce our exposure as much as possible. Because these pollutants accumulate in animal fat, consuming a plant-based diet–decreasing meat, dairy, and fish consumption–may reduce exposure for children and adults alike.

These findings should come as no surprise to those who saw my video Pollutants in California Breast Tissue. For an overview see CDC Report on Environmental Chemical Exposure and President’s Cancer Panel Report on Environmental Risk.

Pollutant exposure may affect the ability to have children in the first place (Male Fertility and Diet and Meat Hormones & Female Infertility). Such a delay, though, may allow one an opportunity to reduce one’s toxic burden through dietary change (Hair Testing for Mercury Before Considering Pregnancy and How Long to Detox From Fish Before Pregnancy?).

During pregnancy, pollutants can be transferred directly (DDT in Umbilical Cord Blood), and after pregnancy through breastfeeding (The Wrong Way to Detox). Once our kids are contaminated, How Fast Can Children Detoxify from PCBs? The chemicals have implications for older children too: Protein, Puberty, and Pollutants.

Seafood is not the only source of toxic heavy metals. See:

Videos on primary food sources of other industrial pollutants include:

There are some things we can eat, though, to counteract some of the toxins:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death,More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Kevin Krejci / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/18/how-contaminated-are-our-children/feed/ 50
Living Longer by Reducing Leucine Intakehttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/16/living-longer-by-reducing-leucine-intake/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=living-longer-by-reducing-leucine-intake http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/16/living-longer-by-reducing-leucine-intake/#comments Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:00:35 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26682 Many studies have shown that calorie restriction, without malnutrition, can increase lifespan and lower the risk of age-related diseases, such as cancer. However, for many people, calorie restriction clearly has its drawbacks. In the classic Minnesota Starvation Study, many of the volunteers suffered a preoccupation with food, constant hunger, binge eating, and lots of emotional […]]]>

Many studies have shown that calorie restriction, without malnutrition, can increase lifespan and lower the risk of age-related diseases, such as cancer.

However, for many people, calorie restriction clearly has its drawbacks. In the classic Minnesota Starvation Study, many of the volunteers suffered a preoccupation with food, constant hunger, binge eating, and lots of emotional and psychological issues. Even researchers who study caloric restriction rarely practice it. There’s got to be a better way to suppress the aging engine enzyme, TOR (see Why Do We Age? for more on TOR).

That’s why researchers were so excited about rapamycin, a drug that inhibits TOR, thinking it could be caloric restriction in a pill. But like any drug, it a long list of potentially serious side effects. There’s got to be a better way.

The breakthrough came when scientists discovered that the benefits of dietary restriction may be coming not from restricting calories, but from restricting protein intake (See my video Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction). If we look at the first comprehensive, comparative meta-analysis of dietary restriction, “the proportion of protein intake was more important for life extension than the degree of caloric restriction.” In fact, just “reducing protein without any changes in calorie level have been shown to have similar effects as caloric restriction.”

That’s good news. Protein restriction is much less difficult to maintain than dietary restriction, and it may even be more powerful because it suppresses both TOR and IGF-1, the two pathways thought responsible for the dramatic longevity and health benefits of caloric restriction.

Some proteins are worse than others. One amino acid in particular, leucine, appears to exert the greatest effect on TOR. In fact, just cutting down on leucine may be nearly as effective as cutting down on all protein. Where is leucine found? Predominantly animal foods: eggs, dairy, and meat (including chicken and fish). Plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans, have much less.

“In general, lower leucine levels are only reached by restriction of animal proteins.” To reach the leucine intake provided by dairy or meat, we’d have to eat nine pounds of cabbage—about four big heads—or 100 apples. These calculations exemplify the extreme differences in leucine amounts provided by a conventional diet in comparison to a plant-based diet. The functional role of leucine in regulating TOR activity may help explain the extraordinary results reported in the Cornell-Oxford-China Study, “since quasi-vegan diets of modest protein content tend to be relatively low in leucine.”

This may also help explain the longevity of populations like the Okinawa Japanese, who have about half our mortality rate. The traditional Okinawan diet is only about 10% protein, and practically no cholesterol, because they ate almost exclusively plants. Less than one percent of their diet was fish, meat, eggs, and dairy – the equivalent of one serving of meat a month and one egg every two months. Their longevity is surpassed only by vegetarian Adventists in California, who have perhaps the highest life expectancy of any formally studied population in history.

This reminds me of the study I profiled in The Benefits of Caloric Restriction Without the Actual Restricting.

Methionine is another amino acid that may be associated with aging. See Methionine Restriction as a Life Extension Strategy to find out which foods to avoid in that case. Both leucine and methionine content may be additional reasons why Plant Protein is Preferable.

Other reasons why those eating plant-based diets may live longer:

 This all may help explain the results of Harvard’s Meat and Mortality Studies.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: hslo / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/16/living-longer-by-reducing-leucine-intake/feed/ 83
Exploiting Autophagy to Live Longerhttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/11/exploiting-autophagy-to-live-longer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=exploiting-autophagy-to-live-longer http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/11/exploiting-autophagy-to-live-longer/#comments Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:00:50 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26684 Thanks to advances in modern medicine, we are living longer lives, but we’re doing it by lengthening the morbidity phase. In other words, we live longer, but sicker, lives (see my video: Americans Are Live Longer, but Sicker Lives). So, traditional medicine increases the number of old people in bad health. Ideally, though, we’d extend lifespan […]]]>

Thanks to advances in modern medicine, we are living longer lives, but we’re doing it by lengthening the morbidity phase. In other words, we live longer, but sicker, lives (see my video: Americans Are Live Longer, but Sicker Lives). So, traditional medicine increases the number of old people in bad health. Ideally, though, we’d extend lifespan by slowing aging to delay the onset of deterioration, rather than extending the period of deterioration.

That’s exactly what a new compound appears to do. It sounds like science fiction. A bacteria in a vial of dirt taken from a mysterious island creating a compound that prolongs life. And not in the traditional medical sense. Researchers in a study profiled in my video, Why Do We Age?, called it rapamycin—named after the bacteria’s home, Easter Island, which is known locally as Rapa Nui. Rapamycin inhibits an enzyme called TOR, or “target of rapamycin.” TOR may be a master determinant of lifespan and aging. The action of TOR has been described as the engine of a speeding car without brakes.

Rather than thinking of aging as slowly rusting, a better analogy may be a speeding car that enters the low-speed zone of adulthood and damages itself because it does not and cannot slow down. Why don’t living organisms have brakes? Because they’ve never needed them. In the wild, animals don’t live long enough to experience aging. Most die before they even reach adulthood. The same used to be true for humans. For example, just a few centuries ago, average life expectancy in London was less than 16 years old.

Therefore, living beings need to grow as fast as possible to start reproduction before they die from external causes. The best evolutionary strategy may be to run at full speed. However, once we pass the finish line, once we win the race to pass on our genes, we’re still careening forward at an unsustainable pace, all thanks to this enzyme TOR. In our childhood, TOR is an engine of growth, but in adulthood, it is the engine of aging. “Nature simply selects for the brightest flame, which in turn casts the darkest shadow.”

Sometimes, though, even in our youth, our bodies need to turn down the heat. When we were evolving, there were no grocery stores; periodic famine was the norm. So sometimes even young people had to slow down or they might never even make it to reproductive age. So we did evolve one braking mechanism: caloric restriction. Caloric restriction may extend lifespan mainly through the inhibition of TOR.

When food is abundant, TOR activity goes up, prompting the cells in our body to divide. When TOR detects that food is scarce, it shifts the body into conservation mode, slowing down cell division and kicking in a process called autophagy, from the Greek auto meaning “self,” and phagy meaning “to eat.” Autophagy essentially means eating yourself. Our body realizes there isn’t much food around and starts rummaging through our cells looking for anything we don’t need. Defective proteins, malfunctioning mitochondria, stuff that isn’t working anymore, and cleans house. Clears out all the junk and recycles it into fuel or new building materials, renewing our cells.

So caloric restriction has been heralded as a fountain of youth. The potential health and longevity benefits of such a diet regimen may be numerous, but symptoms may include dropping our blood pressure too low, loss of libido, menstrual irregularities, infertility, loss of bone, cold sensitivity, loss of strength, slower wound healing, and psychological conditions such as depression, emotional deadening, and irritability. And you walk around starving all the time! There’s got to be a better way, and there is. Check out my video Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction.

More tips for preserving youthful health:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Arian Zwegers / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/11/exploiting-autophagy-to-live-longer/feed/ 30
New DVD Reviews Best Bowel Movement Sciencehttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/09/new-dvd-reviews-best-bowel-movement-science/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-dvd-reviews-best-bowel-movement-science http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/09/new-dvd-reviews-best-bowel-movement-science/#comments Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:00:06 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26890 Of all human bodily functions, defecation has been described as perhaps the least studied and the least understood. Elimination doesn’t just remove wastes from the body, but may play a vital role in hormonal, cholesterol, and bile acid regulation. Some have even advocated for bowel habits to be considered a vital sign, right alongside pulse […]]]>
Of all human bodily functions, defecation has been described as perhaps the least studied and the least understood. Elimination doesn’t just remove wastes from the body, but may play a vital role in hormonal, cholesterol, and bile acid regulation. Some have even advocated for bowel habits to be considered a vital sign, right alongside pulse rate and blood pressure. I review the latest science in five new videos, including How Many Bowel Movements Should You Have Every Day? and Should You Sit, Squat, or Lean During a Bowel Movement? They are available right now as a video download as part of my new Latest in Clinical Nutrition volume 25 (all proceeds go to charity). It can also be ordered as a physical DVD.

The bowel movement videos are all scheduled to go up on NutritionFacts.org next month, but you can download and watch them right now.

The current batch of videos from volume 24 on NutritionFacts.org just ran out, so running until August I’ll be rolling out the videos from this new DVD, volume 25. The DVDs give folks the opportunity to sneak-preview videos months ahead of time, watch them all straight through, and share them as gifts, but there is nothing on the DVDs that won’t eventually end up free online at NutritionFacts.org. If you’d like the works–40+ hours of video–you can get the complete DVD collection.

In the image above you can see the list of chapters from the new volume 25 DVD — a preview of what’s to come over the next few months on NutritionFacts.org. Order my new DVD at DrGreger.org/dvds or through Amazon. It can also be ordered as a video download at DrGreger.org/downloads
 
DVD Subscription

If you were a regular supporter, you’d already be a bowel movement expert by now, having already received the new DVD. I now come out with new DVDs every 9 weeks. If you’d like to automatically receive them before they’re even available to the public, please consider becoming a monthly donor.

Anyone signing up on the donation page to become a $15 monthly contributor will receive the next three DVDs for free (as physical DVDs, downloads, or both–your choice), and anyone signing up as a $25 monthly contributor will get a whole year’s worth of new DVDs. If you’re already signed up and didn’t receive your volume 25 yet, please email Tommasina@NutritionFacts.org and she’ll make everything all better.

If you’d rather just watch all the videos online here as they launch, but would still like to support my work of helping to educate millions about healthy eating, you can make a tax-deductible donation to my 501c3 nonprofit organization NutritionFacts.org using a credit card, a direct PayPal link, or by sending a check to “NutritionFacts.org” PO Box 11400, Takoma Park, MD 20913.

Send Us Your Favorite Recipes

Although there are already some great sites out there for free healthy recipes (like ForksOverKnives.com, StraightUpFood.com, and HappyHealthyLongLife.com), I’d love to feature some fan favorites on our Facebook and Google+ pages. Once we accumulate enough we can compile all the links onto a NutritionFacts.org recipe page to make it easier for everyone to put healthful eating into practice.

Just like the best drugs in the world don’t work unless you take them, the healthiest foods in the world don’t work unless you eat them. It’s my job to give you the best science as to the healthiest foods to eat; it’s your job to make them delicious. So get cooking!

Submit links to your favorite recipes to recipes@nutritionfacts.org.

New Help Center

I’m excited to share that NutritionFacts.org pages are now getting nearly 20 million hits a year, an average of more than 50,000 views a day. I’m so honored that so many find my work useful and worthy of sharing. Though even with 62 active volunteers (we love you!) and four dedicated full-time staff working overtime, you can imagine how overwhelmed we would be if even 1% of viewers contacted us. And indeed we field hundreds of requests daily.

Our current average response time is 47 hours, and as the traffic continues to grow, we’re afraid of falling even further behind. So we’ve created a Help Center to help solve common technical issues (in addition to our FAQ). We will continue to respond personally to any and all inquiries; this is just an additional resource to make your NutritionFacts.org experience as smooth and effortless as possible.

Speaking of smooth and effortless, I hope you enjoy my new bowel health videos!

-Michael Greger

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/09/new-dvd-reviews-best-bowel-movement-science/feed/ 2
Blood Type Diet Perceived as “Crass Fraud”http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=blood-type-diet-debunked http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/#comments Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:00:47 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26673 It was Adolf Hitler who coined a propaganda technique he called, “The Big Lie,” arguing that people may be more likely to believe colossal untruths, because they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously, so in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility. […]]]>

It was Adolf Hitler who coined a propaganda technique he called, “The Big Lie,” arguing that people may be more likely to believe colossal untruths, because they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously, so in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility.

Dr. Peter D’Adamo’s book Eat Right for Your Type makes the astounding claim that people with different blood types should eat different foods. Type O’s, for example, are supposed to be like the hunter and eat a lot of meat, whereas type A’s are supposed to eat less. A 2013 systematic review of the evidence supporting blood type diets was published in one of the world’s most prestigious nutrition journals. The researchers didn’t find any.

The researchers sifted through over a thousand papers that might shed some light on the issue, and none of the studies showed an association between blood type diets and health-related outcomes. They conclude that “there is currently no evidence that an adherence to blood type diets will provide health benefits, despite the substantial presence and perseverance of blood type diets within the health industry.”

Ten years earlier, the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association released a number of papers that came out of a day-long scientific seminar held by the Norwegian Society for Nutrition. 40,000 copies of the Eat Right for Your Type had been sold in Norway, and so the researchers sought to determine whether blood type diets were visionary science or nonsense. They also concluded that they are nonsense.

The author of the blood type diet book responded to the review on his website, saying that “there is good science behind the blood type diet, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations.” He says that if blood type diets were just tested in the right way, like  Einstein’s E=MC2, he would be vindicated. The reason we don’t see any studies on blood types and nutrition, he complains, is “because of little interest and available money.” But he’s sold more than seven million books. Why doesn’t he fund his own studies? That’s what the Atkins Corporation did.

In fact, he has! In 1996, he wrote, “I am beginning the eighth year of a ten year trial on reproductive cancers, using the Blood Type Diets … By the time I release the results in another 2 years, I expect to make it scientifically demonstrable that the Blood Type Diet plays a role in cancer remission.” OK, so that would be 1998. The results? Still not released, sixteen years later.

Good tactic, though, saying you’re just about to publish a study and banking that nobody would actually follow up. So in his sequel, he said he was currently conducting a “twelve-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial implementing the Blood Type Diet, to determine its effects on the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” (See my video Blood Type Diet Debunked). That was ten years ago.

As my Norwegian colleague bemoaned, “it is difficult not to perceive the whole thing as a crass fraud.”

So rarely are popular press diet books afforded such fact-checking. Kudos to these researchers. If only we had this 13 years ago when the book was on the bestseller list!

I have a few videos on popular diets, such as:

I also wrote a book about low-carb diets, which is now available free online full-text at AtkinsFacts.org.

Unfortunately, nutrition illiteracy is not just a problem among the public, but among the medical profession:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Zappy’s Technology Solution / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/feed/ 81
Why Do Heart Doctors Favor Surgery and Drugs Over Diet?http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/02/why-do-heart-doctors-favor-surgery-and-drugs-over-diet/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-do-heart-doctors-favor-surgery-and-drugs-over-diet http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/02/why-do-heart-doctors-favor-surgery-and-drugs-over-diet/#comments Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:00:32 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26356 When he was a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. published a controversial paper in the American Journal of Cardiology, highlighted in my video, Fully Consensual Heart Disease Treatment, noting that heart bypass operations carry significant risks including the potential to cause further heart damage, stroke, and brain dysfunction. Angioplasty isn’t much […]]]>

When he was a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. published a controversial paper in the American Journal of Cardiology, highlighted in my video, Fully Consensual Heart Disease Treatment, noting that heart bypass operations carry significant risks including the potential to cause further heart damage, stroke, and brain dysfunction. Angioplasty isn’t much better, also carrying significant mortality and morbidity, and often doesn’t work (in terms of decreasing the risk of subsequent heart attack or death). “So,” he writes, “it seems we have an enormous paradox. The disease that is the leading killer of men and women in Western civilization is largely untreated.” The benefits of bypass surgery and angioplasty “are at best temporary and erode over time, with most patients eventually succumbing to their disease.” In cancer management, we call that palliative care, where we just kind of throw up our hands, throw in the towel, and give up actually trying to treat the disease.

Why does this juggernaut of invasive procedures persist? Well one reason he suggests is that performing surgical interventions has the potential for enormous financial reward. Conversely, lack of adequate return is considered one of the barriers to the practice of preventive cardiology. Diet and lifestyle interventions lose money for the physician.

Another barrier is that doctors don’t think patients want it. Physician surveys show that doctors often don’t even bring up diet and lifestyle options because they assume that patients would prefer to be on cholesterol-lowering drugs every day for the rest of their lives rather than change their eating habits. That may be true for some, but it’s up to the patient, not the doctor, to decide.

According to the official AMA Code of Medical Ethics, physicians are supposed to disclose all relevant medical information to patients. “The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice. The physician’s obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient.” For example, before starting someone at moderate risk on a cholesterol-lowering statin drug, a physician might ideally say something like:

“You should know that for folks in your situation, the number of individuals who must be treated with a statin to prevent one death from a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke is generally between 60 and 100, which means that if I treated 60 people in your situation, 1 would benefit and 59 would not. As these numbers show, it is important for you to know that most of the people who take a statin will not benefit from doing so and, moreover, that statins can have side effects, such as muscle pain, liver damage, and upset stomach, even in people who do not benefit from the medication. I am giving you this information so that you can weigh the risks and benefits of drugs versus diet and then make an informed decision.”

Yet, how many physicians have these kinds of frank and open discussions with their patients? Non-disclosure of medical information by doctors—that kind of paternalism is supposed to be a thing of the past. Today’s physicians are supposed to honor informed consent under all but a very specific set of conditions (such as the patient is in a coma or it’s an emergency). However, too many physicians continue to treat their patients as if they were unconscious.

At the end of this long roundtable discussion on angioplasty and stents, the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology reminded us of an important fact to place it all in context. Atherosclerosis is due to high cholesterol, which is due to poor dietary choices, so if we all existed on a plant-based diet, we would not have even needed this discussion.

The lack of nutrition training in medical school is another barrier. See, for example, my videos Doctors’ Nutritional Ignorance and Doctors Know Less Than They Think About Nutrition.

Shockingly, mainstream medical associations actively oppose attempts to educate physicians about clinical nutrition. See my 4-part video series:

  1. Nutrition Education Mandate Introduced for Doctors
  2. Medical Associations Oppose Bill to Mandate Nutrition Training
  3. California Medical Association Tries to Kill Nutrition Bill
  4. Nutrition Bill Doctored in the California Senate

For more on why doctors don’t make more dietary prescriptions, see my video The Tomato Effect, Lifestyle Medicine: Treating the Cause of Disease, and Convincing Doctors to Embrace Lifestyle Medicine.

Heart disease may be a choice. See Cavities and Coronaries: Our Choice and One in a Thousand: Ending the Heart Disease Epidemic.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Leandro Ciuffo / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/02/why-do-heart-doctors-favor-surgery-and-drugs-over-diet/feed/ 51