Which Works Better: Adding Beans or Portion Control?

NF-Dec24 Preventing Prediabetes By Eating More.jpg
People who eat the most legumes appear to only have a fraction of the risk for a type of prediabetes known as metabolic syndrome. Legumes are beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils. In one studyout of Iran, people who ate three or more servings of beans a week only had about a quarter of the odds of the disease, compared to those who ate one serving or less.

Bean consumption is associated with lower body weight, a slimmer waist, less obesity and lower blood pressure in population studies, but whether the association of bean consumption with healthier body weight and risk factors of metabolic syndrome is due to physiological effects of the beans themselves or is simply an indicator of a healthy lifestyle is uncertain. Anyone smart enough to eat beans may be smart enough to eat all sorts of other healthy foods, so maybe bean consumption is just a marker for a healthy diet.

A study out of the British Journal of Nutrition put this to the test (highlighted in my video, Preventing Prediabetes by Eating More). The researchers note that reducing belly fat may be the best way to treat metabolic syndrome and reduce the risk of prediabetes turning into full-blown diabetes. "Energy restriction has been the cornerstone of most weight-loss strategies; however, evidence suggests that the majority of individuals who lose weight [by calorie-cutting] regain it during subsequent months or years." Starving ourselves almost never works long-term. Therefore, they conclude that "it is important to identify foods that can be easily incorporated into the diet and spontaneously lead to the attainment and maintenance of a healthy body weight and improved metabolic control."

So, for the first time ever, the researchers did a head-to-head test: beans versus caloric restriction. The bean group was asked to eat five cups of lentils, chickpeas, split peas, or navy beans a week, and the caloric restriction group was asked to reduce energy intake. In other words, the bean group was asked to eat more food and the cutting calories group was asked to eat less food. Not-so-surprisingly, the more-food group won. Not only was regular bean consumption as effective as portion control in reducing prediabetes risk factors like slimming waistlines and better blood sugar control, but the bean diet led to additional benefits beyond just calorie reduction, presumably due to some functional properties of the beans and peas.

The researchers concluded that five cups a week of beans, chickpeas, split peas and lentils in an ad libitum diet (meaning subjects weren't told to change their diet in any other way), reduced risk factors of metabolic syndrome. These effects were equivalent, and in some instances stronger, than telling people to cut 500 calories from their daily diet. These results are encouraging news for individuals with or at risk for type 2 diabetes since they indicate that simple diet changes, such as the inclusion of beans, can have a positive impact on blood sugar control.

What is metabolic syndrome? See: Metabolic Syndrome and Plant-Based Diets.

More on plants versus calorie restriction in:

More on magic beans:

What about treating full-blown diabetes with beans? All in my video: Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

-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, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: homami / Flickr

Original Link

Low Carb Diets Found to Feed Heart Disease

NF-May19 Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow.jpg

People going on low carb diets may not see a rise in their cholesterol levels. How is that possible? Because weight loss by any means can drop our cholesterol. We could go on an all-Twinkie diet and lower our cholesterol as long as we didn't eat too many. A good cocaine habit could do it. Anything that drops our weight can drop our cholesterol, but the goal isn't to fit into a skinnier casket; the reason we care about cardiovascular risk factors like cholesterol is because we care about cardiovascular risk, the health of our arteries.

Now we have studies that measure the impact of low carb diets on arteries directly, and a review of all the best studies to date found that low-carb diets impair arterial function, as evidenced by a decrease in flow-mediated dilation, meaning low-carb diets effectively stiffen people's arteries. And since that meta-analysis was published, a new study found the same thing: "A dietary pattern characterized by high protein and fat, but low carbohydrate was associated with poorer peripheral small artery function," again measuring blood flow into people's limbs. But peripheral circulation is not as important as the circulation in the coronary arteries that feed our heart.

There has only been one study ever done measuring actual blood flow to the heart muscles of people eating low-carb diets. Dr. Richard Fleming, an accomplished nuclear cardiologist, enrolled 26 people into a comprehensive study of the effects of diet on cardiac function using the latest in nuclear imaging technology-so-called SPECT scans, enabling him to actually directly measure the blood flow within the coronary arteries.

He then put them all on a healthy vegetarian diet, and a year later the scans were repeated. By that time, however, ten of the patients had jumped ship onto the low carb bandwagon. At first I bet he was disappointed, but surely soon realized he had an unparalleled research opportunity dropped into his lap. Here he had extensive imaging of ten people before and after following a low carb diet and 16 following a high carb diet. What would their hearts look like at the end of the year? We can talk about risk factors all we want, but compared to the veg group, did the coronary heart disease of the patients following the Atkins-like diets improve, worsen, or stay the same?

Those sticking to the vegetarian diet showed a reversal of their heart disease as expected. Their partially clogged arteries literally got cleaned out. They had 20% less atherosclerotic plaque in their arteries at the end of the year than at the beginning. What happened to those who abandoned the treatment diet, and switched over to the low-carb diet? Their condition significantly worsened. 40% to 50% more artery clogging at the end of the year. In heart scans of the patients, as seen in my video, Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow, the yellow and particularly red areas represent blood flow through the coronary arteries to the heart muscle. The scan of one of the patients who went on a plant-based diet, shows how their arteries opened right up increasing the blood flow. Another person, however, started out with good flow, but after a year on a low-carb diet, they significantly clogged down their arterial blood flow.

So this is the best science we have, demonstrating the threat of low-carb diets, not just measuring risk factors, but actual blood flow in people's hearts on different diets. Of course the reason we care about cardiac blood flow, is we don't want to die. Another meta-analysis was recently published that finally went ahead and measured the ultimate end-point, death, and low-carb diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality, meaning living a significantly shorter lifespan.

The reason I have so few videos about low-carb diets is that I already wrote a book about it. Carbophobia is now available free online full-text at AtkinsFacts.org. Atkins' lawyers threatened to sue, leading to a heated exchange you're sure to enjoy that I reprint in the book. I did touch on it Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping it Up, though low carb diets don't necessarily have to be that unhealthy (see my video Plant-Based Atkins Diet).

Here are some videos I've done on conquering our #1 killer:

-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: ryan.dowd / Flickr

Original Link

Nuts May Extend Your Lifespan By About 2 years

NF-May14 Nuts May Help Prevent Death.jpg

We've known that increased nut consumption has been associated with a reduced risk of major chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes. But do those who eat nuts actually live longer lives? Clinical trials have shown nuts help lower cholesterol and oxidation, and improve our arterial function and blood sugar levels. Does all this translate into greater longevity?

Researchers at Harvard examined the association between nut consumption and subsequent mortality of over 100,000 people followed for decades. In that time, tens of thousands died, but those that ate nuts every day lived significantly longer. Daily nut consumers had fewer deaths from cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease, even after controlling for other lifestyle factors. Nut consumers lived significantly longer whether they were older or younger, fat or skinny, whether they exercised more, smoked, drank, or ate other foods that may affect mortality.

But nuts are so filled with fat that there "may be a concern that frequent nut consumption can result in weight gain." However, that's not what the Harvard researchers found. In fact, other studies have associated nut consumption with a slimmer waist, less weight gain, and lower risk of obesity. If we look at all the studies put together, it's pretty much a wash. Diets enriched with nuts do not seem to affect body weight, body mass index, or waist circumference much at all. For example, one of the most recent such studies, highlighted in my video, Nuts May Help Prevent Death, in which subjects were told to add either 0, 70, or 120 pistachios to their daily diet as an afternoon snack every day for three months, found no noticeable difference between the three groups. You couldn't see any difference between those eating no nuts and those eating more than 100 a day. Hence, it appears that the incorporation of nuts (around one to two small handfuls a day) would be advisable to ensure various health benefits without the risk of body weight gain.

How nuts do we have to go? Not much. Just a few servings a week may boost our lifespan and lower cancer rates--but it appears we have to keep it up. In the PREDIMED study, when long-time nut eaters were told to cut down on eating nuts or choose extra virgin olive oil, within five years they apparently lost much of their longevity benefit. Only the group that started out eating nuts and continued to eat at least the same amount of nuts died significantly less often.

You can find more on nuts and heart disease in my videos Nuts and Bolts of Cholesterol Lowering and How Do Nuts Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death?

More on nuts and cancer in Tree Nuts or Peanuts for Breast Cancer Prevention?

Nuts and inflammatory disease: Fighting Inflammation in a Nut Shell.

More than you ever wanted to know about nuts and weight here: Nuts and Obesity: The Weight of Evidence.

What if your physician tells you to not eat nuts because you have diverticulosis? Share this video with them: Diverticulosis & Nuts.

Those 100 pistachios a day may have one side-effect, though: Pistachio Nuts for Erectile Dysfunction.

-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: Aoife mac / Flickr

Original Link

How Long to Avoid Fish Before Conception?

NF-Dec25 How Long to Detox from Fish Before Pregnancy?.jpg

Mothers' increased consumption of fish before and during pregnancy leads to increased exposure to both mercury and the long-chain omega 3 DHA. Mercury may negatively affect brain development in one's unborn baby, whereas DHA may stimulate brain development. However, the negative effect of mercury appears to outweigh the beneficial effect of DHA for most species of fish (see Mercury vs. Omega-3s for Brain Development).

Unfortunately, women of childbearing age appear less aware and knowledgeable about this problem than other women, despite FDA and EPA campaigns to inform every OB/GYN and pediatrician in the country about the potential risks of mercury in fish.

Since mercury sticks around in the body, women may want to avoid fish with high levels of mercury for a year before they get pregnant, not just during pregnancy. The rationale for avoiding fish for a year before pregnancy is because the half-life of mercury in the body is estimated to be about two months. In a study I profile in my video How Long to Detox from Fish Before Pregnancy a group of researchers fed subjects two servings a week of tuna and other high mercury fish to push their mercury levels up, and then stopped the fish. Slowly but surely their levels came back down (see the video for the graph). I know a lot of moms are concerned about exposing their children to mercury containing vaccines, but if they eat even just a serving a week of fish during pregnancy, the latest data shows that their infants end up with substantially more mercury in their bodies than if they were injected with up to six mercury-containing vaccines.

Given the two-month half-life of mercury, within a year of stopping fish consumption our bodies can detox nearly 99% of the mercury. Unfortunately the other industrial pollutants in fish can take longer for our body to get rid of. Certain dioxins, PCBs, and DDT metabolites found in fish have a half-life as long as ten years. So getting that same 99% drop could take 120 years, which is a long time to delay one's first child.

The fact that we can still find DDT in umbilical cord blood decades after the pesticide was banned speaks to the persistence of some pollutants. There's a shortcut for moms, but it's The Wrong Way to Detox.

What effects do these other pollutants have? Well, high concentrations of industrial contaminants are associated with 38 times the odds of diabetes--that's as strong as the relationship between smoking and lung cancer! Isn't diabetes mostly associated with obesity though? Well, these pollutants are fat-soluble, so "as people get fatter the retention and toxicity of persistent organic pollutants related to the risk of diabetes may increase." This suggests the shocking possibility that obesity "may only be a vehicle" for such chemicals.

Now the pollutants could just be a marker for animal product consumption, which may be why there's such higher diabetes risk, since more than 90% of the persistent organic pollutants comes from animal foods. And indeed, in the U.S. every additional serving of fish a week is associated with a 5% increased risk of diabetes, which makes fish consumption about 80% worse than red meat. PCBs are found most concentrated in fish and eggs (Food Sources of PCB Chemical Pollutants), which may be why there are lower levels of Industrial Pollutants in Vegans. This may also help explain the remarkable findings in Eggs and Diabetes.

More on the risks of mercury can be found in these videos:

-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: Tatiana Vdb / Flickr

Original Link

Can One Become a Sugar Addict?

NF-Oct21 Are Sugary Foods Addictive?.jpg

People have chewed coca leaves for at least 8,000 years as a mild stimulant without any evidence of addiction, but when certain components are isolated and concentrated into cocaine, we've got a problem. The same may be true of sugar--people don't tend to binge on bananas. The isolation of sugar from the whole food may be the reason we're more likely to supersize soda than sweet potatoes, or why we're less likely to eat too much corn on the cob, but can't seem to get enough high fructose corn syrup.

The overconsumption of sugar-sweetened diets has often been compared to drug addiction. However, until very recently this parallel was based more on anecdotal evidence than on solid scientific grounds. But now we have PET scans, imaging technology that can measure brain activity. It all started with a publication from the Institute of Clinical Physiology that showed decreased dopamine sensitivity in obese individuals. The heavier they were, the less responsive to dopamine they appeared to be. We see the same reduction in sensitivity in cocaine addicts and alcoholics, which "would suggest that a reduction in dopamine receptors is associated with addictive behavior irrespective of whether it is due to food or to addictive drugs, as seen in substance abusers."

Dopamine is considered the neurotransmitter primarily involved in the pleasure and reward center of our brain, helping to motivate our drive for things like food, water and sex--all necessary for the perpetuation of our species. It was healthy and adaptive for our primate brains to drive us to eat that banana when there wasn't much food around. But now that fruit is in fruit loop form, this adaptation has "become a dangerous liability." The original Coca-Cola formulation actually included coca leaf, but now, perhaps, its sugar content may be the addictive stand-in.

What about artificial sweeteners? Though some are less harmful than others (Erythritol May Be a Sweet Antioxidant as opposed to Aspartame-Induced Fibromyalgia), they could still have adverse effects regardless of their individual chemistry. See my 3-part series:

  1. How Diet Soda Could Make Us Gain Weight
  2. Neurobiology of Artificial Sweeteners
  3. Unsweetening the Diet

What about fatty foods like meat? Does fat have addictive qualities as well? Good question! Check out my video Are Fatty Foods Addictive?

-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.

Images thanks to MattysFlicks / Flickr

Original Link

Can Eating Soy Prevent Breast Cancer?

NF-Sep16 Can Eating Soy Prevent Breast Cancer?.jpg

In my video, Increased Lifespan From Beans, I discuss how beans may be the single most important dietary predictor of a long lifespan. But why do people who eat legumes such as beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils live longer? It may be because men and women who eat legumes have been shown to be lighter, have a slimmer waist, lower blood pressure, lower blood sugars, lower cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and better kidney function. Interestingly, bean intake is a better protector against mortality in women than in men. This may be because cancer--especially breast cancer--was the leading killer of women in the population studied.

Breast cancer survivors who eat soy foods, for example, have a significantly lower likelihood of cancer recurrence. A 2012 review looked at the three studies done to date on the link between soy and breast cancer survival. It showed that women who ate the most soy had a 29% lower risk of dying from breast cancer and a 36% lower risk of cancer recurrence. A fourth study has since been published that reaffirms these results. With an average intake of soy phytonutrients above 17 mg/day--the amount found in about a cup of soymilk--the mortality of breast cancer may be reduced by as much as 38%.

In my video, BRCA Breast Cancer Genes and Soy, you can see a five-year survival curve for Chinese women with breast cancer. After two years, all of the breast cancer survivors that ate lots of soy were still alive, while only about two-thirds of the women who ate the least amount of soy were alive. After five years, 90% of the tofu lovers were still alive and kicking, whereas half of the tofu haters had kicked the bucket. There is a similar relationship between breast cancer survival and soy protein intake, as opposed to just soy phytonutrient intake.

How does soy so dramatically decrease cancer risk and improve survival? Soy may actually help turn back on women's BRCA genes. BRCA is a so-called "caretaker gene," an oncosuppressor (cancer-suppressing) gene responsible for DNA repair. Mutations in this gene can cause a rare form of hereditary breast cancer, popularized by Angelina Jolie's public decision to undergo a preventive double mastectomy. But only about 5% of breast cancers run in families; 95% of breast cancer victims have fully functional BRCA genes. So if their DNA repair mechanisms are intact, how did breast cancer form, grow, and spread? It does so by suppressing the expression of the gene through a process called methylation. The gene's fine, but cancer found a way to turn it down or even off, potentially facilitating the metastatic spread of the tumor.

And that's where soy may come in.

The reason soy intake is associated with increased survival and decreased cancer recurrence may be because the phytonutrients in soy turn back on the BRCA protection, removing the methyl straightjacket the tumor tried to place on it. To find out if this is indeed the case, a group of researchers put it to the test.

In the video mentioned earlier, BRCA Breast Cancer Genes and Soy, you can see normal cells side-by-side with three different types of human breast cancer cells, specially stained so that the expression of BRCA genes shows up brown. Column 1 (far left) shows what fully functioning DNA repair looks like--what normal breast cells should look like--lots of brown, lots of BRCA expression. Column 2 shows raging breast cancer cells. If you add soy phytonutrients to the cancer (columns 3 and 4), the BRCA genes get turned back on and DNA repair appears to start ramping back up. Although this was at a pretty hefty dose (equivalent to about a cup of soybeans), the results suggest that treatment with soy phytonutrients might reverse DNA hypermethylation and restore the expression of the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Soy appears to also help with other breast cancer genes as well, and women at increased genetic risk of breast cancer may especially benefit from high soy intake.

No matter what genes we inherit, changes in diet can affect DNA expression at a genetic level. No matter what bad genetic cards we've been dealt, we can reshuffle the deck with diet. For examples, see:

I've previously covered the available science in Breast Cancer Survival and Soy. Other effects detailed in:

It may be possible to overdo it, though. See my video How Much Soy Is Too Much?

-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: Craig Dugas / Flickr

Original Link

How Grapefruit Affects Prescription Drugs

NF-Aug5 How Grapefruit Affects Prescription Drugs.jpg

Does grapefruit in particular help people lose weight?

If someone eats half of a grapefruit three times a day before each meal for a couple months, they may lose about two pounds -- but that's no more than if they ate three apples or pears a day. In one study, the grapefruit eaters not only saw their weight go down, but their waist got slimmer, and their body fat melted away. If, however, we repeat the experiment and instead ask people to drink a half cup of water before each meal, we get the same result. So this belief that grapefruit has some special fat-burning quality appears to be just a long-held myth.

The researchers reported that grapefruit consumers had a drop in weight, a significant drop in cholesterol, and a significant drop in blood pressure. They concluded that consumption of grapefruit daily for six weeks does not significantly decrease body weight, cholesterol, or blood pressure, though. That made me do a little double take, but again, it's because the grapefruit didn't do any better than placebo.

Other studies have found a legitimate cholesterol-lowering benefit of grapefruit, and even a little dip in triglycerides, especially eating red as opposed to white . For example, one study showed a decrease in cholesterol, but only from one life-threatening cholesterol level to another life-threatening cholesterol level. To prevent heart disease, we really have to get down to a total cholesterol of around 150, which is the average cholesterol of those eating diets composed exclusively of plant foods, not just grapefruits (See, for example, One in a Thousand: Ending the Heart Disease Epidemic).

Even though grapefruits alone don't do much, the researchers suggest that people might be more likely to stick with them than cholesterol lowering drugs, noting that most people with heart disease stop taking their statin drugs within a couple years because of the adverse side effects (see Statin Muscle Toxicity). While grapefruits alone don't have any side effects, ironically, combining grapefruits and drugs can make drug side effects even worse.

If we eat lots of fruits and vegetables, we hopefully won't need a lot of drugs (Say No to Drugs by Saying Yes to More Plants), but certain phytochemicals in plants can affect the metabolism of drugs in the body. Grapefruit is the poster child, described as a "pharmacologist's nightmare." Natural phytochemicals in grapefruit suppress the enzymes that help clear more than half of commonly prescribed drugs, and less drug clearance means higher drug levels in the body. This may actually be good if we want a better caffeine buzz from our morning coffee, or our doctors want to help us save thousands of dollars by boosting the effects of expensive drugs instead of just peeing them away.

But higher drug levels may mean higher risk of side effects. Women taking the Pill are normally at a higher risk of blood clots, but even more so, perhaps, if they have been consuming grapefruit. Taking the Pill with grapefruit juice may increase blood drug concentrations by 137 percent.

If suppressing our drug clearance enzymes with grapefruit juice elevates levels of ingested estrogen, what might it be doing to our own estrogen levels? A study associating grapefruit consumption with breast cancer freaked out the medical community, but subsequent studies on even larger groups of women found no evidence of a link. The Harvard Nurses' Study even found a decreased risk of the scariest breast cancer type, so it doesn't look like we have to worry about grapefruit affecting our natural chemistry.

For those prescribed unnatural chemistries, it may be a good idea to discontinue grapefruit consumption for 72 hours before use of a drug that may interact with it. If you don't want to give up your grapefruit, you can ask your doctor about switching from a grapefruit-affected drug like Lipitor to one of the citrus-proof alternatives (the replacement drug chart can be seen in my video, Tell Your Doctor If You Eat Grapefruit).

Other videos on citrus include:

And another video on the risks associated with taking estrogens: Plant-Based Bioidentical Hormones.

Can't eat grapefruit without sprinkling sugar on top? Try erythritol instead to avoid so many empty calories: Erythritol May Be a Sweet Antioxidant.

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: Liz West / Flickr

Original Link

Stopping Heart Disease in Childhood

NF-July15 Heart Disease Starts in Childhood.jpg

A landmark paper in 1953 radically changed our view about the development of heart disease forever. The study looked at a series of 300 autopsies performed on U.S. battle casualties of the Korean War. The average age was 22 years old, but 77% of the soldiers' hearts had gross evidence--meaning visible-to-the-eye evidence--of coronary atherosclerosis, hardening of their arteries. Some of them had vessels that were clogged off 90% or more. As an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, "This widely cited publication dramatically showed that atherosclerotic changes appear in the coronary arteries years and decades before the age at which coronary heart disease (CHD) becomes a clinically recognized problem." Follow-up studies on the hearts of thousands of more soldiers over the subsequent years confirmed their results.

How young does it go? Fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, were found in the arteries of 100% of kids by age ten. What's accounting for this buildup of plaque even in childhood? In the '80s we got our first clue in the famous Bogalusa Heart Study. This looked at autopsies of those who died between the ages of 3 to 26 years old, and the #1 risk factor was cholesterol intake. There was a dramatic stepwise increase in the proportion of their arteries covered in fatty streaks as the level of bad cholesterol in the blood increased. As powerful as this was, the study only looked at 30 kids. So they decided to study 3000: three thousand accidental death victims, ages 15 through 34.

After thousands of autopsies, they were able to produce a scoring system that could predict the presence of advanced atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries of young people. The higher our score, the higher the likelihood we have these lesions growing in the arteries that pump blood and oxygen to our heart. So if we're young and we smoke, our risk goes up by one point. If we have high blood pressure at such a young age, that's four points. If we're an obese male, that's six points, but high cholesterol was the worst of all. If our non-HDL cholesterol (meaning the total cholesterol minus the good cholesterol) is above 220 or so, our risk increased eight times more than if we smoked.

Let's say you're a woman with relatively high cholesterol, but you don't smoke, you're not overweight, your blood pressure and blood sugars are OK. At your sweet 16 there's just about a 1 in 30 (3%) chance you already have an advanced atherosclerotic lesion in your heart, but if you don't improve your diet, by your 30th birthday, it's closer to a one in five (20%) chance you have some serious heart disease, and if you have really high cholesterol it could be closer to one in three (33%).

In the video, Heart Disease Starts in Childhood, you can see what happens to our risk if we bring our cholesterol down to even just that of a lacto-ovo vegetarian, or if we exercise to boost our HDL, etc. It shows that even in 15 to 19-year-olds, atherosclerosis has begun in a substantial number of individuals, and this observation suggests beginning primary prevention at least by the late teenage years to ameliorate every stage of atherosclerosis and to prevent or retard progression to more advanced lesions.

If we start kids out on a low saturated fat diet, we may see a significant improvement in their arterial function by 11 years old. The study concluded, "Exposure to high serum cholesterol concentration even in childhood may accelerate the development of atherosclerosis. Consequently the long-term prevention of atherosclerosis might be most effective when initiated early in life." And by early in life they meant infancy.

Atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, begins in childhood. By age ten nearly all kids have fatty streaks, the first stage of the disease. Then the plaques start forming in our 20s, get worse in our 30s, and can start killing us off in middle age. In our hearts it's a heart attack, in our brains it's a stroke, in our extremities it can mean gangrene, and in our aorta, an aneurism.

For those of us older than ten years of age, the choice likely isn't whether or not to eat healthy to prevent heart disease, it's whether or not we want to reverse the heart disease we likely already have.

Drs. Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. proved that we can reverse heart disease with a plant-based diet, but we don't have to wait until our first heart attack to start unclogging our arteries. We can start reversing our heart disease right now. We can start reversing heart disease in our kids tonight.

The bottom line is that we have tremendous control over our medical destinies. How do we go about reversing our heart disease? I address that question in my latest live annual review presentation More Than an Apple a Day. Or, for shorter snippets:

Heart disease is a choice.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my 2012 live year-in-review presentation Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

Image Credit: James MacDonald / Flickr

Original Link

How to Get Kids to Eat Their Vegetables

How to Get Kids to Eat Their Vegetables

What happens if we give one group of kids a plate of cookies and the other group the same number of cookies, but cut in half, and tell both groups they can eat as many as they want? Researchers reported that decreasing cookie size led to 25% fewer cookie calories eaten.

The goal of that study was to help counter obesity-promoting eating behaviors facilitated by the availability of large portions of junk food. The findings "suggest that reducing the size of cookies (without altering the total amount of food) decreases children's short-term caloric intake," a dietary strategy for parents to discreetly decrease unhealthy behaviors. But they were using sugar wafers- what's in those things? Partially hydrogenated oil (trans fats). What's so bad about trans fats? See Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy, Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero, and Breast Cancer Survival and Trans Fat. No one should be eating those cookies. In fact, I can think of another "dietary strategy" to decrease kid's intake--don't give them any!

Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Even in the 'granola crunchy' San Francisco Bay Area, a proposed ban on junk food suggested by parents and school administrators sent a faction of teachers into an apoplectic fit. In Texas, there was so much parental outrage that they got lawmakers to pass a Safe Cupcake Amendment. The amendment, known as Lauren's Law, ensures that parents and grandparents of schoolchildren celebrating a birthday can bring whatever they want to school.

Fine. What if we just offered fruit in addition to the cupcakes at classroom celebrations? In a study outlined in my video, Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at School, researchers provided bowls of fresh, cut-up fruit in addition to the party food brought by the parents at two of four kindergarten or preschool celebrations to observe student response. No special effort was made to encourage students to choose the fruit: they just put it out there. Would kids actually eat fruit when there was birthday cake, ice cream, and cheese puffs taking up nearly a whopping third of their daily caloric intake? Yes! On average each kid ate a full fruit serving. Take that, cheesy puffs!

There are entire curricula available now for schools, such as "Veggiecation," where for a whole year classrooms feature a new "veggie of the month," sprinkled with nutrition mantras like "Fiber equals a happy tummy." And they work! "The active engagement of students in tasting and rating vegetable dishes seemed to have contributed to higher consumption of featured vegetables."

One school was able in some cases to double vegetable consumption just by giving them attractive names. Elementary students ate twice the number of carrots if they were called "X-ray Vision Carrots," compared to when they were just "carrots" or generically named "Food of the Day."

How about "Power Punch Broccoli, Silly Dilly Green Beans, or Tiny Tasty Tree Tops?" Selection of broccoli increased by 109.4%, and green beans by 177%. Conclusion: "these studies demonstrate that using an attractive name to describe a healthy food in a cafeteria is robustly effective, persistent, and scalable with little or no money or experience. These names were not carefully crafted, discussed in focus groups, and then pre-tested." They just thought them up out of thin air. And kids were suckered into eating healthier for months by putting out silly little signs. In this school, vegetable intake was up nearly 100%, while in the control school without signs, vegetable consumption started low and actually got worse. So why isn't every single school in the country doing this right now?! Bring it up at your next PTA meeting.

And if we want to get really bold, we can join the nutritious school lunch revolution led by pioneering organizations like the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food (check out their website at www.healthyschoolfood.org).

Whenever I find myself frustrated by half measures, I am forced to remind myself just how SAD the Standard American Diet is. See Nation's Diet in Crisis for a reality check. One of the problems is that parents may not even realize there is a problem (Mothers Overestimate Dietary Quality).

For more healthy eating tricks check out: Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at Home and Tricks to Get Adults to Eat Healthier.

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

Original Link

Which Seaweed to Help Prevent Breast Cancer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Seaweed is Protective Against Cancer?

Sushi lovers, rejoice. Nori seaweed may favorably alter estrogen metabolism by modulating women’s gut flora, resulting in decreased breast cancer risk.

As traditional East Asian diets have westernized, breast cancer rates have risen. Some researchers have linked this to a quadrupling of animal product consumption. In my video Which Seaweed Is Most Protective Against Breast Cancer, you can see the breast cancer rate of Japanese women living in Japan. Within 10 years of immigrating to the United States, their risk increases, and if they hang around long enough, their risk goes up even more, although it is still somewhat lower than the U.S. national average. This may be because of some of the dietary habits they carry with them—soy and green tea consumption, perhaps eating more mushrooms and seaweed.

We’ve known for over a decade that in vitro (in a Petri dish) seaweed broth is effective at clearing cancer cells. In the video, you can see three different types of human breast cancer exposed to either a widely used chemotherapy drug or a sea vegetable. The seaweed worked better. And unlike the chemo, it didn’t hurt normal, non-cancerous breast cells. What about outside of the test tube, in people?

Well, a population study comparing women with breast cancer to women without found that consuming a single sheet of nori a day may cut a woman’s odds of breast cancer in half. We think it’s because seaweed favorably alters estrogen metabolism, likely due to modulating women’s gut bacteria. The more seaweed we eat, the less estrogen we have in our system, which may lower breast cancer risk.

The breast cancer protection may be because of all the fiber in sea vegetables, or because seaweed may block the enzyme that undermines our body’s attempt to flush out excess hormones. Or seaweed may somehow interfere with estrogen binding to estrogen receptors. Whatever the cause, to effectively lower their estrogen levels, Asian women may be able to get away with about one sheet of nori a day, but American women are physically so much larger that it may take closer to two. There are lots of yummy seaweed snacks out there to make it a tasty experience—just try to get some low-fat, low-sodium ones. They’re just like kale chips, munchies made out of dark green leafy vegetables—can’t beat that!

For more on lowering breast cancer through diet:

The seaweed used fresh in seaweed salads, wakame, unfortunately did not appear to reduce breast cancer risk. Wakame consumption has, however, been found to lower blood pressure in hypertensives (people with high blood pressure). Just two teaspoons of seaweed salad a day for a month dropped people’s blood pressure 14 points, and two months of wakame was associated with up to a two inch skinnier waistline.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’d recommend avoiding hijike, which tends to have too much arsenic (see Avoiding Iodine Deficiency), and kelp, which tends to have too much iodine (see Too Much Iodine Can Be as Bad as Too Little). In fact, too much seaweed of any type may actually increase our risk for thyroid cancer because of the amount of iodine we’d be taking in, but there does not appear to be any increased risk at the levels of consumption I’m talking about, like a sheet of nori every day. And a study of seaweed eaters in California actually found decreased risk, but, again, we’re talking a modest level of intake.

I’ve frequently talked about the benefits of dietary diversity, eating different families of fruits and vegetables, eating different parts of individual plants—such as beets and beet greens. If we just stick to land plants, though, we’re missing out on all the plants from the other 70% of planet earth. Sea vegetables have phytonutrients found nowhere else, special types of fiber, and unique carotenoids and polysaccharides, and various polyphenol defense compounds, each of which may have anti-cancer properties. I encourage everyone to try experimenting until you find a sea vegetable you like, even if that means just sprinkling some powdered dulse on your food. More on the importance of dietary diversity in Garden Variety Anti-Inflammation, Apples and Oranges: Dietary Diversity, and Constructing a Cognitive Portfolio.

For more on some of the other protective dietary components in the diets of Japanese women, check out Why Do Asian Women Have Less Breast Cancer? and Breast Cancer Survival and Soy.

And if you enjoy anti-cancer comparison videos, make sure to also check out Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better? and #1 Anticancer Vegetable.

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: srsldy / Flickr

Original Link