Foods to Eat to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 26 Foods to Eat copy.jpeg

Why is meat consumption a risk factor for diabetes? Why does there appear to be a stepwise reduction in diabetes rates as meat consumption drops? Instead of avoiding something in meat, it may be that people are getting something protective from plants. Free radicals may be an important trigger for insulin resistance, and antioxidants in plant foods may help. Put people on a plant-based diet, and their antioxidant enzymes shoot up. So not only do plants provide antioxidants, but may boost our own anti-endogenous antioxidant defenses, whereas, on the conventional diabetic diet, they get worse.

In my video, How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes, I discuss how there are phytonutrients in plant foods that may help lower chronic disease prevalence by acting as antioxidants and anti-cancer agents, and by lowering cholesterol and blood sugar. Some, we're now theorizing, may even be lipotropes, which have the capacity to hasten the removal of fat from our liver and other organs, counteracting the inflammatory cascade believed to be directly initiated by saturated-fat-containing foods. Fat in the bloodstream--from the fat on our bodies or the fat we eat--not only causes insulin resistance, but also produces a low-grade inflammation that can contribute to heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fiber may also decrease insulin resistance. One of the ways it may do so is by helping to rid the body of excess estrogen. There is strong evidence for a direct role of estrogens in the cause of diabetes, and it's been demonstrated that certain gut bacteria can produce estrogens in our colon. High-fat, low-fiber diets appear to stimulate the metabolic activity of these estrogen-producing intestinal bacteria. This is a problem for men, too. Obesity is associated with low testosterone levels and marked elevations of estrogens produced not only by fat cells but also by some of the bacteria in our gut. Our intestinal bacteria may produce these so-called diabetogens (diabetes-causing compounds) from the fats we eat. By eating lots of fiber, though, we can flush this excess estrogen out of our bodies.

Vegetarian women, for example, excrete two to three times more estrogens in their stools than omnivorous women, which may be why omnivorous women have 50% higher estrogen blood levels. These differences in estrogen metabolism may help explain the lower incidence of diabetes in those eating more plant-based diets, as well as the lower incidence of breast cancer in vegetarian women, who get rid of twice as much estrogen because they get rid of twice as much daily waste in general.

Either way, "[m]eat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk. Dietary habits are readily modifiable, but individuals and clinicians will consider dietary changes only if they are aware of the potential benefits of doing so." The identification of meat consumption as a risk factor for diabetes provides helpful guidance that sets the stage for beneficial behavioral changes. Meat consumption is something doctors can easily ask about, and, once identified, at-risk individuals can then be encouraged to familiarize themselves with meatless options.


Plant foods may also protect against diabetes by replacing animal foods. Learn more with my Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes? video.

What if your entire diet was filled with plants? See Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes. Find out which plants may be particularly protective with these videos: Amla Versus Diabetes, Flaxseed vs. Diabetes, and Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

Unfortunately, cinnamon has fallen out of favor. See my Update on Cinnamon for Blood Sugar Control.

I also have an ever-growing series on the science behind type 2 diabetes:

For more on the estrogen connection, see Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen and Breast Cancer and Constipation.

In 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:

Original Link

Foods to Eat to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 26 Foods to Eat copy.jpeg

Why is meat consumption a risk factor for diabetes? Why does there appear to be a stepwise reduction in diabetes rates as meat consumption drops? Instead of avoiding something in meat, it may be that people are getting something protective from plants. Free radicals may be an important trigger for insulin resistance, and antioxidants in plant foods may help. Put people on a plant-based diet, and their antioxidant enzymes shoot up. So not only do plants provide antioxidants, but may boost our own anti-endogenous antioxidant defenses, whereas, on the conventional diabetic diet, they get worse.

In my video, How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes, I discuss how there are phytonutrients in plant foods that may help lower chronic disease prevalence by acting as antioxidants and anti-cancer agents, and by lowering cholesterol and blood sugar. Some, we're now theorizing, may even be lipotropes, which have the capacity to hasten the removal of fat from our liver and other organs, counteracting the inflammatory cascade believed to be directly initiated by saturated-fat-containing foods. Fat in the bloodstream--from the fat on our bodies or the fat we eat--not only causes insulin resistance, but also produces a low-grade inflammation that can contribute to heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fiber may also decrease insulin resistance. One of the ways it may do so is by helping to rid the body of excess estrogen. There is strong evidence for a direct role of estrogens in the cause of diabetes, and it's been demonstrated that certain gut bacteria can produce estrogens in our colon. High-fat, low-fiber diets appear to stimulate the metabolic activity of these estrogen-producing intestinal bacteria. This is a problem for men, too. Obesity is associated with low testosterone levels and marked elevations of estrogens produced not only by fat cells but also by some of the bacteria in our gut. Our intestinal bacteria may produce these so-called diabetogens (diabetes-causing compounds) from the fats we eat. By eating lots of fiber, though, we can flush this excess estrogen out of our bodies.

Vegetarian women, for example, excrete two to three times more estrogens in their stools than omnivorous women, which may be why omnivorous women have 50% higher estrogen blood levels. These differences in estrogen metabolism may help explain the lower incidence of diabetes in those eating more plant-based diets, as well as the lower incidence of breast cancer in vegetarian women, who get rid of twice as much estrogen because they get rid of twice as much daily waste in general.

Either way, "[m]eat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk. Dietary habits are readily modifiable, but individuals and clinicians will consider dietary changes only if they are aware of the potential benefits of doing so." The identification of meat consumption as a risk factor for diabetes provides helpful guidance that sets the stage for beneficial behavioral changes. Meat consumption is something doctors can easily ask about, and, once identified, at-risk individuals can then be encouraged to familiarize themselves with meatless options.


Plant foods may also protect against diabetes by replacing animal foods. Learn more with my Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes? video.

What if your entire diet was filled with plants? See Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes. Find out which plants may be particularly protective with these videos: Amla Versus Diabetes, Flaxseed vs. Diabetes, and Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

Unfortunately, cinnamon has fallen out of favor. See my Update on Cinnamon for Blood Sugar Control.

I also have an ever-growing series on the science behind type 2 diabetes:

For more on the estrogen connection, see Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen and Breast Cancer and Constipation.

In 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:

Original Link

Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

In 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:

Original Link

Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

In 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:

Original Link

Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet

Sept 26 Boosting Brown Fat copy.jpeg

Until about ten years ago, brown adipose tissue (BAT) was considered to be biologically active only in babies and small children where it generates heat by burning fat. But now, there is no doubt that active brown fat is present in adult humans and is involved in cold-induced increases in whole-body calorie expenditure and, thereby, helps control of not only body temperature but also how fat we are.

In 2013, researchers showed that one could activate brown adipose tissue if you chill out people long enough, specifically, by exposing them to two hours of cold every day for six weeks, which can lead to a significant reduction in body fat. You can see an illustrative graph in my video Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet. Although researchers demonstrated the effective recruitment of human brown fat, it would seem difficult to increase exposure to cold in daily life. Thankfully, our brown fat can also be activated by some food ingredients, such as capsaicin, the compound that makes hot peppers hot.

While physical activity is usually recommended to increase energy expenditure, there are specific food components, such as capsaicin, that are known to burn off calories. For example, one study found that there was a significant rise in energy expenditure within 30 minutes of eating the equivalent of a jalapeño pepper.

Normally when we cut down on calories, our metabolism slows down, undercutting our weight loss attempts; but sprinkling a third of a teaspoon of red chili pepper powder onto our meals counteracts that metabolic slow down and promotes fat burning. Researchers wanted to try giving participants more chili pepper in order to try to match some of the studies done in Asia, but the Caucasian subjects couldn't take it. But by adding more than a tablespoon of red pepper powder to a high-fat meal, Japanese women burned significantly more fat.

We've known for decades that cayenne pepper increases metabolic rate, but we didn't know how. But studies show that this class of compounds increases energy expenditure in human individuals with brown fat, but not in those without it, indicating that individuals increase expenditure right off the BAT. Additionally, there is a variety of structurally similar flavor molecules in other foods, like black pepper and ginger, that may activate thermogenesis as well, but they haven't been directly tested.

All these results suggest that the anti-obesity effects of pepper compounds are based on the heat-generating activity of recruited brown fat. Thus, repeated ingestion can mimic the chronic effects of cold exposure without having to freeze ourselves.

Consumption of spicy foods may help us lose weight, but what about the sensory burn and pain on our tongues and sometimes in our stomachs as well as further on down? Are our only two options for boosting brown fat to freeze our legs or burn our butts?

Arginine-rich foods may also stimulate brown adipose tissue growth and development through a variety of mechanisms, which is achieved by consuming more soy foods, seeds, nuts, and beans.


For more on brown adipose tissue, see Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis.

What about arginine? Check out Fat Burning Via Arginine. And, did you know arginine may also play a role in the effects nuts may have on penile blood flow? I discuss this in Pistachio Nuts for Erectile Dysfunction.

For more on spicy foods, see my videos Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion to learn how digestive disorders may be helped and Hot Sauce in the Nose for Cluster Headaches? for information on how the hot pepper compound can be a lifesaver for people suffering from "suicide" headaches.

In 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:

Original Link

Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet

Sept 26 Boosting Brown Fat copy.jpeg

Until about ten years ago, brown adipose tissue (BAT) was considered to be biologically active only in babies and small children where it generates heat by burning fat. But now, there is no doubt that active brown fat is present in adult humans and is involved in cold-induced increases in whole-body calorie expenditure and, thereby, helps control of not only body temperature but also how fat we are.

In 2013, researchers showed that one could activate brown adipose tissue if you chill out people long enough, specifically, by exposing them to two hours of cold every day for six weeks, which can lead to a significant reduction in body fat. You can see an illustrative graph in my video Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet. Although researchers demonstrated the effective recruitment of human brown fat, it would seem difficult to increase exposure to cold in daily life. Thankfully, our brown fat can also be activated by some food ingredients, such as capsaicin, the compound that makes hot peppers hot.

While physical activity is usually recommended to increase energy expenditure, there are specific food components, such as capsaicin, that are known to burn off calories. For example, one study found that there was a significant rise in energy expenditure within 30 minutes of eating the equivalent of a jalapeño pepper.

Normally when we cut down on calories, our metabolism slows down, undercutting our weight loss attempts; but sprinkling a third of a teaspoon of red chili pepper powder onto our meals counteracts that metabolic slow down and promotes fat burning. Researchers wanted to try giving participants more chili pepper in order to try to match some of the studies done in Asia, but the Caucasian subjects couldn't take it. But by adding more than a tablespoon of red pepper powder to a high-fat meal, Japanese women burned significantly more fat.

We've known for decades that cayenne pepper increases metabolic rate, but we didn't know how. But studies show that this class of compounds increases energy expenditure in human individuals with brown fat, but not in those without it, indicating that individuals increase expenditure right off the BAT. Additionally, there is a variety of structurally similar flavor molecules in other foods, like black pepper and ginger, that may activate thermogenesis as well, but they haven't been directly tested.

All these results suggest that the anti-obesity effects of pepper compounds are based on the heat-generating activity of recruited brown fat. Thus, repeated ingestion can mimic the chronic effects of cold exposure without having to freeze ourselves.

Consumption of spicy foods may help us lose weight, but what about the sensory burn and pain on our tongues and sometimes in our stomachs as well as further on down? Are our only two options for boosting brown fat to freeze our legs or burn our butts?

Arginine-rich foods may also stimulate brown adipose tissue growth and development through a variety of mechanisms, which is achieved by consuming more soy foods, seeds, nuts, and beans.


For more on brown adipose tissue, see Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis.

What about arginine? Check out Fat Burning Via Arginine. And, did you know arginine may also play a role in the effects nuts may have on penile blood flow? I discuss this in Pistachio Nuts for Erectile Dysfunction.

For more on spicy foods, see my videos Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion to learn how digestive disorders may be helped and Hot Sauce in the Nose for Cluster Headaches? for information on how the hot pepper compound can be a lifesaver for people suffering from "suicide" headaches.

In 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:

Original Link

Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis

Sept 21 Brown Fat Thermo copy.jpeg

During World War I, it was discovered that many of the chemicals for new explosives had toxic or even lethal effects on the workers in the munitions factories. Chemicals such as di-nitro-phenol (DNP) can boost metabolism so much that workers were too often found wandering along the road after work, covered in sweat with temperatures of 106 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit before they died. Even after death, their temperatures kept going up, as if they were having a total body meltdown. At subacute doses, however, workers claimed to have grown thin to a notable extent after several months working with the chemical.

That got some Stanford pharmacologists excited about the "promising metabolic applications" of DNP. Our resting metabolic rate jumps up 30% after one dose of DNP, and therefore, it becomes an actual fat-burning drug. People started losing weight, as you can see in my video Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis, with no apparent side effects. They felt great... and then thousands of people started going blind and users started dropping dead from hyperpyrexia, fatal fever due to the heat created by the burning fat. Of course, it continued to be sold. Ad copy read:

"Here, at last, is a [weight] reducing remedy that will bring you a figure men admire and women envy, without danger to your health or change in your regular mode of living....No diet, no exercise!"

It did work, but the therapeutic index--the difference between the effective dose and the deadly dose--was razor thin. It was not until thousands suffered irreversible harm that it got pulled from the market and remained unavailable. Unavailable, that is, until it was brought back by the internet for those dying to be thin.

There is, however, a way our body naturally burns fat to create heat. When we're born, we go from a nice tropical 98.6 in our mother's womb straight to room temperature, just when we're still all wet and slimy. As an adaptive mechanism to maintain warmth, the appearance of a unique organ around 150 million years ago allowed mammals to maintain our high body temperatures.

That unique organ is called brown adipose tissue, or BAT, and its role is to consume fat calories by generating heat in response to cold exposure. The white fat in our bellies stores fat, but the brown fat, located up between our shoulder blades, burns fat. BAT is essential for thermogenesis, the creation of heat in newborns, but has been considered unnecessary in adults who have higher metabolic rates and increased muscle mass for shivering to warm us up when we get chilled. We used to think brown tissue just shrank away when we grew up, but, if it was there, then it could potentially make a big difference for how many calories we burn every day.

When PET scans were invented to detect metabolically active tissues like cancer, oncologists kept finding hot spots in the neck and shoulder regions that on CT scans turned out not to be cancer, just fat. Then, some observant radiologists noticed they appeared in patients mostly during the cold winter months. When they looked closer at tissue samples taken from people who had undergone neck surgery, they found it: brown fat in adults.

The common message from a number of studies is that BAT is present and active in adults, and the more we have and the more active it is, the thinner we are. And we can rapidly activate our fat-burning brown fat by exposure to cold temperatures. For example, if you hang out in a cold room for two hours in your undies and put your legs on a block of ice for four minutes every five minutes, you can elicit a marked increase in energy expenditure, thanks to brown fat activation. So, the studies point to a potential "natural" intervention to stimulate energy expenditure: Turn down the heat to burn calories (and reduce the carbon footprint in the process).

Thankfully, for those of us who would rather not lay our bare legs on blocks of ice, our brown fat can also be activated by some food ingredients such as those that are covered in my Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet video.


I briefly touch on the role cold temperatures can play in weight loss in The Ice Diet and talk more about calories in (Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management) and calories out (How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss).

In 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:

Original Link

Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis

Sept 21 Brown Fat Thermo copy.jpeg

During World War I, it was discovered that many of the chemicals for new explosives had toxic or even lethal effects on the workers in the munitions factories. Chemicals such as di-nitro-phenol (DNP) can boost metabolism so much that workers were too often found wandering along the road after work, covered in sweat with temperatures of 106 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit before they died. Even after death, their temperatures kept going up, as if they were having a total body meltdown. At subacute doses, however, workers claimed to have grown thin to a notable extent after several months working with the chemical.

That got some Stanford pharmacologists excited about the "promising metabolic applications" of DNP. Our resting metabolic rate jumps up 30% after one dose of DNP, and therefore, it becomes an actual fat-burning drug. People started losing weight, as you can see in my video Brown Fat: Losing Weight Through Thermogenesis, with no apparent side effects. They felt great... and then thousands of people started going blind and users started dropping dead from hyperpyrexia, fatal fever due to the heat created by the burning fat. Of course, it continued to be sold. Ad copy read:

"Here, at last, is a [weight] reducing remedy that will bring you a figure men admire and women envy, without danger to your health or change in your regular mode of living....No diet, no exercise!"

It did work, but the therapeutic index--the difference between the effective dose and the deadly dose--was razor thin. It was not until thousands suffered irreversible harm that it got pulled from the market and remained unavailable. Unavailable, that is, until it was brought back by the internet for those dying to be thin.

There is, however, a way our body naturally burns fat to create heat. When we're born, we go from a nice tropical 98.6 in our mother's womb straight to room temperature, just when we're still all wet and slimy. As an adaptive mechanism to maintain warmth, the appearance of a unique organ around 150 million years ago allowed mammals to maintain our high body temperatures.

That unique organ is called brown adipose tissue, or BAT, and its role is to consume fat calories by generating heat in response to cold exposure. The white fat in our bellies stores fat, but the brown fat, located up between our shoulder blades, burns fat. BAT is essential for thermogenesis, the creation of heat in newborns, but has been considered unnecessary in adults who have higher metabolic rates and increased muscle mass for shivering to warm us up when we get chilled. We used to think brown tissue just shrank away when we grew up, but, if it was there, then it could potentially make a big difference for how many calories we burn every day.

When PET scans were invented to detect metabolically active tissues like cancer, oncologists kept finding hot spots in the neck and shoulder regions that on CT scans turned out not to be cancer, just fat. Then, some observant radiologists noticed they appeared in patients mostly during the cold winter months. When they looked closer at tissue samples taken from people who had undergone neck surgery, they found it: brown fat in adults.

The common message from a number of studies is that BAT is present and active in adults, and the more we have and the more active it is, the thinner we are. And we can rapidly activate our fat-burning brown fat by exposure to cold temperatures. For example, if you hang out in a cold room for two hours in your undies and put your legs on a block of ice for four minutes every five minutes, you can elicit a marked increase in energy expenditure, thanks to brown fat activation. So, the studies point to a potential "natural" intervention to stimulate energy expenditure: Turn down the heat to burn calories (and reduce the carbon footprint in the process).

Thankfully, for those of us who would rather not lay our bare legs on blocks of ice, our brown fat can also be activated by some food ingredients such as those that are covered in my Boosting Brown Fat Through Diet video.


I briefly touch on the role cold temperatures can play in weight loss in The Ice Diet and talk more about calories in (Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management) and calories out (How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss).

In 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:

Original Link

Are Sugar Pills Better than Antidepressant Drugs?

Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work.jpg

We've learned that exercise compares favorably to antidepressant medications as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate depression (in my video Exercise vs. Drugs for Depression). But how much is that really saying? How effective are antidepressant drugs in the first place?

A recent meta-analysis sparked huge scientific and public controversy by stating that the placebo effect can explain the apparent clinical benefits of antidepressants. But aren't there thousands of clinical trials providing compelling evidence for antidepressant effectiveness? If a meta-analysis compiles together all the best published research, how could it say they don't work much better than sugar pills?

The key word is "published."

What if a drug company decided only to publish studies that showed a positive effect, but quietly shelved and concealed any studies showing the drug didn't work? If you didn't know any better, you'd look at the published medical literature and think "Wow, this drug is great." And what if all the drug companies did that? To find out if this was the case, researchers applied to the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to get access to the published and unpublished studies submitted by pharmaceutical companies, and what they found was shocking.

According to the published literature, the results of nearly all the trials of antidepressants were positive, meaning they worked. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed only roughly half of the trials had positive results. In other words, about half the studies showed the drugs didn't work. Thus, when published and unpublished data are combined, they fail to show a clinically significant advantage for antidepressant medication over a sugar pill. Not publishing negative results undermines evidence-based medicine and puts millions of patients at risk for using ineffective or unsafe drugs, and this was the case with these antidepressant drugs.

These revelations hit first in 2008. Prozac, Serzone, Paxil and Effexor worked, but so did sugar pills, and the difference between the drug and placebo was small. That was 2008. Where were we by 2014? Analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants are due to the placebo effect. And what's even worse, Freedom of Information Act documents show the FDA knew about it but made an explicit decision to keep this information from the public and from prescribing physicians.

How could drug companies get away with this?

The pharmaceutical industry is considered the most profitable and politically influential industry in the United States, and mental illness can be thought of as the drug industry's golden goose: incurable, common, long term and involving multiple medications. Antidepressant medications are prescribed to 8.7 percent of the U.S. population. It's a multi-billion dollar market.

To summarize, there is a strong therapeutic response to antidepressant medication; it's just that the response to placebo is almost as strong. Indeed, antidepressants offer substantial benefits to millions of people suffering from depression, and to cast them as ineffective is inaccurate. Just because they may not work better than fake pills doesn't mean they don't work. It's like homeopathy--just because it doesn't work better than the sugar pills, doesn't mean that homeopathy doesn't work. The placebo effect is real and powerful.

In one psychopharmacology journal, a psychiatrist funded by the Prozac company defends the drugs stating, "A key issue is disregarded by the naysaying critics. If the patient is benefiting from antidepressant treatment does it matter whether this is being achieved via drug or placebo effects?"

Of course it matters!

Among the side effects of antidepressants are: sexual dysfunction in up to three quarters of people, long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea and diarrhea. About one in five show withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. And perhaps more tragically, the drugs may make people more likely to become depressed in the future. Let me say that again: People are more likely to become depressed after treatment by antidepressants than after treatment by other means - including placebo.

So if doctors are willing to give patients placebo-equivalent treatments, maybe it'd be better for them to just lie to patients and give them actual sugar pills. Yes, that involves deception, but isn't that preferable than deception with a side of side effects? See more on this in my video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?

If different treatments are equally effective, then choice should be based on risk and harm, and of all of the available treatments, antidepressant drugs may be among the riskiest and most harmful. If they are to be used at all, it should be as a last resort, when depression is extremely severe and all other treatment alternatives have been tried and failed.

Antidepressants may not work better than placebo for mild and moderate depression, but for very severe depression, the drugs do beat out sugar pills. But that's just a small fraction of the people taking these drugs. That means that the vast majority of depressed patients--as many as nine out of ten--are being prescribed medications that have negligible benefits to them.

Too many doctors quickly decide upon a depression diagnosis without necessarily listening to what the patient has to say and end up putting them on antidepressants without considering alternatives. And fortunately, there are effective alternatives. Physical exercise, for example can have lasting effects, and if that turns out to also be a placebo effect, it is at least a placebo with an enviable list of side effects. Whereas side effects of antidepressants include things like sexual dysfunction and insomnia, side effects of exercise include enhanced libido, better sleep, decreased body fat, improved muscle tone and a longer life.


There are other ways meta-analyses can be misleading. See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

More on the ethical challenges facing doctors and whether or not to prescribe sugar pills in The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

I've used the Freedom of Information Act myself to get access to behind the scenes industry shenanigans. See, for example, what I found out about the egg industry in Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe? and Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims.

This isn't the only case of the medical profession overselling the benefits of drugs. See How Smoking in 1956 is Like Eating in 2016, The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure (though if you're worried about your mood they might make you even more depressed!)

In 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:

Image Credit: GraphicStock. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Are Sugar Pills Better than Antidepressant Drugs?

Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work.jpg

We've learned that exercise compares favorably to antidepressant medications as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate depression (in my video Exercise vs. Drugs for Depression). But how much is that really saying? How effective are antidepressant drugs in the first place?

A recent meta-analysis sparked huge scientific and public controversy by stating that the placebo effect can explain the apparent clinical benefits of antidepressants. But aren't there thousands of clinical trials providing compelling evidence for antidepressant effectiveness? If a meta-analysis compiles together all the best published research, how could it say they don't work much better than sugar pills?

The key word is "published."

What if a drug company decided only to publish studies that showed a positive effect, but quietly shelved and concealed any studies showing the drug didn't work? If you didn't know any better, you'd look at the published medical literature and think "Wow, this drug is great." And what if all the drug companies did that? To find out if this was the case, researchers applied to the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to get access to the published and unpublished studies submitted by pharmaceutical companies, and what they found was shocking.

According to the published literature, the results of nearly all the trials of antidepressants were positive, meaning they worked. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed only roughly half of the trials had positive results. In other words, about half the studies showed the drugs didn't work. Thus, when published and unpublished data are combined, they fail to show a clinically significant advantage for antidepressant medication over a sugar pill. Not publishing negative results undermines evidence-based medicine and puts millions of patients at risk for using ineffective or unsafe drugs, and this was the case with these antidepressant drugs.

These revelations hit first in 2008. Prozac, Serzone, Paxil and Effexor worked, but so did sugar pills, and the difference between the drug and placebo was small. That was 2008. Where were we by 2014? Analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants are due to the placebo effect. And what's even worse, Freedom of Information Act documents show the FDA knew about it but made an explicit decision to keep this information from the public and from prescribing physicians.

How could drug companies get away with this?

The pharmaceutical industry is considered the most profitable and politically influential industry in the United States, and mental illness can be thought of as the drug industry's golden goose: incurable, common, long term and involving multiple medications. Antidepressant medications are prescribed to 8.7 percent of the U.S. population. It's a multi-billion dollar market.

To summarize, there is a strong therapeutic response to antidepressant medication; it's just that the response to placebo is almost as strong. Indeed, antidepressants offer substantial benefits to millions of people suffering from depression, and to cast them as ineffective is inaccurate. Just because they may not work better than fake pills doesn't mean they don't work. It's like homeopathy--just because it doesn't work better than the sugar pills, doesn't mean that homeopathy doesn't work. The placebo effect is real and powerful.

In one psychopharmacology journal, a psychiatrist funded by the Prozac company defends the drugs stating, "A key issue is disregarded by the naysaying critics. If the patient is benefiting from antidepressant treatment does it matter whether this is being achieved via drug or placebo effects?"

Of course it matters!

Among the side effects of antidepressants are: sexual dysfunction in up to three quarters of people, long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea and diarrhea. About one in five show withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. And perhaps more tragically, the drugs may make people more likely to become depressed in the future. Let me say that again: People are more likely to become depressed after treatment by antidepressants than after treatment by other means - including placebo.

So if doctors are willing to give patients placebo-equivalent treatments, maybe it'd be better for them to just lie to patients and give them actual sugar pills. Yes, that involves deception, but isn't that preferable than deception with a side of side effects? See more on this in my video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?

If different treatments are equally effective, then choice should be based on risk and harm, and of all of the available treatments, antidepressant drugs may be among the riskiest and most harmful. If they are to be used at all, it should be as a last resort, when depression is extremely severe and all other treatment alternatives have been tried and failed.

Antidepressants may not work better than placebo for mild and moderate depression, but for very severe depression, the drugs do beat out sugar pills. But that's just a small fraction of the people taking these drugs. That means that the vast majority of depressed patients--as many as nine out of ten--are being prescribed medications that have negligible benefits to them.

Too many doctors quickly decide upon a depression diagnosis without necessarily listening to what the patient has to say and end up putting them on antidepressants without considering alternatives. And fortunately, there are effective alternatives. Physical exercise, for example can have lasting effects, and if that turns out to also be a placebo effect, it is at least a placebo with an enviable list of side effects. Whereas side effects of antidepressants include things like sexual dysfunction and insomnia, side effects of exercise include enhanced libido, better sleep, decreased body fat, improved muscle tone and a longer life.


There are other ways meta-analyses can be misleading. See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

More on the ethical challenges facing doctors and whether or not to prescribe sugar pills in The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

I've used the Freedom of Information Act myself to get access to behind the scenes industry shenanigans. See, for example, what I found out about the egg industry in Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe? and Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims.

This isn't the only case of the medical profession overselling the benefits of drugs. See How Smoking in 1956 is Like Eating in 2016, The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure (though if you're worried about your mood they might make you even more depressed!)

In 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:

Image Credit: GraphicStock. This image has been modified.

Original Link