Should Cancer Patients Avoid Raw Fruits and Vegetables?

Should Cancer Patients Avoid Raw Fruits and Vegetables?.jpeg

Back in the 1960s, a patient isolator unit was developed for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Because our immune system cells were often caught in the friendly fire, up to 50% of cancer patients died of infections before they could even complete the chemo because their immune systems had become so compromised. So, a bubble boy-like contraption was developed. The patient was shaved, dipped in disinfectant, rinsed off with alcohol, rubbed with antibiotic ointment into every orifice, and placed on a rotating regimen of a dozen of the most powerful antibiotics they had. Procedures were performed through plastic sleeves on the sides of the unit, and everything in and out had to be sterilized and passed through airlocks. So, the patient wasn't allowed any fresh fruits or vegetables.

People went crazy cooped up in these bubble-like units, with 38% even experiencing hallucinations. Fifteen years later the results were in: it simply didn't work. People were still dying at the same rate, so the whole thing was scrapped--except the diet. The airlocks and alcohol baths were abandoned, but they continued to make sure no one got to eat a salad.

Neutrophils are white blood cells that serve as our front line of defense. When we're immunocompromised and don't have enough neutrophils, we're called "neutropenic." So, the chemotherapy patients were put on a so-called neutropenic diet without any fresh fruits and vegetables. The problem is there's a glaring lack of evidence that such a neutropenic diet actually helps (see my video Is a Neutropenic Diet Necessary for Cancer Patients?).

Ironically, the neutropenic diet is the one remaining component of those patient isolator unit protocols that's still practiced, yet it has the least evidence supporting its use. Why? The rationale is: there are bacteria in salads, bacteria cause infections, immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for infections, and therefore, no salad. What's more, they were actually glad there aren't any studies on this because it could be way too risky to give a cancer patient an apple or something. So, its continued use seems to be based on a ''better safe than sorry'' philosophy.

The problem is that kids diagnosed with cancer are already low in dietary antioxidants, so the last thing we should do is tell them they can't have any fresh fruit or veggies. In addition to the lack of clinical evidence for this neutropenic diet, there may be some drawbacks. Restricting fruits and vegetables may even increase the risk of infection and compromise their nutritional status.

So, are neutropenic diets for cancer patients "reasonable prudence" or "clinical superstition"? Starting in the 1990s, there was a resurgence of research when greater importance was placed on the need to "support clinical practice with evidence."

What a concept!

Three randomized controlled trials were published, and not one supported the neutropenic diet. In the biggest study, an all-cooked diet was compared to one that allowed raw fruits and veggies, and there was no difference in infection and death rates. As a result of the study, the principal investigator at the MD Anderson Cancer Center described how their practice has changed and now everyone is allowed to eat their vegetables--a far cry from "please don't eat the salads" 31 years earlier.

Today, neither the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nor the American Cancer Society support the neutropenic diet. The real danger comes from pathogenic food-poisoning bacteria like Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. So we still have to keep patients away from risky foods like undercooked eggs, meat, dairy, and sprouts. At this point, though, there really shouldn't be a debate about whether cancer patients should be on a neutropenic diet. Nevertheless, many institutions still tell cancer patients they shouldn't eat fresh fruits and veggies. According to the latest survey, more than half of pediatric cancer doctors continue to prescribe these diets, though it's quite variable even among those at the same institution.

Why are doctors still reluctant to move away from the neutropenic diet? There are several reasons why physicians may be hesitant to incorporate evidence-based medicine into their practices. They may have limited time to review the literature. They'd like to dig deep into studies, but simply don't have the time to look at the evidence. Hmm, if only there was a website... :)

Bone marrow transplants are the final frontier. Sometimes it's our immune system itself that is cancerous, such as in leukemia or lymphoma. In these cases, the immune system is wiped out on purpose to rebuild it from scratch. So, inherent in the procedure is a profound immunodeficiency for which a neutropenic diet is often recommended. This has also had never been tested--until now.

Not only did it not work, a strict neutropenic diet was actually associated with an increased risk for infection, maybe because you don't get the good bugs from fruits and vegetables crowding out the bad guys in the gut. So not only was the neutropenic diet found to be unbeneficial; there was a suggestion that it has the potential to be harmful. This wouldn't be the first time an intervention strategy made good sense theoretically, but, when put to the test, was ultimately ineffective.

Unfortunately, there's an inertia in medicine that can result in medical practice that is at odds with the available evidence. Sometimes this disconnect can have devastating consequences. See, for example, Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased? and The Tomato Effect.

The reason it is so important to straighten out the neutropenic diet myth is that fruits and vegetables may actually improve cancer survival:

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: Sally Plank

Original Link

Should Cancer Patients Avoid Raw Fruits and Vegetables?

Should Cancer Patients Avoid Raw Fruits and Vegetables?.jpeg

Back in the 1960s, a patient isolator unit was developed for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Because our immune system cells were often caught in the friendly fire, up to 50% of cancer patients died of infections before they could even complete the chemo because their immune systems had become so compromised. So, a bubble boy-like contraption was developed. The patient was shaved, dipped in disinfectant, rinsed off with alcohol, rubbed with antibiotic ointment into every orifice, and placed on a rotating regimen of a dozen of the most powerful antibiotics they had. Procedures were performed through plastic sleeves on the sides of the unit, and everything in and out had to be sterilized and passed through airlocks. So, the patient wasn't allowed any fresh fruits or vegetables.

People went crazy cooped up in these bubble-like units, with 38% even experiencing hallucinations. Fifteen years later the results were in: it simply didn't work. People were still dying at the same rate, so the whole thing was scrapped--except the diet. The airlocks and alcohol baths were abandoned, but they continued to make sure no one got to eat a salad.

Neutrophils are white blood cells that serve as our front line of defense. When we're immunocompromised and don't have enough neutrophils, we're called "neutropenic." So, the chemotherapy patients were put on a so-called neutropenic diet without any fresh fruits and vegetables. The problem is there's a glaring lack of evidence that such a neutropenic diet actually helps (see my video Is a Neutropenic Diet Necessary for Cancer Patients?).

Ironically, the neutropenic diet is the one remaining component of those patient isolator unit protocols that's still practiced, yet it has the least evidence supporting its use. Why? The rationale is: there are bacteria in salads, bacteria cause infections, immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for infections, and therefore, no salad. What's more, they were actually glad there aren't any studies on this because it could be way too risky to give a cancer patient an apple or something. So, its continued use seems to be based on a ''better safe than sorry'' philosophy.

The problem is that kids diagnosed with cancer are already low in dietary antioxidants, so the last thing we should do is tell them they can't have any fresh fruit or veggies. In addition to the lack of clinical evidence for this neutropenic diet, there may be some drawbacks. Restricting fruits and vegetables may even increase the risk of infection and compromise their nutritional status.

So, are neutropenic diets for cancer patients "reasonable prudence" or "clinical superstition"? Starting in the 1990s, there was a resurgence of research when greater importance was placed on the need to "support clinical practice with evidence."

What a concept!

Three randomized controlled trials were published, and not one supported the neutropenic diet. In the biggest study, an all-cooked diet was compared to one that allowed raw fruits and veggies, and there was no difference in infection and death rates. As a result of the study, the principal investigator at the MD Anderson Cancer Center described how their practice has changed and now everyone is allowed to eat their vegetables--a far cry from "please don't eat the salads" 31 years earlier.

Today, neither the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nor the American Cancer Society support the neutropenic diet. The real danger comes from pathogenic food-poisoning bacteria like Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. So we still have to keep patients away from risky foods like undercooked eggs, meat, dairy, and sprouts. At this point, though, there really shouldn't be a debate about whether cancer patients should be on a neutropenic diet. Nevertheless, many institutions still tell cancer patients they shouldn't eat fresh fruits and veggies. According to the latest survey, more than half of pediatric cancer doctors continue to prescribe these diets, though it's quite variable even among those at the same institution.

Why are doctors still reluctant to move away from the neutropenic diet? There are several reasons why physicians may be hesitant to incorporate evidence-based medicine into their practices. They may have limited time to review the literature. They'd like to dig deep into studies, but simply don't have the time to look at the evidence. Hmm, if only there was a website... :)

Bone marrow transplants are the final frontier. Sometimes it's our immune system itself that is cancerous, such as in leukemia or lymphoma. In these cases, the immune system is wiped out on purpose to rebuild it from scratch. So, inherent in the procedure is a profound immunodeficiency for which a neutropenic diet is often recommended. This has also had never been tested--until now.

Not only did it not work, a strict neutropenic diet was actually associated with an increased risk for infection, maybe because you don't get the good bugs from fruits and vegetables crowding out the bad guys in the gut. So not only was the neutropenic diet found to be unbeneficial; there was a suggestion that it has the potential to be harmful. This wouldn't be the first time an intervention strategy made good sense theoretically, but, when put to the test, was ultimately ineffective.

Unfortunately, there's an inertia in medicine that can result in medical practice that is at odds with the available evidence. Sometimes this disconnect can have devastating consequences. See, for example, Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased? and The Tomato Effect.

The reason it is so important to straighten out the neutropenic diet myth is that fruits and vegetables may actually improve cancer survival:

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: Sally Plank

Original Link

The Best Way to Wash Fruit and Vegetables

The Best Way to Wash Fruit and Vegetables.jpeg

How might we reduce our exposure to pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables? What about staying away from imported produce? Well, it turns out domestic produce may be even worse, dispelling the notion that imported fruits and vegetables pose greater potential health risks to consumers.

Buying organic dramatically reduces dietary exposure to pesticides, but it does not eliminate the potential risk. Pesticide residues are detectable in about one in ten organic crop samples, due to cross-contamination from neighboring fields, the continued presence of very persistent pesticides like DDT in the soil, and accidental or fraudulent use.

By choosing organic, one hopes to shift exposures from a range of uncertain risk to more of a range of negligible risk, but even if all we had to eat were the most pesticide-laden of conventional produce, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community that the health benefits from consuming fruits and vegetables outweigh any potential risks from pesticide residues. And we can easily reduce whatever risk there is by rinsing our fruits and vegetables under running water.

There are, however, a plethora of products alleged by advertisers to reduce fruit and produce pesticide residues more effectively than water and touted to concerned consumers. For example, Procter & Gamble introduced a fruit and vegetable wash. As part of the introduction, T.G.I. Friday's jumped on board bragging on their menus that the cheese and bacon puddles they call potato skins were first washed with the new product. After all, it was proclaimed proven to be 98% more effective than water in removing pesticides.

So researchers put it to the test and it did no better than plain tap water.

Shortly thereafter Procter & Gamble discontinued the product, but numerous others took its place claiming their vegetable washes are three, four, five or even ten times more effective than water, to which a researcher replied, "That's mathematically impossible." If water removes 50%, you can't take off ten times more than 50%. They actually found water removed up to 80% of pesticide residues like the fungicide, Captan, for example. So, for veggie washes to brag they are three, four, five, ten times better than water is indeed mathematically questionable.

Other fruit and vegetable washes have since been put to the test. Researchers compared FIT Fruit & Vegetable Wash, Organiclean, Vegi-Clean, and dishwashing soap to just rinsing in plain tap water. 196 samples of lettuce, strawberries, and tomatoes were tested, and researchers found little or no difference between just rinsing with tap water compared to any of the veggie washes (or the dish soap). They all just seemed like a waste of money. The researchers concluded that just the mechanical action of rubbing the produce under tap water seemed to do it, and that using detergents or fruit and vegetable washes do not enhance the removal of pesticide residues from produce above that of just rinsing with tap water alone.

That may not be saying much, though. Captan appears to be the exception. When plain water was tried against a half dozen other pesticides, less than half the residues were removed.

Fingernail polish works better, but the goal is to end up with a less toxic, not a more toxic tomato.

We need a straightforward, plausible, and safe method for enhanced pesticide removal. Is there anything we can add to the water to boost its pesticide-stripping abilities? Check out my video, How to Make Your Own Fruit & Vegetable Wash.

If you soak potatoes in water, between about 2% to 13% of the pesticides are removed, but a 5% acetic acid solution removes up to 100%. What's that? Plain white vinegar. But 5% is full strength.

What about diluted vinegar? Diluted vinegar only seemed marginally better than tap water for removing pesticide residues. Using full strength vinegar would get expensive, though. Thankfully there's something cheaper that works even better: salt water.

A 10% salt solution appears to work as good or better than full-strength vinegar. To make a 10% salt solution you just have to mix up about one-part salt to nine-parts water (though make sure to rinse all of the salt off before eating!).

There's not much you can do for the pesticides in animal products, though. The top sources of some pesticides are fruits and vegetables; but for other pesticides, it's dairy, eggs, and meat because the chemicals build up in fat. What do you do about pesticides in animal products? Hard boiling eggs appears to destroy more pesticides that scrambling, but for the pesticides that build up in the fat in fish or chicken, cooking can sometimes increase pesticide levels that obviously can't just wash off. In fact, washing meat, poultry, or eggs is considered one of the top ten dangerous food safety mistakes.

For more on organic foods, see:

The most important reason to wash produce is to reduce the risk of food-borne illness. Ironically, the food poisoning viruses may be found in the pesticides themselves. Check out my video Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides.

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: Sally Plank / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

The Best Way to Wash Fruit and Vegetables

The Best Way to Wash Fruit and Vegetables.jpeg

How might we reduce our exposure to pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables? What about staying away from imported produce? Well, it turns out domestic produce may be even worse, dispelling the notion that imported fruits and vegetables pose greater potential health risks to consumers.

Buying organic dramatically reduces dietary exposure to pesticides, but it does not eliminate the potential risk. Pesticide residues are detectable in about one in ten organic crop samples, due to cross-contamination from neighboring fields, the continued presence of very persistent pesticides like DDT in the soil, and accidental or fraudulent use.

By choosing organic, one hopes to shift exposures from a range of uncertain risk to more of a range of negligible risk, but even if all we had to eat were the most pesticide-laden of conventional produce, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community that the health benefits from consuming fruits and vegetables outweigh any potential risks from pesticide residues. And we can easily reduce whatever risk there is by rinsing our fruits and vegetables under running water.

There are, however, a plethora of products alleged by advertisers to reduce fruit and produce pesticide residues more effectively than water and touted to concerned consumers. For example, Procter & Gamble introduced a fruit and vegetable wash. As part of the introduction, T.G.I. Friday's jumped on board bragging on their menus that the cheese and bacon puddles they call potato skins were first washed with the new product. After all, it was proclaimed proven to be 98% more effective than water in removing pesticides.

So researchers put it to the test and it did no better than plain tap water.

Shortly thereafter Procter & Gamble discontinued the product, but numerous others took its place claiming their vegetable washes are three, four, five or even ten times more effective than water, to which a researcher replied, "That's mathematically impossible." If water removes 50%, you can't take off ten times more than 50%. They actually found water removed up to 80% of pesticide residues like the fungicide, Captan, for example. So, for veggie washes to brag they are three, four, five, ten times better than water is indeed mathematically questionable.

Other fruit and vegetable washes have since been put to the test. Researchers compared FIT Fruit & Vegetable Wash, Organiclean, Vegi-Clean, and dishwashing soap to just rinsing in plain tap water. 196 samples of lettuce, strawberries, and tomatoes were tested, and researchers found little or no difference between just rinsing with tap water compared to any of the veggie washes (or the dish soap). They all just seemed like a waste of money. The researchers concluded that just the mechanical action of rubbing the produce under tap water seemed to do it, and that using detergents or fruit and vegetable washes do not enhance the removal of pesticide residues from produce above that of just rinsing with tap water alone.

That may not be saying much, though. Captan appears to be the exception. When plain water was tried against a half dozen other pesticides, less than half the residues were removed.

Fingernail polish works better, but the goal is to end up with a less toxic, not a more toxic tomato.

We need a straightforward, plausible, and safe method for enhanced pesticide removal. Is there anything we can add to the water to boost its pesticide-stripping abilities? Check out my video, How to Make Your Own Fruit & Vegetable Wash.

If you soak potatoes in water, between about 2% to 13% of the pesticides are removed, but a 5% acetic acid solution removes up to 100%. What's that? Plain white vinegar. But 5% is full strength.

What about diluted vinegar? Diluted vinegar only seemed marginally better than tap water for removing pesticide residues. Using full strength vinegar would get expensive, though. Thankfully there's something cheaper that works even better: salt water.

A 10% salt solution appears to work as good or better than full-strength vinegar. To make a 10% salt solution you just have to mix up about one-part salt to nine-parts water (though make sure to rinse all of the salt off before eating!).

There's not much you can do for the pesticides in animal products, though. The top sources of some pesticides are fruits and vegetables; but for other pesticides, it's dairy, eggs, and meat because the chemicals build up in fat. What do you do about pesticides in animal products? Hard boiling eggs appears to destroy more pesticides that scrambling, but for the pesticides that build up in the fat in fish or chicken, cooking can sometimes increase pesticide levels that obviously can't just wash off. In fact, washing meat, poultry, or eggs is considered one of the top ten dangerous food safety mistakes.

For more on organic foods, see:

The most important reason to wash produce is to reduce the risk of food-borne illness. Ironically, the food poisoning viruses may be found in the pesticides themselves. Check out my video Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides.

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: Sally Plank / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

NF-Sept22 Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.jpeg

Ciguatera is one of the most common forms of food poisoning, which occurs after the consumption of fish contaminated with neurotoxins produced by certain microalgae that build up the food chain. Just a few bites can be sufficient to induce the condition. Disturbingly, affected fish looks, smells, and tastes normal, and ciguatoxins are resistant to all forms of cooking. So, there is no straightforward method to predict whether a seafood meal can turn into a ciguatera nightmare.

It literally can cause nightmares; about one in six may experience signs of hallucinatory poisoning: lack of coordination, hallucinations, depression, and nightmares. Most suffer some kind of neurological symptoms such as tingling, numbness, and a burning cold sensation. Sometimes a reversal of temperature sensation occurs, where cold objects feel hot and vice versa. For instance, ciguatera sufferers have reported that a refreshing dive in the ocean actually caused burning pain, or that drinking cool beer felt like too hot coffee.

The toxin may also be apparently sexually transmitted, or as one of my favorite public health bloggers put it, "when hot sex turns cold and painful, blame it on dinner."

As seen in my video Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the symptoms can persist for months or even years. Ongoing research has shown that people with chronic fatigue syndrome may actually be suffering the long-term effects of this fish food poisoning or a condition called polymyositis, which causes diffuse muscle aches, pains, and inflammation. Some individuals intoxicated by fish consumption 25 years previously experience a recurrence of the main neurological disturbances during periods of overwork, fatigue, or stress. You can still find the toxins stuck in your body decades later.

Recent outbreaks in New York City have drawn attention to the problem. For example, a man ate grouper at a Manhattan restaurant and went from swimming two miles a day to having difficulty walking that lasted for months. But these aren't just rare anecdotes. Ciguatera fish poisoning affects an estimated 15,000 Americans every year, causing hundreds of hospitalizations and even a few deaths. Because the toxins are colorless, odorless, tasteless, and not destroyed by cooking, CDC scientists suggest "education aimed at the prevention of seafood intoxication by avoidance of high-risk fish altogether."

The AMA put out a similar advisory, suggesting that the only way to prevent it is to avoid eating fish like red snapper or grouper, but the problem is that a third of fish sold in the United States is mislabeled, so we don't know what we're getting. Some suggest first feeding a portion of the fish meal to a cat, treating them like a court tester, and if they're okay six hours later, we can dig in -- but this was considered inhumane. But if it's inhumane to feed it to your cat, how is it not inhumane to feed it to other members of the family?

Many more are killed by more conventional food poisoning bugs (Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit), but how scary that you can get these toxins stuck in you and ruin your life? Reminds me of my Amnesic Seafood Poisoning video.

Other neurotoxin videos include Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet and Essential Tremor and Diet.

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--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: Pen Waggener / Flickr

Original Link

Are Sprouted Lentils Healthier Than Canned Lentils?

NF-Apr28 Cooked Beans or Sprouted Beans.jpeg

Beans, chickpeas, split peas and lentils are packed with nutrients and play a role in the prevention of chronic disease, but most can't be eaten raw. Some can be sprouted, though. Boiling is the most common cooking method, which is used for canned beans. Which is healthier, though, cooked or sprouted?

The easiest way to compare healthfulness is to measure nutrient levels--such as the anthocyanin pigments that make kidney beans so pretty--thought to account for some of beans' protective benefits against chronic disease. Sprouted beans have more of some anthocyanins, but less than others. We find this same pattern across the board with the other phenolic phytonutrients: sprouted beans have more of some, less of others. Because the positive effects of these compounds may be related to their antioxidant capacity, we can compare the overall antioxidant power of boiled versus sprouted beans. In that case, boiled appears to have a marginal edge.

Ideally, though, rather than merely comparing concentrations of phytochemicals, we'd measure physiological effects. For example, we might look at the effect of boiled versus sprouted beans against cancer cell growth. That's exactly what researchers did. In my video Cooked Beans or Sprouted Beans?, you can see the concentrations of bean extract needed to cut the breast cancer growth rate in half in a petri dish. Boiled beans do about 40 times better than raw beans--the same cancer growth inhibition at just a fraction of the concentration. Sprouted beans do about the same.

We can't eat most beans raw, but I wanted to include them to show you a fascinating phenomenon. No amount of raw bean extract appears to totally stop the growth of breast cancer cells, but just small amounts of cooked or sprouted beans can. We find the same thing with killing off cancer. No amount of raw bean extract can fully kill off breast cancer cells, but both boiled and sprouted beans can.

Similar results were found for melanoma cells, a type of malignant skin cancer. Processing the beans--either cooking or sprouting--boosted anticancer activity in vitro. However, against kidney cancer, raw and boiled worked, but sprouted didn't at all.

There has also been interest in brain protection. Given that elderly persons who report always eating legumes may be significantly less likely to experience cognitive decline, a group of Chinese researchers decided to compare the protective effects of boiled versus sprouted beans on astrocytes.

Astrocytes are the most abundant type of cell in our brain. They are star-shaped cells that keep our brain running smoothly. Should they become damaged, though, they may play an important role in the development of neurodegenerative disorders such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's. So if we're thinking clearly, we should thank our lucky stars.

To see if beans help protect astrocytes from damage, we'd have to first make sure bean extracts wouldn't cause any damage. Cooked beans don't seem to hurt cells at all, and sprouted beans seem to even help them grow a little. If we add an oxidative chemical to the cells, we can kill off about a quarter of them. However, if we add that chemical along with some boiled bean extract, the astrocytes were partially protected at higher doses. Sprouted bean extract didn't appear to offer significant benefit.

What's the takeaway? As far as I'm concerned, we should eat beans in whichever way will get us to eat the most of them.

I do love my lentil sprouts, one of the healthiest snacks on the planet (along with kale chips). I can grow my own in just 2 to 3 days. But using canned beans I can get similar nutrition in about 2 to 3 seconds.

Sprouting is so much fun, though! I've got a bunch of videos on broccoli sprouts, for example: Biggest Nutrition Bang for Your Buck.

But again, whichever way we like them we should eat them. Why? See:

Mostly I just used canned. See Canned Beans or Cooked Beans?

Other videos on practical prep tips include:

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 Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Veganbaking.net / Flickr

Original Link

How to Cook Broccoli

NF-Feb9 Second Strategy to Cooking Broccoli.jpeg

When I used to teach medical students at Tufts, I gave a lecture about this amazing new therapeutic called "iloccor-B." I'd talk about all the new science, all the things it could do, its excellent safety profile. Just as they were all scrambling to buy stock in the company and prescribe it to all their patients, I'd do the big reveal. Apologizing for my "dyslexia," I would admit that I'd got it backwards. All this time I had been talking about broccoli.

The main active ingredient in broccoli is thought to be sulforaphane, which may protect our brains, protect our eyesight, protect our bodies against free radicals, boost our detoxification enzymes, and help prevent and treat cancer.

In my videos The Best Detox and Sometimes the Enzyme Myth is the Truth, I talked about how the formation of sulforaphane is like a chemical flare reaction, requiring the mixing of a precursor compound with an enzyme, which is destroyed by cooking. This may explain why we get dramatic suppression of cancer cell growth from raw broccoli, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts, but hardly anything from boiled, microwaved or steamed (except for microwaved broccoli, which actually retains some cancer fighting abilities). But who wants to eat raw Brussels sprouts?

There is a strategy to get the benefits of raw in cooked form. In raw broccoli, the sulforaphane precursor, called glucoraphanin, mixes with the enzyme (myrosinase) when you chew or chop it. If given enough time--such as when sitting in your upper stomach waiting to get digested--sulforaphane is born. The precursor and sulforaphane are resistant to heat and therefore cooking, but the enzyme is destroyed. No enzyme = no sulforaphane.

That's why I described the "hack and hold" technique--if we chop the broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, collards, or cauliflower first and then wait 40 minutes, we can cook them all we want. The sulforaphane is already made; the enzyme has already done its job, so we don't need it anymore.

When most people make broccoli soup, for example, they're doing it wrong. Most people cook the broccoli first, then blend it. We now know it should be done the exact opposite way. Blend it first, wait, and then cook it.

What if we're using frozen broccoli, though? In my video, Second Strategy to Cooking Broccoli, you can see the amount of sulforaphane in someone's body after they eat broccoli soup made from fresh broccoli versus from frozen broccoli. The difference is dramatic. Commercially produced frozen broccoli lacks the ability to form sulforaphane because vegetables are blanched (flash-cooked) before they're frozen for the very purpose of deactivating enzymes. This prolongs shelf life in the frozen foods section, but the myrosinase is dead by the time you take it out of your freezer. It doesn't matter how much you chop it, or how long you wait, no sulforaphane is going to be made. This may be why fresh kale suppresses cancer cell growth up to ten times more than frozen.

The frozen broccoli is still packed with the precursor--remember that's heat resistant--and we could get lots of sulforaphane out of the frozen broccoli by adding some outside enzyme. Where do we get myrosinase enzyme from? Researchers just buy theirs from a chemical company. But we can just walk into any grocery store.

All cruciferous vegetables have this myrosinase. Mustard greens, a cruciferous vegetable, grow out of little mustard seeds, which we can buy ground up in the spice aisle as mustard powder. If we sprinkled some mustard powder on our cooked frozen broccoli, would it start churning out sulforaphane? We didn't know...until now.

Boiling broccoli prevents the formation of any significant levels of sulforaphane due to inactivation of the enzyme. However, researchers from the University of Reading found that the addition of powdered mustard seeds to the heat processed broccoli significantly increased the formation of sulforaphane. In the video I mentioned earlier, Second Strategy to Cooking Broccoli, you can see the amount of sulforaphane in boiled broccoli versus the amount after half a teaspoon or a teaspoon of mustard powder is added. Both a half teaspoon and a full teaspoon increase sulforaphane by the same amount, suggesting that we could use even use less mustard powder for the same effect. Therefore, although domestic cooking leads to the deactivation of myrosinase and stops sulforaphane formation, the addition of powdered mustard seeds to cooked cabbage-family vegetables provides a natural source of the enzyme such that it's practically like eating them raw.

So, if we forget to chop our greens in the morning for the day, or are using frozen, we can just sprinkle some mustard powder on top at the dinner table and we're all set. Daikon radish, horseradish, or wasabi--all cruciferous vegetables packed with the enzyme--work as well. Just a quarter teaspoon of Daikon radish root for seven cups of broccoli worked--just a tiny pinch can do it. Or you can add a small amount of fresh greens to your cooked greens, because the fresh greens have myrosinase enzyme that can go to work on the cooked greens.

I love kitchen chemistry--it totally revolutionized my daily greens prep. One of the first things I used to do in the morning is chop my greens for the day, so when lunch and supper rolls around they'd be good to go. But now with the mustard powder plan, I don't have to pre-chop.

This helps explain the results I presented in Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival.

OK, but what's so great about this sulforaphane stuff? For a taste, see:

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 Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Jessica Spengler / Flickr

Original Link

Bile Binding Beets

NF-Jan21 Which Vegetable Binds Bile Best.001.jpeg

In my video Breast Cancer and Constipation, I discussed how fruits and veggies bind carcinogenic bile acids in our gut. Since bile acids are absorbed back into our systems, they may increase our risk of not only colon cancer but also other cancers as well. In light of this, researchers publishing in the journal, Nutrition Research, concluded that to "lower the risk of diet and lifestyle-related premature degenerative diseases and to advance human nutrition research, relative bile acid-binding potential of foods and fractions need to be evaluated."

They found that some vegetables bind bile acids better than others. We know that those eating more plant-based diets are at a lower risk of heart disease and cancer. This could partly be because of phytonutrients in plants that act as antioxidants and potent stimulators of natural detoxifying enzymes in our bodies. Veggies can also lower cholesterol and detoxify harmful metabolites, functions that can be predicted by their ability to bind bile acids.

A group of USDA researchers studying this topic discovered three important things. First, they found an over five-fold variability in bile acid binding among various vegetables that had similar fiber content, suggesting that bile acid binding is not just related to total dietary fiber content (as previously thought), but instead some combination of unique phytonutrients yet to be determined.

Second, they discovered that steaming significantly improves the bile acid binding of collards, kale, mustard greens, broccoli, peppers, cabbage, beets, eggplant, asparagus, carrots, green beans, and cauliflower, suggesting that in this way steaming vegetables may be more healthful than those consumed raw.

Finally, they ranked multiple vegetables for bile binding ability. Which vegetables kicked the most bile butt? (in my video, Which Vegetable Binds Bile Best?, you can see a visual comparison of bile binding ability.) Turnips turned up last. Then came cabbage, cauliflower, bell peppers, spinach, asparagus and green beans. Mustard greens and broccoli were better. Eggplant, carrots and Brussels sprouts basically tie for the #5 slot. Then collards at #4. Kale got the bronze, okra the silver, and beets the gold. Kale, surprisingly, got beet.

The researchers concluded that inclusion of all these vegetables in our daily diets should be encouraged. When consumed regularly, they concluded, these vegetables may lower the risk of premature degenerative diseases and improve public health.

More raw versus cooked comparisons in

Beets also have a number of other remarkable properties. Check out my video series on Doping with Beet Juice as well as Hearts Shouldn't Skip a Beet, and Whole Beets vs. Juice for Improving Athletic Performance.

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 Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Robert Couse-Baker / Flickr

Original Link

How Learning to Cook Can Save Your Life

NF-Nov24 Cooking to Live Longer.jpg

The eating habits of modern Americans have been described as, "eating breakfast in their cars, lunch at their desks and chicken from a bucket." Within the last few decades, Americans are eating out more and more, and cooking fewer meals at home, which are typically healthier. Home-cooled meals tend to contain less saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and more fiber. Therefore, the benefits to preparing healthy food at home may include the prevention of chronic disease. Just because food is prepared at home doesn't mean it's healthy, though. Microwaving a frozen pizza isn't exactly home cooking.

One of the problems is many people no longer know how to cook. For example, one study reported that 25% of the men in the study had absolutely no cooking skills whatsoever. Another study in the UK compared the nutritional content of meals created by television chefs to TV dinners, and both were then compared to the nutritional guidelines published by the World Health Organization. The researchers looked at a hundred of each, and not a single one complied with the nutrition standards. And the TV chef recipes were even less healthy than the TV dinners!

Many people don't know how to make healthy food taste good. This is not a new problem; an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association bemoaned the same issue back in 1913. In the United States, "vegetables are frequently boiled in a way which deprives them of their characteristic odor and their toothsomeness. 'Villainous and idiotic' are the only adjectives that can describe our methods of cooking vegetables."

Researchers in Taiwan recently found that in a group of elderly Taiwanese people, those who cooked their own food were not only healthier, but also lived longer. In a ten year study, highlighted in my video, Cooking to Live Longer, those who cooked most frequently had only 59% of the mortality risk. This took into account the exercise people got grocery shopping, physical function, and chewing ability. So why did they live longer? Those that cooked typically ate a more nutritious diet with a higher consumption of vegetables.

The effect on mortality was much more evident in women than in men. It turns out that "men were, with doubtful justification, more positive about the nutritional value of convenience foods compared with women." Women who cooked made better food choices in general.

As one author noted in the book Something from the Oven, over the last century:

"we began the long process of turning over to the food industry many of the decisions about what we eat...Today our staggering rates of obesity and diabetes are testimony to the faith we put in corporations to feed us well. But the food industry is a business, not a parent; it doesn't care what we eat as long as we're willing to pay for it. Home cooking these days has far more than sentimental value; it's a survival skill."

With the onslaught of health information out there, access to simple, healthy recipes has never been easier. While cooking at home requires more effort, energy, and cleaning, the results, health aside, are often more rewarding. Learning to cook is a simple art, and with the right amount of patience and delicious ingredients, it can help us take back control of our own lives.

Check out your local public library for cookbooks--I've been amazed at the selection in all of the cities I've lived. Or for those for which books are just so 20th century, the online Rouxbe Cooking School holds healthy cooking classes.

More on fast food:

Some other unsavory bits about the food industry:

I think this is the only other mention of celebrity chefs I have:
Paula Deen: diabetes drug spokesperson

-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.

Picture by Moyan Brenn on Flickr

Original Link

Is it Better to Bake, Boil, or Steam Sweet Potatoes?

NF-Nov19 best method for cooking sweet potatoes.jpg

I previously talked about the cancer fighting properties of sweet potatoes (See Anti-Cancer Potential of Sweet Potato Proteins) and what would happen if you centered your diet around them (The Okinawa Diet: Living to 100). It seems that the only potential downside to eating too many sweet potatoes is that you could get yellow palms (or nose as you can see in the video, The Best Way to Cook Sweet Potatoes), a harmless condition called "carotenemia." Caused by elevated levels of beta carotene in the blood, it was first noticed a century ago when carrots were introduce into infant diets. It's treated mostly by just reassuring parents that it's harmless, but if we don't want our child's nose to be yellow, we can decrease their beta carotene intake and in a few months it will be gone.

When picking out varieties at the supermarket, the intensity of the yellow or orange flesh color of the sweet potato is directly correlated to its nutritional content, so the more intense the better. Though if you really want intensity, sweet potato varieties don't just range from white to yellow and orange, but from pink to deep purple. The natural pigments that cause these colors may have special anticancer effects.

What is the best way to cook sweet potatoes? Boiling may actually retain most of the antioxidant power of sweet potatoes, compared to roasting and steaming. If we compare baking to boiling microscopically, boiling helps thin out the cell walls and gelatinize the starch, which may enhance the bioavailability of nutrients. At the same time, the glycemic index of boiled sweet potatoes was found to be about half that of baking or roasting, so boiled sweet potatoes give us less of a blood sugar spike.

Make sure to keep the skin on, though. The peel of a sweet potato has nearly ten times the antioxidant power as the flesh (an antioxidant capacity comparable to that of blueberries). However, the peel's nutrition really takes a hit when baked, which wipes out over two thirds of the antioxidants, whereas microwaving or boiling are comparatively much gentler. The same is true for the rest of the sweet potato. Baking can also cause an 80% drop in vitamin A levels, twice as much as boiling. Therefore, from a nutritional standpoint, boiling rather than baking should be recommended for cooking sweet potato.

Boiling may theoretically be best, but sweet potatoes are so incredibly healthy that the actual best way to prepare them is whichever way will get you to eat the most of them! The exception is deep frying, which can lead to the formation of acrylamide, a potential human carcinogen.

What about cooking methods for other vegetables? See my video Best Cooking Method.

Want more information about acrylamide, the potential crispy carb carcinogen? See my video Cancer Risk from French Fries. And for why deep frying in general might not be good, Deep Frying Toxins and Carcinogens in the Smell of Frying Bacon.

-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: Avital Pinnick / Flickr

Original Link