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

Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?

Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?.jpeg

Fiber continues to be singled out as a nutrient of public health concern. We're getting only about half the minimum recommended intake on average. There is a fiber gap in America. Less than 3 percent meet the recommended minimum. This means that less than 3 percent of all Americans eat enough whole plant foods, the only place fiber is found in abundance. If even half of the adult population ate 3 more grams a day--a quarter cup of beans or a bowl of oatmeal--we could potentially save billions in medical costs. And that's just for constipation! The consumption of plant foods, of fiber-containing foods, may reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and obesity as well.

The first to make this link between fiber intake and killer disease was probably Dr. Hugh Trowell. He spent 30 years practicing medicine in Africa and suspected it was the Africans high consumption of corn, millet, sweet potatoes, greens, and beans that protected them from chronic disease. This twisted into the so-called "fiber hypothesis," but Trowell didn't think it was the fiber itself, but the high-fiber foods themselves that were protective. There are hundreds of different substances in whole plant foods besides fiber that may have beneficial effects. For example, the fiber in oatmeal can lower our blood cholesterol levels so that less gets stuck in our arteries, but there also are anti-inflammatory and antioxidant phytonutrients in oats that can prevent atherosclerotic build-up and then help maintain arterial function (see Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?).

Visionaries like Trowell were not entrapped by the reductionist "simple-minded" focus on dietary fiber and insisted that the whole plant foods should receive the emphasis. Fiber intake was just a marker for plant food intake. Those with the highest fiber intake and the lowest cholesterol were those whose who ate exclusively plant-based diets.

Risk factors like cholesterol are one thing, but can these individual foods actually affect the progression of heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans? We didn't know until 2005. Hundreds of older women were subjected to coronary angiograms, where we inject dye into the coronary arteries of the heart to see how wide open they are. Each participant got an angiogram at the beginning of the study and one a few years later, all while researchers analyzed their diets. The arteries of women eating less than a serving of whole grains a day significantly narrowed, whereas the arteries of women who ate just a single serving or more also significantly narrowed, but they narrowed less. These were all women with heart disease eating the standard American diet, so their arteries were progressively clogging shut. But there was significantly less clogging in the women eating more whole grains, significantly less progression of their atherosclerosis. A similar slowing of their disease might be expected from taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. But do we want to just slow the rate at which we die from heart disease, or do we want to not die from heart disease at all?

A strictly plant-based diet has been shown to reverse the progression of heart disease, opening up arteries back up. Yes, whole grains, like drugs, can help counter the artery-clogging effects of the rest of the diet. Having oatmeal with bacon and eggs is better than just eating bacon and eggs, but why not stop eating an artery-clogging diet altogether?

Oatmeal offers a lot more than fiber, though. See Oatmeal Lotion for Chemotherapy-Induced Rash and Can Oatmeal Help Fatty Liver Disease?

Trowell's work had a big influence on Dr. Denis Burkitt. See Dr. Burkitt's F-Word Diet.

This reminds me of other interventions like hibiscus tea for high blood pressure (Hibiscus Tea vs. Plant-Based Diets for Hypertension) or amla for diabetes (Amla Versus Diabetes). Better to reverse the disease completely.

And for an overview of how whole plant foods affect disease risks, be sure to check out the videos on our new Introduction page!

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: Rachel Hathaway / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?

Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?.jpeg

Fiber continues to be singled out as a nutrient of public health concern. We're getting only about half the minimum recommended intake on average. There is a fiber gap in America. Less than 3 percent meet the recommended minimum. This means that less than 3 percent of all Americans eat enough whole plant foods, the only place fiber is found in abundance. If even half of the adult population ate 3 more grams a day--a quarter cup of beans or a bowl of oatmeal--we could potentially save billions in medical costs. And that's just for constipation! The consumption of plant foods, of fiber-containing foods, may reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and obesity as well.

The first to make this link between fiber intake and killer disease was probably Dr. Hugh Trowell. He spent 30 years practicing medicine in Africa and suspected it was the Africans high consumption of corn, millet, sweet potatoes, greens, and beans that protected them from chronic disease. This twisted into the so-called "fiber hypothesis," but Trowell didn't think it was the fiber itself, but the high-fiber foods themselves that were protective. There are hundreds of different substances in whole plant foods besides fiber that may have beneficial effects. For example, the fiber in oatmeal can lower our blood cholesterol levels so that less gets stuck in our arteries, but there also are anti-inflammatory and antioxidant phytonutrients in oats that can prevent atherosclerotic build-up and then help maintain arterial function (see Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?).

Visionaries like Trowell were not entrapped by the reductionist "simple-minded" focus on dietary fiber and insisted that the whole plant foods should receive the emphasis. Fiber intake was just a marker for plant food intake. Those with the highest fiber intake and the lowest cholesterol were those whose who ate exclusively plant-based diets.

Risk factors like cholesterol are one thing, but can these individual foods actually affect the progression of heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans? We didn't know until 2005. Hundreds of older women were subjected to coronary angiograms, where we inject dye into the coronary arteries of the heart to see how wide open they are. Each participant got an angiogram at the beginning of the study and one a few years later, all while researchers analyzed their diets. The arteries of women eating less than a serving of whole grains a day significantly narrowed, whereas the arteries of women who ate just a single serving or more also significantly narrowed, but they narrowed less. These were all women with heart disease eating the standard American diet, so their arteries were progressively clogging shut. But there was significantly less clogging in the women eating more whole grains, significantly less progression of their atherosclerosis. A similar slowing of their disease might be expected from taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. But do we want to just slow the rate at which we die from heart disease, or do we want to not die from heart disease at all?

A strictly plant-based diet has been shown to reverse the progression of heart disease, opening up arteries back up. Yes, whole grains, like drugs, can help counter the artery-clogging effects of the rest of the diet. Having oatmeal with bacon and eggs is better than just eating bacon and eggs, but why not stop eating an artery-clogging diet altogether?

Oatmeal offers a lot more than fiber, though. See Oatmeal Lotion for Chemotherapy-Induced Rash and Can Oatmeal Help Fatty Liver Disease?

Trowell's work had a big influence on Dr. Denis Burkitt. See Dr. Burkitt's F-Word Diet.

This reminds me of other interventions like hibiscus tea for high blood pressure (Hibiscus Tea vs. Plant-Based Diets for Hypertension) or amla for diabetes (Amla Versus Diabetes). Better to reverse the disease completely.

And for an overview of how whole plant foods affect disease risks, be sure to check out the videos on our new Introduction page!

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: Rachel Hathaway / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Best Foods for Acid Reflux

Best Foods for Acid Reflux.jpeg

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract. The two most typical symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation of stomach contents into the back of the throat, but GERD is not just burning pain and a sour taste in your mouth. It causes millions of doctor visits and hospitalizations every year in the United States. The most feared complication is cancer.

You start out with a normal esophagus. If the acid keeps creeping up, your esophagus can get inflamed and result in esophagitis. Esophagitis can transform into Barrett's esophagus, a precancerous condition which can then turn into adenocarcinoma (a type of cancer). To prevent all that, we need to prevent the acid reflux in the first place.

In the last three decades, the incidence of this cancer in the US has increased six-fold, an increase greater than that of melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer. This is because acid reflux is on the rise. In the United States, we're up to about 1 in 4 people suffering at least weekly heartburn and/or acid regurgitation, compared to around 5% in Asia. This suggests that dietary factors may play a role.

In general, high fat intake is associated with increased risk, whereas high fiber foods appear to be protective. The reason fat intake may be associated with GERD symptoms and erosive esophagitis is because when we eat fatty foods, the sphincter at the top of the stomach that's supposed to keep the food down becomes relaxed, so more acid can creep up into the esophagus. In my video Diet & GERD Acid Reflux Heartburn, you can see a study in which researchers fed volunteers a high-fat meal--a McDonald's sausage and egg McMuffin--compared to a low-fat meal (McDonald's hot cakes), and there was significantly more acid squirted up in the esophagus after the high-fat meal.

In terms of later stages of disease progression, over the last twenty years 45 studies have been published in the association between diet and Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. In general, they found that meat and high-fat meals appeared to increase cancer risk. Different meats were associated with cancers in different locations, thoughj. Red meat was more associated with cancer in the esophagus, whereas poultry was more associated with cancer at the top of the stomach. Plant-based sources of protein, such as beans and nuts, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of cancer.

Those eating the most antioxidant-rich foods have half the odds of esophageal cancer, while there is practically no reduction in risk among those who used antioxidant vitamin supplements, such as vitamin C or E pills. The most protective produce may be red-orange vegetables, dark green leafies, berries, apples, and citrus. The benefit may come from more than just eating plants. Eating healthy foods crowds out less healthy foods, so it may be a combination of both.

Based on a study of 3,000 people, the consumption of non-vegetarian foods (including eggs) was an independent predictor of GERD. Egg yolks cause an increase in the hormone cholecystokinin, which may overly relax the sphincter that separates the esophagus from the stomach. The same hormone is increased by meat, which may help explain why plant-based diets appear to be a protective factor for reflux esophagitis.

Researchers found that those eating meat had twice the odds of reflux-induced esophageal inflammation. Therefore, plant-based diets may offer protection, though it's uncertain whether it's attributable to the absence of meat in the diet or the increased consumption of healthy foods. Those eating vegetarian consume greater amounts of fruits and vegetables containing innumerable phytochemicals, dietary fiber, and antioxidants. They also restrict their consumption of animal sources of food, which tend to be fattier and can thus relax that sphincter and aggravate reflux.

GERD is common; its burdens are enormous. It relapses frequently and can cause bleeding, strictures, and a deadly cancer. The mainstay of treatment is proton pump inhibitor drugs, which rake in billions of dollars. We spend four billion dollars on Nexium alone, three billion on Prevacid, two billion on Protonix, one billion on Aciphex. These drugs can cause nutrient deficiencies and increase the risk for pneumonia, food poisoning, and bone fractures. Thus, it is important to find correctable risk factors and correct them. Known correctable risk factors have been things like obesity, smoking and alcohol consumption. Until recently, though, there hadn't been studies on specifically what to eat and what to avoid, but now we have other correctable factors to help prevent this disease.

For more on GERD, see: Diet & Hiatal Hernia, Coffee & Mortality, and Club Soda for Stomach Pain & Constipation.

I also have a video about esophageal cancer, detailing the extraordinary reversal of the kinds of precancerous changes that lead to the devastating condition--with nothing but strawberries: Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer.

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: PDPics / Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Original Link

Best Foods for Acid Reflux

Best Foods for Acid Reflux.jpeg

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract. The two most typical symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation of stomach contents into the back of the throat, but GERD is not just burning pain and a sour taste in your mouth. It causes millions of doctor visits and hospitalizations every year in the United States. The most feared complication is cancer.

You start out with a normal esophagus. If the acid keeps creeping up, your esophagus can get inflamed and result in esophagitis. Esophagitis can transform into Barrett's esophagus, a precancerous condition which can then turn into adenocarcinoma (a type of cancer). To prevent all that, we need to prevent the acid reflux in the first place.

In the last three decades, the incidence of this cancer in the US has increased six-fold, an increase greater than that of melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer. This is because acid reflux is on the rise. In the United States, we're up to about 1 in 4 people suffering at least weekly heartburn and/or acid regurgitation, compared to around 5% in Asia. This suggests that dietary factors may play a role.

In general, high fat intake is associated with increased risk, whereas high fiber foods appear to be protective. The reason fat intake may be associated with GERD symptoms and erosive esophagitis is because when we eat fatty foods, the sphincter at the top of the stomach that's supposed to keep the food down becomes relaxed, so more acid can creep up into the esophagus. In my video Diet & GERD Acid Reflux Heartburn, you can see a study in which researchers fed volunteers a high-fat meal--a McDonald's sausage and egg McMuffin--compared to a low-fat meal (McDonald's hot cakes), and there was significantly more acid squirted up in the esophagus after the high-fat meal.

In terms of later stages of disease progression, over the last twenty years 45 studies have been published in the association between diet and Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. In general, they found that meat and high-fat meals appeared to increase cancer risk. Different meats were associated with cancers in different locations, thoughj. Red meat was more associated with cancer in the esophagus, whereas poultry was more associated with cancer at the top of the stomach. Plant-based sources of protein, such as beans and nuts, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of cancer.

Those eating the most antioxidant-rich foods have half the odds of esophageal cancer, while there is practically no reduction in risk among those who used antioxidant vitamin supplements, such as vitamin C or E pills. The most protective produce may be red-orange vegetables, dark green leafies, berries, apples, and citrus. The benefit may come from more than just eating plants. Eating healthy foods crowds out less healthy foods, so it may be a combination of both.

Based on a study of 3,000 people, the consumption of non-vegetarian foods (including eggs) was an independent predictor of GERD. Egg yolks cause an increase in the hormone cholecystokinin, which may overly relax the sphincter that separates the esophagus from the stomach. The same hormone is increased by meat, which may help explain why plant-based diets appear to be a protective factor for reflux esophagitis.

Researchers found that those eating meat had twice the odds of reflux-induced esophageal inflammation. Therefore, plant-based diets may offer protection, though it's uncertain whether it's attributable to the absence of meat in the diet or the increased consumption of healthy foods. Those eating vegetarian consume greater amounts of fruits and vegetables containing innumerable phytochemicals, dietary fiber, and antioxidants. They also restrict their consumption of animal sources of food, which tend to be fattier and can thus relax that sphincter and aggravate reflux.

GERD is common; its burdens are enormous. It relapses frequently and can cause bleeding, strictures, and a deadly cancer. The mainstay of treatment is proton pump inhibitor drugs, which rake in billions of dollars. We spend four billion dollars on Nexium alone, three billion on Prevacid, two billion on Protonix, one billion on Aciphex. These drugs can cause nutrient deficiencies and increase the risk for pneumonia, food poisoning, and bone fractures. Thus, it is important to find correctable risk factors and correct them. Known correctable risk factors have been things like obesity, smoking and alcohol consumption. Until recently, though, there hadn't been studies on specifically what to eat and what to avoid, but now we have other correctable factors to help prevent this disease.

For more on GERD, see: Diet & Hiatal Hernia, Coffee & Mortality, and Club Soda for Stomach Pain & Constipation.

I also have a video about esophageal cancer, detailing the extraordinary reversal of the kinds of precancerous changes that lead to the devastating condition--with nothing but strawberries: Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer.

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: PDPics / Pixabay. 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

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

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red.jpeg

In light of recommendations for heart healthy eating from national professional organizations encouraging Americans to limit their intake of meat, the beef industry commissioned and co-wrote a review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of beef versus chicken and fish on cholesterol levels published over the last 60 years. They found that the impact of beef consumption on the cholesterol profile of humans is similar to that of fish and/or poultry--meaning that switching from red meat to white meat likely wouldn't make any difference. And that's really no surprise, given how fat we've genetically manipulated chickens to be these days, up to ten times more fat than they had a century ago (see Does Eating Obesity Cause Obesity?).

There are a number of cuts of beef that have less cholesterol-raising saturated fat than chicken (see BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?), so it's not so surprising that white meat was found to be no better than red, but the beef industry researchers conclusion was that "therefore you can eat beef as part of a balanced diet to manage your cholesterol."

Think of the Coke versus Pepsi analogy. Coke has less sugar than Pepsi: 15 spoonfuls of sugar per bottle instead of 16. If studies on blood sugar found no difference between drinking Coke versus Pepsi, you wouldn't conclude that "Pepsi may be considered when recommending diets for the management of blood sugars," you'd say they're both equally as bad so we should ideally consume neither.

That's a standard drug industry trick. You don't compare your fancy new drug to the best out there, but to some miserable drug to make yours look better. Note they didn't compare beef to plant proteins, like in this study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. As I started reading it, though, I was surprised that they found no benefit of switching to a plant protein diet either. What were they eating? You can see the comparison in Switching from Beef to Chicken & Fish May Not Lower Cholesterol.

For breakfast, the plant group got a kidney bean and tomato casserole and a salad, instead of a burger. And for dinner, instead of another burger, the plant protein group just got some boring vegetables. So why was the cholesterol of the plant group as bad as the animal group? They had the plant protein group eating three tablespoons of beef tallow every day--three tablespoons of straight beef fat!

This was part of a series of studies that tried to figure out what was so cholesterol-raising about meat--was it the animal protein or was it the animal fat? So, researchers created fake meat products made to have the same amount of saturated fat and cholesterol by adding extracted animal fats and cholesterol. Who could they get to make such strange concoctions? The Ralston Purina dog food company.

But what's crazy is that even when keeping the saturated animal fat and cholesterol the same (by adding meat fats to the veggie burgers and making the plant group swallow cholesterol pills to equal it out), sometimes they still saw a cholesterol lowering advantage in the plant protein group.

If you switch people from meat to tofu, their cholesterol goes down, but what if you switch them from meat to tofu plus lard? Then their cholesterol may stay the same, though tofu and lard may indeed actually be better than meat, since it may result in less oxidized cholesterol. More on the role of oxidized cholesterol can be found in my videos Does Cholesterol Size Matter? and Arterial Acne.

Just swapping plant protein for animal protein may have advantages, but if you really want to maximize the power of diet to lower cholesterol, you may have to move entirely toward plants. The standard dietary advice to cut down on fatty meat, dairy, and eggs may lower cholesterol 5-10%, but flexitarian or vegetarian diets may drop our levels 10 to 15%, vegan diets 15 to 25%, and healthier vegan diets can cut up to 35%, as seen in this study out of Canada showing a whopping 61 point drop in LDL cholesterol within a matter of weeks.


You thought chicken was a low-fat food? It used to be a century ago, but not anymore. It may even be one of the reasons we're getting fatter as well: Chicken Big: Poultry and Obesity and Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity.

Isn't protein just protein? How does our body know if it's coming from a plant or an animal? How could it have different effects on cardiovascular risk? See Protein and Heart Disease, another reason why Plant Protein [is] Preferable.

Lowering cholesterol in your blood is as simple as reducing one's intake of three things: Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

What about those news stories on the "vindication" of saturated fat? See the sneaky science in The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

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: CDC/Debora Cartagena via Freestockphotos.biz. This image has been modified.

Original Link

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red.jpeg

In light of recommendations for heart healthy eating from national professional organizations encouraging Americans to limit their intake of meat, the beef industry commissioned and co-wrote a review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of beef versus chicken and fish on cholesterol levels published over the last 60 years. They found that the impact of beef consumption on the cholesterol profile of humans is similar to that of fish and/or poultry--meaning that switching from red meat to white meat likely wouldn't make any difference. And that's really no surprise, given how fat we've genetically manipulated chickens to be these days, up to ten times more fat than they had a century ago (see Does Eating Obesity Cause Obesity?).

There are a number of cuts of beef that have less cholesterol-raising saturated fat than chicken (see BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?), so it's not so surprising that white meat was found to be no better than red, but the beef industry researchers conclusion was that "therefore you can eat beef as part of a balanced diet to manage your cholesterol."

Think of the Coke versus Pepsi analogy. Coke has less sugar than Pepsi: 15 spoonfuls of sugar per bottle instead of 16. If studies on blood sugar found no difference between drinking Coke versus Pepsi, you wouldn't conclude that "Pepsi may be considered when recommending diets for the management of blood sugars," you'd say they're both equally as bad so we should ideally consume neither.

That's a standard drug industry trick. You don't compare your fancy new drug to the best out there, but to some miserable drug to make yours look better. Note they didn't compare beef to plant proteins, like in this study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. As I started reading it, though, I was surprised that they found no benefit of switching to a plant protein diet either. What were they eating? You can see the comparison in Switching from Beef to Chicken & Fish May Not Lower Cholesterol.

For breakfast, the plant group got a kidney bean and tomato casserole and a salad, instead of a burger. And for dinner, instead of another burger, the plant protein group just got some boring vegetables. So why was the cholesterol of the plant group as bad as the animal group? They had the plant protein group eating three tablespoons of beef tallow every day--three tablespoons of straight beef fat!

This was part of a series of studies that tried to figure out what was so cholesterol-raising about meat--was it the animal protein or was it the animal fat? So, researchers created fake meat products made to have the same amount of saturated fat and cholesterol by adding extracted animal fats and cholesterol. Who could they get to make such strange concoctions? The Ralston Purina dog food company.

But what's crazy is that even when keeping the saturated animal fat and cholesterol the same (by adding meat fats to the veggie burgers and making the plant group swallow cholesterol pills to equal it out), sometimes they still saw a cholesterol lowering advantage in the plant protein group.

If you switch people from meat to tofu, their cholesterol goes down, but what if you switch them from meat to tofu plus lard? Then their cholesterol may stay the same, though tofu and lard may indeed actually be better than meat, since it may result in less oxidized cholesterol. More on the role of oxidized cholesterol can be found in my videos Does Cholesterol Size Matter? and Arterial Acne.

Just swapping plant protein for animal protein may have advantages, but if you really want to maximize the power of diet to lower cholesterol, you may have to move entirely toward plants. The standard dietary advice to cut down on fatty meat, dairy, and eggs may lower cholesterol 5-10%, but flexitarian or vegetarian diets may drop our levels 10 to 15%, vegan diets 15 to 25%, and healthier vegan diets can cut up to 35%, as seen in this study out of Canada showing a whopping 61 point drop in LDL cholesterol within a matter of weeks.


You thought chicken was a low-fat food? It used to be a century ago, but not anymore. It may even be one of the reasons we're getting fatter as well: Chicken Big: Poultry and Obesity and Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity.

Isn't protein just protein? How does our body know if it's coming from a plant or an animal? How could it have different effects on cardiovascular risk? See Protein and Heart Disease, another reason why Plant Protein [is] Preferable.

Lowering cholesterol in your blood is as simple as reducing one's intake of three things: Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

What about those news stories on the "vindication" of saturated fat? See the sneaky science in The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

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: CDC/Debora Cartagena via Freestockphotos.biz. This image has been modified.

Original Link