How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.jpeg

High blood pressure ranks as the number-one risk factor for death and disability in the world. In my video, How to Prevent High Blood Pressure with Diet, I showed how a plant-based diet may prevent high blood pressure. But what do we do if we already have it? That's the topic of How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend lifestyle modification as the first-line treatment. If that doesn't work, patients may be prescribed a thiazide diuretic (commonly known as a water pill) before getting even more meds until their blood pressure is forced down. Commonly, people will end up on three drugs, though researchers are experimenting with four at a time. Some patients even end up on five different meds.

What's wrong with skipping the lifestyle modification step and jumping straight to the drugs? Because drugs don't treat the underlying cause of high blood pressure yet can cause side effects. Less than half of patients stick with even the first-line drugs, perhaps due to such adverse effects as erectile dysfunction, fatigue, and muscle cramps.

What are the recommended lifestyle changes? The AHA, ACC, and CDC recommend controlling one's weight, salt, and alcohol intake, engaging in regular exercise, and adopting a DASH eating plan.

The DASH diet has been described as a lactovegetarian diet, but it's not. It emphasizes fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy, but only a reduction in meat consumption. Why not vegetarian? We've known for decades that animal products are significantly associated with blood pressure. In fact, if we take vegetarians and give them meat (and pay them enough to eat it!), we can watch their blood pressures go right up.

I've talked about the benefits to getting blood pressure down as low as 110 over 70. But who can get that low? Populations centering their diets around whole plant foods. Rural Chinese have been recorded with blood pressures averaging around 110 over 70 their whole lives. In rural Africa, the elderly have perfect blood pressure as opposed to hypertension. What both diets share in common is that they're plant-based day-to-day, with meat only eaten on special occasion.

How do we know it's the plant-based nature of their diets that was so protective? Because in the Western world, as the American Heart Association has pointed out, the only folks getting down that low were those eating strictly plant-based diets, coming out about 110 over 65.

So were the creators of the DASH diet just not aware of this landmark research done by Harvard's Frank Sacks? No, they were aware. The Chair of the Design Committee that came up with the DASH diet was Dr. Sacks himself. In fact, the DASH diet was explicitly designed with the number-one goal of capturing the blood pressure-lowering benefits of a vegetarian diet, yet including enough animal products to make it "palatable" to the general public.

You can see what they were thinking. Just like drugs never work--unless you actually take them. Diet never work--unless you actually eat them. So what's the point of telling people to eat strictly plant-based if few people will do it? So by soft-peddling the truth and coming up with a compromise diet you can imagine how they were thinking that on a population clae they might be doing more good. Ok, but tell that to the thousand U.S. families a day that lose a loved one to high blood pressure. Maybe it's time to start telling the American public the truth.

Sacks himself found that the more dairy the lactovegetarians ate, the higher their blood pressures. But they had to make the diet acceptable. Research has since shown that it's the added plant foods--not the changes in oil, sweets, or dairy--that appears to the critical component of the DASH diet. So why not eat a diet composed entirely of plant foods?

A recent meta-analysis showed vegetarian diets are good, but strictly plant-based diets may be better. In general, vegetarian diets provide protection against cardiovascular diseases, some cancers, and even death. But completely plant-based diets seem to offer additional protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and heart disease mortality. Based on a study of more than 89,000 people, those eating meat-free diets appear to cut their risk of high blood pressure in half. But those eating meat-free, egg-free, and dairy-free may have 75% lower risk.

What if we're already eating a whole food, plant-based diet, no processed foods, no table salt, yet still not hitting 110 over 70? Here are some foods recently found to offer additional protection: Just a few tablespoons of ground flaxseeds a day was 2 to 3 times more potent than instituting an aerobic endurance exercise program and induced one of the most powerful, antihypertensive effects ever achieved by a diet-related intervention. Watermelon also appears to be extraordinary, but you'd have to eat around 2 pounds a day. Sounds like my kind of medicine, but it's hard to get year-round (at least in my neck of the woods). Red wine may help, but only if the alcohol has been taken out. Raw vegetables or cooked? The answer is both, though raw may work better. Beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils may also help a bit.

Kiwifruits don't seem to work at all, even though the study was funded by a kiwifruit company. Maybe they should have taken direction from the California Raisin Marketing Board, which came out with a study showing raisins can reduce blood pressure, but only, apparently, compared to fudge cookies, Cheez-Its, and Chips Ahoy.

The DASH diet is one of the best studied, and it consistently ranks as US News & World Report's #1 diet. It's one of the few diets that medical students are taught about in medical school. I was so fascinated to learn of its origins as a compromise between practicality and efficacy.

I've talked about the patronizing attitude many doctors have that patients can't handle the truth in:

What would hearing the truth from your physician sound like? See Fully Consensual Heart Disease Treatment and The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs.

For more on what plants can do for high blood pressure, 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:

Image Credit: Sally Plank. This image has been modified.

Original Link

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.jpeg

High blood pressure ranks as the number-one risk factor for death and disability in the world. In my video, How to Prevent High Blood Pressure with Diet, I showed how a plant-based diet may prevent high blood pressure. But what do we do if we already have it? That's the topic of How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend lifestyle modification as the first-line treatment. If that doesn't work, patients may be prescribed a thiazide diuretic (commonly known as a water pill) before getting even more meds until their blood pressure is forced down. Commonly, people will end up on three drugs, though researchers are experimenting with four at a time. Some patients even end up on five different meds.

What's wrong with skipping the lifestyle modification step and jumping straight to the drugs? Because drugs don't treat the underlying cause of high blood pressure yet can cause side effects. Less than half of patients stick with even the first-line drugs, perhaps due to such adverse effects as erectile dysfunction, fatigue, and muscle cramps.

What are the recommended lifestyle changes? The AHA, ACC, and CDC recommend controlling one's weight, salt, and alcohol intake, engaging in regular exercise, and adopting a DASH eating plan.

The DASH diet has been described as a lactovegetarian diet, but it's not. It emphasizes fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy, but only a reduction in meat consumption. Why not vegetarian? We've known for decades that animal products are significantly associated with blood pressure. In fact, if we take vegetarians and give them meat (and pay them enough to eat it!), we can watch their blood pressures go right up.

I've talked about the benefits to getting blood pressure down as low as 110 over 70. But who can get that low? Populations centering their diets around whole plant foods. Rural Chinese have been recorded with blood pressures averaging around 110 over 70 their whole lives. In rural Africa, the elderly have perfect blood pressure as opposed to hypertension. What both diets share in common is that they're plant-based day-to-day, with meat only eaten on special occasion.

How do we know it's the plant-based nature of their diets that was so protective? Because in the Western world, as the American Heart Association has pointed out, the only folks getting down that low were those eating strictly plant-based diets, coming out about 110 over 65.

So were the creators of the DASH diet just not aware of this landmark research done by Harvard's Frank Sacks? No, they were aware. The Chair of the Design Committee that came up with the DASH diet was Dr. Sacks himself. In fact, the DASH diet was explicitly designed with the number-one goal of capturing the blood pressure-lowering benefits of a vegetarian diet, yet including enough animal products to make it "palatable" to the general public.

You can see what they were thinking. Just like drugs never work--unless you actually take them. Diet never work--unless you actually eat them. So what's the point of telling people to eat strictly plant-based if few people will do it? So by soft-peddling the truth and coming up with a compromise diet you can imagine how they were thinking that on a population clae they might be doing more good. Ok, but tell that to the thousand U.S. families a day that lose a loved one to high blood pressure. Maybe it's time to start telling the American public the truth.

Sacks himself found that the more dairy the lactovegetarians ate, the higher their blood pressures. But they had to make the diet acceptable. Research has since shown that it's the added plant foods--not the changes in oil, sweets, or dairy--that appears to the critical component of the DASH diet. So why not eat a diet composed entirely of plant foods?

A recent meta-analysis showed vegetarian diets are good, but strictly plant-based diets may be better. In general, vegetarian diets provide protection against cardiovascular diseases, some cancers, and even death. But completely plant-based diets seem to offer additional protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and heart disease mortality. Based on a study of more than 89,000 people, those eating meat-free diets appear to cut their risk of high blood pressure in half. But those eating meat-free, egg-free, and dairy-free may have 75% lower risk.

What if we're already eating a whole food, plant-based diet, no processed foods, no table salt, yet still not hitting 110 over 70? Here are some foods recently found to offer additional protection: Just a few tablespoons of ground flaxseeds a day was 2 to 3 times more potent than instituting an aerobic endurance exercise program and induced one of the most powerful, antihypertensive effects ever achieved by a diet-related intervention. Watermelon also appears to be extraordinary, but you'd have to eat around 2 pounds a day. Sounds like my kind of medicine, but it's hard to get year-round (at least in my neck of the woods). Red wine may help, but only if the alcohol has been taken out. Raw vegetables or cooked? The answer is both, though raw may work better. Beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils may also help a bit.

Kiwifruits don't seem to work at all, even though the study was funded by a kiwifruit company. Maybe they should have taken direction from the California Raisin Marketing Board, which came out with a study showing raisins can reduce blood pressure, but only, apparently, compared to fudge cookies, Cheez-Its, and Chips Ahoy.

The DASH diet is one of the best studied, and it consistently ranks as US News & World Report's #1 diet. It's one of the few diets that medical students are taught about in medical school. I was so fascinated to learn of its origins as a compromise between practicality and efficacy.

I've talked about the patronizing attitude many doctors have that patients can't handle the truth in:

What would hearing the truth from your physician sound like? See Fully Consensual Heart Disease Treatment and The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs.

For more on what plants can do for high blood pressure, 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:

Image Credit: Sally Plank. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Using a Smell Test to Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease

Using a Smell Test to Diagnose Alzheimer's Disease.jpeg

Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology appears to start in the part of the brain that handles smell before subsequently spreading to additional brain regions and then, ultimately, taking over much of the rest of the brain. This led some to speculate that Alzheimer's disease may begin in the nose. Perhaps there's some environmental agent that might enter the brain through some portal in the nostrils?

This is the so-called olfactory vector hypothesis. The anatomy of the nose is well suited for the transfer of things directly into the brain, since the olfactory nerves that stick out into the nose project directly into the brain, bypassing the blood-brain barrier. The nose was actually a major infection route for the polio virus. Public health officials you started cauterizing the nasal passages of schoolchildren by spraying caustic chemicals up their noses in an effort to prevent the disease.

The concern is if people breathe in some ionized metals like aluminum dust, for example, it could be transported into the brain through these olfactory nerves at a rate of about 2 millimeters an hour, which is practically 2 inches a day. Doubt has been cast on this theory, however, by a case report of a woman born with a birth defect in which she had no smell nerves yet still developed Alzheimer's-like pathology. And so, to date, all the supporting evidence is really just circumstantial. It is clear, though, that changes in the sense of smell is among the first clinical signs of Alzheimer's, occurring during the preclinical phase--that is, before there's any noticeable cognitive decline. Could we use these changes to predict or diagnose the disease?

For years, researchers have been trying to find markers of brain illness hidden in people's ability to smell using all sorts of fancy gadgets. For example, functional MRI scans can detect differences in brain activation in response to an odor. In my video, Peanut Butter Smell Test for Alzheimer's, you can see the responses to lavender. You'll see a representation of a normal brain's responses to the odor versus an Alzheimer's brain. This unequivocally demonstrates that we can pick up changes in smell function due to Alzheimer's. But do we really need a million-dollar machine?

An ingenious group of researchers at the University of Florida discovered all we may need is some peanut butter and a ruler.

Considering that the left side of the brain primarily processes what we smell through our left nostril and the right side of our brain covers the right nostril, and understanding that Alzheimer's strikes the left side more than the right, what if you performed the following experiment: Close your eyes and mouth, breathe normally through the nose, then close one nostril, and hold a foot-long ruler out from the open nostril. Once your eyes, mouth, and one nostril are closed, open a container of peanut butter at the bottom of the ruler (one foot away from your open nostril). Move the peanut butter closer by 1 centimeter upon each exhale until you can detect the odor. Then repeat the whole procedure again using your other nostril.

This is exactly what the University of Florida researchers did with their subjects. What did they find? The normal elderly control subjects in the study smelled the peanut butter as soon as it came within an average of 18 centimeters (about 7 inches) from either nostril. It was about the same, roughly 7 inches, in the right nostrils of Alzheimer's patients. But in their left nostrils, it was a mere 2 inches! The peanut butter had to be only 2 inches away before the Alzheimer's patients could detect it through their left nostrils. This happened every single time. Indeed, the researchers found that a "left nostril impairment of odor detection was present in all the patients with probable AD." There was no left-right difference in the control group; they could smell the peanut butter when it was the same distance away from both their left and right nostrils. In the Alzheimer's group, however, there was a 12-centimeter difference.

The disparity was so great that we may be able to set a cutoff value for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's. The researchers reported that "[c]ompared to patients with other causes of dementia this nostril asymmetry of odor detection...was 100% sensitive and 100% specific for probable AD," meaning no false positives and no false negatives. Compared to healthy people, it was 100% sensitive in picking up cases of probable Alzheimer's and 92% specific. What exactly does that mean? In this study, if you had Alzheimer's, there was a 100% chance of having that wide left-right discrepancy. But, if you did have that discrepancy, the chance of having Alzheimer's was only 92%. This means there were some false positives.

The reason it's only "probable" Alzheimer's is because the only way we can really confirm someone has the disease is on autopsy. The current criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer's require an extensive evaluation, combined with fancy positron emission tomography (PET) scans and spinal taps. All of these tests are expensive and hard to get, can be invasive, and can have potential complications. On top of that, they are neither highly sensitive nor specific. The left-right nostril / peanut butter odor detection test, however, was fast, simple, non-invasive, and inexpensive. They concluded that may make peanut butter an ideal instrument for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease.

Does all this sound a bit too good to be true? It may be. A University of Pennsylvania research team was unable to replicate the results. Click here to read their paper. So at this point, the data are mixed. I'll do another post once more studies are published and we have a better handle on whether it's useful or not.

Of course, it's better to prevent Alzheimer's in the first place. Check out these videos for more information.

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

Using a Smell Test to Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease

Using a Smell Test to Diagnose Alzheimer's Disease.jpeg

Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology appears to start in the part of the brain that handles smell before subsequently spreading to additional brain regions and then, ultimately, taking over much of the rest of the brain. This led some to speculate that Alzheimer's disease may begin in the nose. Perhaps there's some environmental agent that might enter the brain through some portal in the nostrils?

This is the so-called olfactory vector hypothesis. The anatomy of the nose is well suited for the transfer of things directly into the brain, since the olfactory nerves that stick out into the nose project directly into the brain, bypassing the blood-brain barrier. The nose was actually a major infection route for the polio virus. Public health officials you started cauterizing the nasal passages of schoolchildren by spraying caustic chemicals up their noses in an effort to prevent the disease.

The concern is if people breathe in some ionized metals like aluminum dust, for example, it could be transported into the brain through these olfactory nerves at a rate of about 2 millimeters an hour, which is practically 2 inches a day. Doubt has been cast on this theory, however, by a case report of a woman born with a birth defect in which she had no smell nerves yet still developed Alzheimer's-like pathology. And so, to date, all the supporting evidence is really just circumstantial. It is clear, though, that changes in the sense of smell is among the first clinical signs of Alzheimer's, occurring during the preclinical phase--that is, before there's any noticeable cognitive decline. Could we use these changes to predict or diagnose the disease?

For years, researchers have been trying to find markers of brain illness hidden in people's ability to smell using all sorts of fancy gadgets. For example, functional MRI scans can detect differences in brain activation in response to an odor. In my video, Peanut Butter Smell Test for Alzheimer's, you can see the responses to lavender. You'll see a representation of a normal brain's responses to the odor versus an Alzheimer's brain. This unequivocally demonstrates that we can pick up changes in smell function due to Alzheimer's. But do we really need a million-dollar machine?

An ingenious group of researchers at the University of Florida discovered all we may need is some peanut butter and a ruler.

Considering that the left side of the brain primarily processes what we smell through our left nostril and the right side of our brain covers the right nostril, and understanding that Alzheimer's strikes the left side more than the right, what if you performed the following experiment: Close your eyes and mouth, breathe normally through the nose, then close one nostril, and hold a foot-long ruler out from the open nostril. Once your eyes, mouth, and one nostril are closed, open a container of peanut butter at the bottom of the ruler (one foot away from your open nostril). Move the peanut butter closer by 1 centimeter upon each exhale until you can detect the odor. Then repeat the whole procedure again using your other nostril.

This is exactly what the University of Florida researchers did with their subjects. What did they find? The normal elderly control subjects in the study smelled the peanut butter as soon as it came within an average of 18 centimeters (about 7 inches) from either nostril. It was about the same, roughly 7 inches, in the right nostrils of Alzheimer's patients. But in their left nostrils, it was a mere 2 inches! The peanut butter had to be only 2 inches away before the Alzheimer's patients could detect it through their left nostrils. This happened every single time. Indeed, the researchers found that a "left nostril impairment of odor detection was present in all the patients with probable AD." There was no left-right difference in the control group; they could smell the peanut butter when it was the same distance away from both their left and right nostrils. In the Alzheimer's group, however, there was a 12-centimeter difference.

The disparity was so great that we may be able to set a cutoff value for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's. The researchers reported that "[c]ompared to patients with other causes of dementia this nostril asymmetry of odor detection...was 100% sensitive and 100% specific for probable AD," meaning no false positives and no false negatives. Compared to healthy people, it was 100% sensitive in picking up cases of probable Alzheimer's and 92% specific. What exactly does that mean? In this study, if you had Alzheimer's, there was a 100% chance of having that wide left-right discrepancy. But, if you did have that discrepancy, the chance of having Alzheimer's was only 92%. This means there were some false positives.

The reason it's only "probable" Alzheimer's is because the only way we can really confirm someone has the disease is on autopsy. The current criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer's require an extensive evaluation, combined with fancy positron emission tomography (PET) scans and spinal taps. All of these tests are expensive and hard to get, can be invasive, and can have potential complications. On top of that, they are neither highly sensitive nor specific. The left-right nostril / peanut butter odor detection test, however, was fast, simple, non-invasive, and inexpensive. They concluded that may make peanut butter an ideal instrument for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease.

Does all this sound a bit too good to be true? It may be. A University of Pennsylvania research team was unable to replicate the results. Click here to read their paper. So at this point, the data are mixed. I'll do another post once more studies are published and we have a better handle on whether it's useful or not.

Of course, it's better to prevent Alzheimer's in the first place. Check out these videos for more information.

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

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

Dr. Greger’s 2015 Live Year-in-Review Presentation

Food as Medicine

View my new live presentation here: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet

Every year I scour the world's scholarly literature on clinical nutrition, pulling together what I find to be the most interesting, practical, and groundbreaking science on how to best feed ourselves and our families. I start with the thousands of papers published annually on nutrition (27,000 this year--a new record!) and, thanks to a crack team of volunteers (and now staff!), I'm able to whittle those down (to a mere 8,000 this year). They are then downloaded, categorized, read, analyzed, and churned into the few hundred short videos. This allows me to post new videos and articles every day, year-round, to NutritionFacts.org. This certainly makes the site unique. There's no other science-based source for free daily updates on the latest discoveries in nutrition. The problem is that the amount of information can be overwhelming.

Currently I have more than a thousand videos covering 1,931 nutrition topics. Where do you even begin? Many have expressed their appreciation for the breadth of material, but asked that I try to distill it into a coherent summary of how best to use diet to prevent and treat chronic disease. I took this feedback to heart and in 2012 developed Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, which explored the role diet may play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing our top 15 killers. Not only did it rise to become one of the Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2012, it remains my single most viewed video to date, watched over a million times (NutritionFacts.org is now up to more than 1.5 million hits a month!).

In 2013 I developed the sequel, More Than an Apple a Day, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most common conditions. I presented it around the country and it ended up #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2013. Then in 2014 I premiered the sequel-sequel, From Table to Able, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most disabling diseases, landing #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2014.

Every year I wonder how I'm going to top the year before. Knowing how popular these live presentations can be and hearing all the stories from folks about what a powerful impact they can have on people's lives, I put my all into this new 2015 one. I spent more time putting together this presentation than any other in my life. It took me an entire month, and when you see it I think you'll appreciate why.

This year, I'm honored to bring you Food as Medicine, in which I go through our most dreaded diseases--but that's not even the best part! I'm really proud of what I put together for the ending. I spend the last 20 minutes or so (starting at 56:22) going through a thought experiment that I'm hoping everyone will find compelling. I think it may be my best presentation ever. You be the judge.

You can watch it at no cost online, but it is also available on DVD through my website or on Amazon. If you want to share copies with others, I have a five for $40 special (enter coupon code 5FOR40FAM). All proceeds from the sales of all my books, DVDs, downloads, and presentations go to the 501c3 nonprofit charity that keeps NutritionFacts.org free for all, for all time. If you want to support this initiative to educate millions about eradicating dietary diseases, please consider making a donation.

After you've watched the new presentation, make sure you're subscribed to get my video updates daily, weekly, or monthly to stay on top of all the latest.

-Michael Greger

Original Link

How Fruits and Vegetables Can Prevent Asthma

NF-June30 Preventing Asthma with Fruits and Vegetables.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: EdTech Stanford University School of Medicine / Flickr

Original Link

Exploiting Autophagy to Live Longer

NF-June11 Why do we age.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More tips for preserving youthful health:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Arian Zwegers / Flickr

Original Link

Peeks Behind the Egg Industry Curtain

NF-Mar19 Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?.jpg

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to "increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers." If an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say pretty much whatever they want. But if an egg corporation wants to dip into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising every year, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. This leads to quite revealing exchanges between egg corporations that want to use that money and the USDA on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course a lot of what I got were pages with nearly all of the text blacked out (you can see these in my video, Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?). But I did find some illuminating correspondence. For example, one email shows an egg company trying to put out a brochure on healthy snacking for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of the USDA's poultry research and promotion programs reminds the company that eggs or egg products cannot be couched as being healthy or nutritious. "The words nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations, and because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do, plus the fact that they're not low in fat, [the words healthy and nutritious] are problematic." This is the United States Department of Agriculture saying this!

However, the USDA official helpfully suggests, "I believe you can say something that's just as strong if not stronger, that is 'naturally nutrient-dense.'" Why can we say eggs are nutrient-dense but not nutritious? Because there's no legal definition of nutrient-dense. We can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense, but legally, we can't say something is nutritious unless it's actually... nutritious.

For example, the egg industry wanted to run an ad calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse that aids in weight loss. The USDA had to remind the industry that they can't portray eggs as a diet food because of the fat and cholesterol content. In fact, eggs have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called "low-calorie."

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either. Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B, and headline the ad "Egg-ceptional Nutrition." They couldn't say that either because, again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol you can't legally call eggs nutritious. So the headline ended up as, "Find true satisfaction," and instead of weight loss they had to go with "can reduce hunger." The USDA congratulated them on their cleverness. Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger--what a concept!

They can't even say eggs are "relatively" low in calories. Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat--they're not. Can't say they're relatively low in fat, they're not. Can't even call them a rich source of protein, because, according to the USDA, they're not.

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop, or that they have a high nutritional content. Eggs have so much cholesterol, we can't even say they "contribute nutritionally." Can't say eggs are "healthful," certainly can't say they're "healthy." Can't even say eggs contribute "healthful components."

Since we can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day, the USDA suggests a "satisfying start." Egg corporations can't call eggs a healthy ingredient, but they can call eggs a "recognizable" ingredient. Can't truthfully say eggs are good for us, either. By law, according to the USDA, the egg industry "needs to steer clear of words like 'healthy' or 'nutritious.'"

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat (eggs fail that criteria) and have less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving (even half an egg fails that test). For the same reason we can't tout ice cream for strong bones, we can't say eggs are healthy because they exceed the threshold for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like "Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet" on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor, since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol and therefore can contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about the eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, "do not show multiple birds in cages--they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism."

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy, they can't even refer to eggs as safe because more than a hundred thousand Americans are food poisoned by Salmonella from eggs every year.

The egg board's response to this egg-borne epidemic is that Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium. An internal egg industry memo didn't think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing that "it may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

The food poisoning risk is why the American Egg Board can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up--because of the Salmonella risk. The American Egg Board's own research showed that the sunny-side up cooking method should be considered "unsafe."

In light of bird flu viruses, both the white and yolk must be cooked firm. The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained to the USDA saying they'd "really like to not have to dictate that the yolks are firm," and cites a Washington Post article saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone except pregnant women, infants, elderly, or those with chronic disease. It turns out it was a misquote--eggs can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, they can call eggs "fresh," the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests. But they can't call eggs safe, and they can't say eggs are "safe to eat." They can't even mention safety at all.

Wait a second, not only can eggs not be called healthy they can't even be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

For more peeks behind the egg industry curtain see:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Chicken Salmonella Outbreaks Show Food Safety Systems Failure

NF-Mar5 The Big Problem with Foster Farms Chicken.jpg

Salmonella causes more hospitalizations and more deaths than any other foodborne illness, and it's been on the rise. Salmonella causes a million cases of food poisoning every year in the U.S., and over the last decade or so the number of cases has increased by 44%, particularly among children and the elderly. And chicken is the number one cause of Salmonella poisoning.

Starting in Spring 2012, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) documented more than 600 individuals infected across 29 states with a particularly virulent strain of Salmonella (one in three were hospitalized). Investigations pointed to Foster Farms--the sixth largest chicken producer in the US--as the most likely source of the outbreak. The CDC warned people, but nothing was done. Foster Farms apparently continued to pump out contaminated meat for 17 months.

Though there's only been a few hundred cases confirmed, for every confirmed case the CDC estimates 38 cases slip through the cracks. So Foster Farms chicken may have infected and sickened more than 15,000 people.

When USDA inspectors went to investigate, they found 25% of the chicken they sampled was contaminated with the outbreak strain of Salmonella, presumed to be because of all the fecal matter they found on the carcasses.

In their February 2014 issue, Consumer Reports published a study on the high cost of cheap chicken, finding 97% of retail chicken breast off store shelves was contaminated with bacteria that can make people sick. 38% of the salmonella they found was resistant to multiple antibiotics (considered a serious public health threat by the CDC). Consumer Reports suggested the cramped conditions on factory chicken farms may play a role, and indeed new research shows the stress of overcrowding can increase Salmonella invasion.

The Pew Commission released a special report on the Foster Farms outbreaks, concluding that the outbreaks bring into sharp focus the ineffectiveness of USDA's approach to minimizing Salmonella contamination in poultry products. The agency's response "was inadequate to protect public health," and to this day thousands of people are getting sick with this preventable foodborne illnesses. One of the Pew Commission's recommendations is to close facilities that are failing to produce safe food and keep them closed until their products stop sending people to the hospital.

What did Foster Farms have to say for itself? They said that their chicken was "safe to eat," that there's "no recall in effect," and that it is "Grade A wholesome." In the same breath, though, they say Salmonella on chicken happens all the time. Their chicken is "Grade A wholesome," but might kill us if we don't handle it right. (See Foster Farms Responds to Chicken Salmonella Outbreak).

As outspoken food safety advocate Bill Marler put it, the poultry industry's reaction to the presence of fecal contamination on chicken is that... sh*t happens.

Salmonella contamination is also a problem in the U.S. egg supply, sickening more than 100,000 people every year. See my video Total Recall.

Other pathogens in meat include Yersinia enterocolitica in pork (Yersinia in Pork), Staphylococcus (U.S. Meat Supply Flying at Half Staph), MRSA (MRSA in U.S. Retail Meat), Hepatitis E (Hepatitis E Virus in Pork), bladder-infecting E coli (Avoiding Chicken To Avoid Bladder Infections), Clostridium difficile (Toxic Megacolon Superbug), and Campylobacter, the most common bacterial chicken pathogen (Poultry and Paralysis).

Poultry appears to cause the most outbreaks, but is all chicken to blame equally? See my video Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken.

How was it legal for Foster Farms to continue to ship our meat known to be contaminated with a dangerous pathogen? See my videos Why is selling Salmonella tainted chicken still legal? and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: zoomar / Flickr

Original Link