Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Original Link

Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Original Link

Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Original Link

Comparing Pollutant Levels Between Different Diets

Comparing Pollutant Levels Between Different Diets.jpeg

The results of the CHAMACOS (Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study were published recently. This study of a California birth cohort investigated the relationship between exposure to flame retardant chemical pollutants in pregnancy and childhood, and subsequent neurobehavioral development. Why California? Because California children's exposures to these endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins are among the highest in the world.

What did they find? The researchers concluded that both prenatal and childhood exposures to these chemicals "were associated with poorer attention, fine motor coordination, and cognition" (particularly verbal comprehension) by the time the children reached school age. "This study, the largest to date, contributes to growing evidence suggesting that PBDEs [polybrominated diphenyl ethers, flame retardant chemicals] have adverse impacts on child neurobehavioral development." The effects may extend into adolescence, again affecting motor function as well as thyroid gland function. The effect on our thyroid glands may even extend into adulthood.

These chemicals get into moms, then into the amniotic fluid, and then into the breast milk. The more that's in the milk, the worse the infants' mental development may be. Breast milk is still best, but how did these women get exposed in the first place?

The question has been: Are we exposed mostly from diet or dust? Researchers in Boston collected breast milk samples from 46 first-time moms, vacuumed up samples of dust from their homes, and questioned them about their diets. The researchers found that both were likely to blame. Diet-wise, a number of animal products were implicated. This is consistent with what's been found worldwide. For example, in Europe, these flame retardant chemical pollutants are found mostly in meat, including fish, and other animal products. It's similar to what we see with dioxins--they are mostly found in fish and other fatty foods, with a plant-based diet offering the lowest exposure.

If that's the case, do vegetarians have lower levels of flame retardant chemical pollutants circulating in their bloodstreams? Yes. Vegetarians may have about 25% lower levels. Poultry appears to be the largest contributor of PBDEs. USDA researchers compared the levels in different meats, and the highest levels of these pollutants were found in chicken and turkey, with less in pork and even less in beef. California poultry had the highest, consistent with strict furniture flammability codes. But it's not like chickens are pecking at the sofa. Chickens and turkeys may be exposed indirectly through the application of sewer sludge to fields where feed crops are raised, contamination of water supplies, the use of flame-retarded materials in poultry housing, or the inadvertent incorporation of fire-retardant material into the birds' bedding or feed ingredients.

Fish have been shown to have the highest levels overall, but Americans don't eat a lot of fish so they don't contribute as much to the total body burden in the United States. Researchers have compared the level of PBDEs found in meat-eaters and vegetarians. The amount found in the bloodstream of vegetarians is noticeably lower, as you can see in my video Flame Retardant Pollutants and Child Development. Just to give you a sense of the contribution of chicken, higher than average poultry eaters have higher levels than omnivores as a whole, and lower than average poultry eaters have levels lower than omnivores.

What are the PBDE levels in vegans? We know the intake of many other classes of pollutants is almost exclusively from the ingestion of animal fats in the diet. What if we take them all out of the diet? It works for dioxins. Vegan dioxin levels appear markedly lower than the general population. What about for the flame retardant chemicals? Vegans have levels lower than vegetarians, with those who've been vegan around 20 years having even lower concentrations. This tendency for chemical levels to decline the longer one eats plant-based suggests that food of animal origin contributes substantially. But note that levels never get down to zero, so diet is not the only source.

The USDA researchers note that there are currently no regulatory limits on the amount of flame retardant chemical contamination in U.S. foods, "but reducing the levels of unnecessary, persistent, toxic compounds in our diet is certainly desirable."

I've previously talked about this class of chemicals in Food Sources of Flame Retardant Chemicals. The same foods seem to accumulate a variety of pollutants:

Many of these chemicals have hormone- or endocrine-disrupting effects. See, for example:

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: Mitchell Haindfield / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Comparing Pollutant Levels Between Different Diets

Comparing Pollutant Levels Between Different Diets.jpeg

The results of the CHAMACOS (Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study were published recently. This study of a California birth cohort investigated the relationship between exposure to flame retardant chemical pollutants in pregnancy and childhood, and subsequent neurobehavioral development. Why California? Because California children's exposures to these endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins are among the highest in the world.

What did they find? The researchers concluded that both prenatal and childhood exposures to these chemicals "were associated with poorer attention, fine motor coordination, and cognition" (particularly verbal comprehension) by the time the children reached school age. "This study, the largest to date, contributes to growing evidence suggesting that PBDEs [polybrominated diphenyl ethers, flame retardant chemicals] have adverse impacts on child neurobehavioral development." The effects may extend into adolescence, again affecting motor function as well as thyroid gland function. The effect on our thyroid glands may even extend into adulthood.

These chemicals get into moms, then into the amniotic fluid, and then into the breast milk. The more that's in the milk, the worse the infants' mental development may be. Breast milk is still best, but how did these women get exposed in the first place?

The question has been: Are we exposed mostly from diet or dust? Researchers in Boston collected breast milk samples from 46 first-time moms, vacuumed up samples of dust from their homes, and questioned them about their diets. The researchers found that both were likely to blame. Diet-wise, a number of animal products were implicated. This is consistent with what's been found worldwide. For example, in Europe, these flame retardant chemical pollutants are found mostly in meat, including fish, and other animal products. It's similar to what we see with dioxins--they are mostly found in fish and other fatty foods, with a plant-based diet offering the lowest exposure.

If that's the case, do vegetarians have lower levels of flame retardant chemical pollutants circulating in their bloodstreams? Yes. Vegetarians may have about 25% lower levels. Poultry appears to be the largest contributor of PBDEs. USDA researchers compared the levels in different meats, and the highest levels of these pollutants were found in chicken and turkey, with less in pork and even less in beef. California poultry had the highest, consistent with strict furniture flammability codes. But it's not like chickens are pecking at the sofa. Chickens and turkeys may be exposed indirectly through the application of sewer sludge to fields where feed crops are raised, contamination of water supplies, the use of flame-retarded materials in poultry housing, or the inadvertent incorporation of fire-retardant material into the birds' bedding or feed ingredients.

Fish have been shown to have the highest levels overall, but Americans don't eat a lot of fish so they don't contribute as much to the total body burden in the United States. Researchers have compared the level of PBDEs found in meat-eaters and vegetarians. The amount found in the bloodstream of vegetarians is noticeably lower, as you can see in my video Flame Retardant Pollutants and Child Development. Just to give you a sense of the contribution of chicken, higher than average poultry eaters have higher levels than omnivores as a whole, and lower than average poultry eaters have levels lower than omnivores.

What are the PBDE levels in vegans? We know the intake of many other classes of pollutants is almost exclusively from the ingestion of animal fats in the diet. What if we take them all out of the diet? It works for dioxins. Vegan dioxin levels appear markedly lower than the general population. What about for the flame retardant chemicals? Vegans have levels lower than vegetarians, with those who've been vegan around 20 years having even lower concentrations. This tendency for chemical levels to decline the longer one eats plant-based suggests that food of animal origin contributes substantially. But note that levels never get down to zero, so diet is not the only source.

The USDA researchers note that there are currently no regulatory limits on the amount of flame retardant chemical contamination in U.S. foods, "but reducing the levels of unnecessary, persistent, toxic compounds in our diet is certainly desirable."

I've previously talked about this class of chemicals in Food Sources of Flame Retardant Chemicals. The same foods seem to accumulate a variety of pollutants:

Many of these chemicals have hormone- or endocrine-disrupting effects. See, for example:

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: Mitchell Haindfield / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?.jpeg

More than 2000 years ago Hippocrates (460-377 BCE) said, "If we could give every individual the right amount of nourishment and exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found the safest way to health." What does that mean when it comes to water? Water has been described as a neglected, unappreciated, and under-researched subject, and further complicating the issue, a lot of the papers extolling the need for proper hydration are funded by the bottled water industry.

It turns out the often quoted "drink at least eight glasses of water a day" dictum has little underpinning scientific evidence . Where did that idea come from? The recommendation was traced to a 1921 paper, in which the author measured his own pee and sweat and determined we lose about 3% of our body weight in water a day, or about 8 cups (see How Many Glasses of Water Should We Drink in a Day?). Consequently, for the longest time, water requirement guidelines for humanity were based on just one person.

There is evidence that not drinking enough may be associated with falls and fractures, heat stroke, heart disease, lung disorders, kidney disease, kidney stones, bladder and colon cancer, urinary tract infections, constipation, dry mouth, cavities, decreased immune function and cataract formation. The problem with many of these studies is that low water intake is associated with several unhealthy behaviors, such as low fruit and vegetable intake, more fast-food, less shopping at farmers markets. And who drinks lots of water? People who exercise a lot. No wonder they tend to have lower disease rates!

Only large and expensive randomized trials could settle these questions definitively. Given that water cannot be patented, such trials seem unlikely; who's going to pay for them? We're left with studies that find an association between disease and low water intake. But are people sick because they drink less, or are they drinking less because they're sick? There have been a few large prospective studies in which fluid intake is measured before disease develops. For example, a Harvard study of 48,000 men found that the risk of bladder cancer decreased by 7% for every extra daily cup of fluid we drink. Therefore, a high intake of water--like 8 cups a day--may reduce the risk of bladder cancer by about 50%, potentially saving thousands of lives.

The accompanying editorial commented that strategies to prevent the most prevalent cancers in the West are remarkably straightforward in principle. To prevent lung cancer, quit smoking; to prevent breast cancer, maintain your ideal body weight and exercise; and to prevent skin cancer, stay out of the sun. Now comes this seemingly simple way to reduce the risk of bladder cancer: drink more fluids.

Probably the best evidence we have for a cut off of water intake comes from the Adventist Health Study, in which 20,000 men and women were studied. About one-half were vegetarian, so they were also getting extra water by eating more fruits and vegetables. Those drinking 5 or more glasses of water a day had about half the risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who drank 2 or fewer glasses a day. Like the Harvard study, this protection was found after controlling for other factors such as diet and exercise. These data suggest that it was the water itself that was decreasing risk, perhaps by lowering blood viscosity (blood thickness).

Based on all the best evidence to date, authorities from Europe, the U.S. Institute of Medicine, and the World Health Organization recommend between 2.0 and 2.7 liters (8 to 11 cups) of water a day for women, and 2.5 to 3.7 liters (10 to 15 cups) a day for men. This includes water from all sources, not just beverages. We get about a liter from food and the water our body makes. So this translates into a recommendation for women to drink 4 to 7 cups of water a day and men 6 to 11 cups, assuming only moderate physical activity at moderate ambient temperatures.

We can also get water from all the other drinks we consume, including caffeinated drinks, with the exception of stronger alcoholic drinks like wines and spirits. Beer can leave you with more water than you started with, but wine actively dehydrates you. However, in the cancer and heart disease studies I mentioned above, the benefits were only found with increased water consumption, not other beverages.

I've previously touched on the cognitive benefits of proper hydration here: Does a Drink Of Water Make Children Smarter?

Surprised tea is hydrating? See my video Is Caffeinated Tea Dehydrating?

Surprised that the 8-a-day rested on such flimsy evidence? Unfortunately, so much of what we do in medicine has shaky underpinnings. That's the impetus behind the idea of evidence-based medicine (what a concept!). Ironically, this new movement may itself undermine some of the most effective treatments. See Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased?

How else can we reduce our risk of bladder cancer? See Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival.

What kind of water? I recommend tap water, which tends to be preferable from a chemical and microbial contamination standpoint. What about buying one of those fancy alkalizing machines? See Alkaline Water: a Scam?

It's so nice to have data on such a fundamental question. We have much to thank the Adventists for. You will see their studies cropping up frequently. See, for example, Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes, The Okinawa Diet: Living to 100, and Evidence-Based Eating.

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. Image has been modified.

Original Link

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?.jpeg

More than 2000 years ago Hippocrates (460-377 BCE) said, "If we could give every individual the right amount of nourishment and exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found the safest way to health." What does that mean when it comes to water? Water has been described as a neglected, unappreciated, and under-researched subject, and further complicating the issue, a lot of the papers extolling the need for proper hydration are funded by the bottled water industry.

It turns out the often quoted "drink at least eight glasses of water a day" dictum has little underpinning scientific evidence . Where did that idea come from? The recommendation was traced to a 1921 paper, in which the author measured his own pee and sweat and determined we lose about 3% of our body weight in water a day, or about 8 cups (see How Many Glasses of Water Should We Drink in a Day?). Consequently, for the longest time, water requirement guidelines for humanity were based on just one person.

There is evidence that not drinking enough may be associated with falls and fractures, heat stroke, heart disease, lung disorders, kidney disease, kidney stones, bladder and colon cancer, urinary tract infections, constipation, dry mouth, cavities, decreased immune function and cataract formation. The problem with many of these studies is that low water intake is associated with several unhealthy behaviors, such as low fruit and vegetable intake, more fast-food, less shopping at farmers markets. And who drinks lots of water? People who exercise a lot. No wonder they tend to have lower disease rates!

Only large and expensive randomized trials could settle these questions definitively. Given that water cannot be patented, such trials seem unlikely; who's going to pay for them? We're left with studies that find an association between disease and low water intake. But are people sick because they drink less, or are they drinking less because they're sick? There have been a few large prospective studies in which fluid intake is measured before disease develops. For example, a Harvard study of 48,000 men found that the risk of bladder cancer decreased by 7% for every extra daily cup of fluid we drink. Therefore, a high intake of water--like 8 cups a day--may reduce the risk of bladder cancer by about 50%, potentially saving thousands of lives.

The accompanying editorial commented that strategies to prevent the most prevalent cancers in the West are remarkably straightforward in principle. To prevent lung cancer, quit smoking; to prevent breast cancer, maintain your ideal body weight and exercise; and to prevent skin cancer, stay out of the sun. Now comes this seemingly simple way to reduce the risk of bladder cancer: drink more fluids.

Probably the best evidence we have for a cut off of water intake comes from the Adventist Health Study, in which 20,000 men and women were studied. About one-half were vegetarian, so they were also getting extra water by eating more fruits and vegetables. Those drinking 5 or more glasses of water a day had about half the risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who drank 2 or fewer glasses a day. Like the Harvard study, this protection was found after controlling for other factors such as diet and exercise. These data suggest that it was the water itself that was decreasing risk, perhaps by lowering blood viscosity (blood thickness).

Based on all the best evidence to date, authorities from Europe, the U.S. Institute of Medicine, and the World Health Organization recommend between 2.0 and 2.7 liters (8 to 11 cups) of water a day for women, and 2.5 to 3.7 liters (10 to 15 cups) a day for men. This includes water from all sources, not just beverages. We get about a liter from food and the water our body makes. So this translates into a recommendation for women to drink 4 to 7 cups of water a day and men 6 to 11 cups, assuming only moderate physical activity at moderate ambient temperatures.

We can also get water from all the other drinks we consume, including caffeinated drinks, with the exception of stronger alcoholic drinks like wines and spirits. Beer can leave you with more water than you started with, but wine actively dehydrates you. However, in the cancer and heart disease studies I mentioned above, the benefits were only found with increased water consumption, not other beverages.

I've previously touched on the cognitive benefits of proper hydration here: Does a Drink Of Water Make Children Smarter?

Surprised tea is hydrating? See my video Is Caffeinated Tea Dehydrating?

Surprised that the 8-a-day rested on such flimsy evidence? Unfortunately, so much of what we do in medicine has shaky underpinnings. That's the impetus behind the idea of evidence-based medicine (what a concept!). Ironically, this new movement may itself undermine some of the most effective treatments. See Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased?

How else can we reduce our risk of bladder cancer? See Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival.

What kind of water? I recommend tap water, which tends to be preferable from a chemical and microbial contamination standpoint. What about buying one of those fancy alkalizing machines? See Alkaline Water: a Scam?

It's so nice to have data on such a fundamental question. We have much to thank the Adventists for. You will see their studies cropping up frequently. See, for example, Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes, The Okinawa Diet: Living to 100, and Evidence-Based Eating.

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. Image has been modified.

Original Link

High Blood Pressure: Normal but Not Natural

High Blood Pressure - Normal but Not Natural.jpeg

The most comprehensive and systematic analysis of causes of death ever undertaken allows us to answer questions like, how many lives could we save if people cut back on soda? The answer is 299,521. Soft drinks aren't just bad because they're empty calories. More than just not being a health-promoting item, soda appears to be an actively death-promoting item. Of course, it's not as deadly as processed meats such as bacon, bologna, ham, or hot dogs, which account for about 800,000 deaths every year--killing twice as many women as domestic violence and five times more people than all illegal drugs combined.

On the other hand, eating more whole grains could save 1.7 million lives. And more vegetables could save 1.8 million lives every year. If only we ate more nuts and seeds, we'd save 2 and a half million lives. But fruit is apparently what the world needs most (they didn't look at beans) with 4.9 million lives hanging in the balance every year. The cure is not drugs or vaccines; the cure is fruit. The #1 dietary risk factor for death in the world may be not eating enough fruit.

One reason why plant-based diets can save so many millions is because the #1 killer risk factor in the world is high blood pressure, laying to waste nine million people year after year. In the United States, high blood pressure affects nearly 78 million--that's one in three of us. As we age our pressures get higher and higher, such that by age 60, it strikes more than half of that population. If it affects most of us when we get older, maybe it's less a disease and more just a natural, inevitable consequence of getting older?

No.

We've known for nearly a century that high blood pressure need never occur. Researchers measured the blood pressure of a thousand people in rural Kenya. Up until age 40, the blood pressures of rural Africans were about the same as Europeans and Americans, down around 120's over 80's, but as Westerners age, our pressures creep up such that by age 60 the average person is hypertensive, exceeding 140 over 90. But the pressures of those in rural Africa improved with age; not only did they not develop hypertension, their blood pressures actually got better.

The 140/90 cut-off is arbitrary. Just like studies that show the lower our cholesterol the better--there's really no safe level above about 150--blood pressure studies also support a "lower the better" approach. Even people who start out with blood pressure under 120/80 appear to benefit from blood pressure reduction. The ideal blood pressure, the no-benefit-from-reducing-it-further blood pressure, appears to be 110/70. Is it possible to get blood pressures under 110 over 70? It's not just possible, it can be normal for those eating healthy enough diets (see How Not to Die from High Blood Pressure).

Over two years at a rural Kenyan hospital, 1,800 patients were admitted. How many cases of high blood pressure were found? Zero. Wow. They must have had low rates of heart disease. Actually, they had no rates of heart disease. Not low risk--no risk. Not a single case of arteriosclerosis was found.

Having a "normal" blood pressure may set you up for dying from "normal" causes such as heart attacks and strokes. For more on this concept, see When Low Risk Means High Risk. It's like having a normal cholesterol level (see Optimal Cholesterol Level).

It seems high blood pressure is a choice. Like cavities: Cavities and Coronaries: Our Choice.

Even end-stage malignant hypertension can be reversed with diet (thereby demonstrating it was the diet and not other lifestyle factors that protected traditional plant-based populations). See Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape.

Flax seeds, hibiscus tea, whole grains, and nitrate-rich vegetables may offer additional protection:

Why not just take the drugs? See The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure. And be sure to check out my summary video, How Not to Die from High Blood Pressure, as well as The Evidence that Salt Raises Blood Pressure.

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

High Blood Pressure: Normal but Not Natural

High Blood Pressure - Normal but Not Natural.jpeg

The most comprehensive and systematic analysis of causes of death ever undertaken allows us to answer questions like, how many lives could we save if people cut back on soda? The answer is 299,521. Soft drinks aren't just bad because they're empty calories. More than just not being a health-promoting item, soda appears to be an actively death-promoting item. Of course, it's not as deadly as processed meats such as bacon, bologna, ham, or hot dogs, which account for about 800,000 deaths every year--killing twice as many women as domestic violence and five times more people than all illegal drugs combined.

On the other hand, eating more whole grains could save 1.7 million lives. And more vegetables could save 1.8 million lives every year. If only we ate more nuts and seeds, we'd save 2 and a half million lives. But fruit is apparently what the world needs most (they didn't look at beans) with 4.9 million lives hanging in the balance every year. The cure is not drugs or vaccines; the cure is fruit. The #1 dietary risk factor for death in the world may be not eating enough fruit.

One reason why plant-based diets can save so many millions is because the #1 killer risk factor in the world is high blood pressure, laying to waste nine million people year after year. In the United States, high blood pressure affects nearly 78 million--that's one in three of us. As we age our pressures get higher and higher, such that by age 60, it strikes more than half of that population. If it affects most of us when we get older, maybe it's less a disease and more just a natural, inevitable consequence of getting older?

No.

We've known for nearly a century that high blood pressure need never occur. Researchers measured the blood pressure of a thousand people in rural Kenya. Up until age 40, the blood pressures of rural Africans were about the same as Europeans and Americans, down around 120's over 80's, but as Westerners age, our pressures creep up such that by age 60 the average person is hypertensive, exceeding 140 over 90. But the pressures of those in rural Africa improved with age; not only did they not develop hypertension, their blood pressures actually got better.

The 140/90 cut-off is arbitrary. Just like studies that show the lower our cholesterol the better--there's really no safe level above about 150--blood pressure studies also support a "lower the better" approach. Even people who start out with blood pressure under 120/80 appear to benefit from blood pressure reduction. The ideal blood pressure, the no-benefit-from-reducing-it-further blood pressure, appears to be 110/70. Is it possible to get blood pressures under 110 over 70? It's not just possible, it can be normal for those eating healthy enough diets (see How Not to Die from High Blood Pressure).

Over two years at a rural Kenyan hospital, 1,800 patients were admitted. How many cases of high blood pressure were found? Zero. Wow. They must have had low rates of heart disease. Actually, they had no rates of heart disease. Not low risk--no risk. Not a single case of arteriosclerosis was found.

Having a "normal" blood pressure may set you up for dying from "normal" causes such as heart attacks and strokes. For more on this concept, see When Low Risk Means High Risk. It's like having a normal cholesterol level (see Optimal Cholesterol Level).

It seems high blood pressure is a choice. Like cavities: Cavities and Coronaries: Our Choice.

Even end-stage malignant hypertension can be reversed with diet (thereby demonstrating it was the diet and not other lifestyle factors that protected traditional plant-based populations). See Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape.

Flax seeds, hibiscus tea, whole grains, and nitrate-rich vegetables may offer additional protection:

Why not just take the drugs? See The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure. And be sure to check out my summary video, How Not to Die from High Blood Pressure, as well as The Evidence that Salt Raises Blood Pressure.

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

Can Peppermint Improve Athletic Performance?

NF-Oct20 Enhancing Athletic Performance With Peppermint.jpeg

Ever since smoking was prohibited in night clubs, customers have increasingly noticed other unpleasant smells present in the club--like body odors. So, researchers in Europe thought they'd try to cover them up. The researchers measured the effects of peppermint, for example, on dancing activity and asked people to rate their energy level. They found that with peppermint scent, people felt more cheerful and danced more, and so, concluded the researchers, "environmental fragrancing may be expected to have a positive effects on club revenue." Innovative nightclubs are already inviting "aroma jockeys" to smell the places up.

The business community caught whiff of this and thought maybe peppermint smell would get their secretaries to type faster. And it worked! There was improved performance on clerical tasks associated with the administration of peppermint odor.

In an age where athletic competitions are frequently won or lost by mere hundredths of a second, athletes are continually looking for new ways to excel in their sport. Researchers threw some collegiate athletes onto a treadmill and piped different smell into their nostrils, and those on peppermint reported feeling less fatigued, more vigorous, less frustrated, and felt they performed better. But did they actually perform better? See my video, Enhancing Athletic Performance with Peppermint.

A different study published in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology measured actual performance, and participants were actually able to squeeze out one extra pushup before collapsing and cut almost two seconds off a quarter mile dash with an odorized adhesive strip stuck to their upper lip. Interestingly there was no significant difference in basketball free throws. The researchers think the reason is that free throws actually require some skill, and all the peppermint can do is really improve athlete's motivation.

Unfortunately follow-up studies were not able to replicate these results, showing no beneficial effect of smelling peppermint on athletic performance, so how about eating peppermint? Researchers measured the effects of peppermint on exercise performance before and after ten days of having subjects drink bottles of water with a single drop of peppermint essential oil in them. And all the subjects' performance parameters shot up, churning out 50 percent more work, 20 percent more power, and a 25 percent greater time to exhaustion. Improvements were found across the board in all those physiological parameters, indicating increased respiratory efficiency. They attribute these remarkable results to the peppermint opening up their airways, increasing ventilation and oxygen delivery.

Now, you can overdose on the stuff, but a few drops shouldn't be toxic. Why not get the best of both worls by blending fresh mint leaves in water rather than use the oil?

Sometimes aromatherapy alone may actually help, though:

Beet juice can also enhance athletic performance. See the dozen or so videos in the series starting with Doping With Beet Juice. Other ways healthy food can synergize with exercise:

I use peppermint in my Pink Juice with Green Foam recipe and talk about using the dried in Antioxidants in a Pinch. It can also help reduce IBS symptoms, as seen in Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Some other tea caveats, though:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: Cory Denton / Flickr

Original Link