What About Extra Virgin Olive Oil?

Oct 17 Olive Oil copy.jpeg

The relative paralysis of our arteries for hours after eating fast food and cheesecake may also occur after consuming olive oil. Olive oil was found to have the same impairment to endothelial function as high-fat foods like sausage and egg breakfast sandwiches. (See my Olive Oil and Artery Function video for an illustrative chart with different foods.)

Studies that have suggested endothelial benefits after olive oil consumption have measured something different: ischemia-induced dilation as opposed to flow-mediated dilation. There's just not good evidence that's actually an accurate index of endothelial function, which is what predicts heart disease. Hundreds of studies have shown that the ischemia-induced dilation test can give a false negative result.

Other oils have also been shown to have deleterious results on endothelial function. A significant and constant decrease in endothelial function appears within three hours after each meal, independent of the type of oil and whether the oil was fresh or deep fried. Olive oil may be better than omega-6-rich oils or saturated fats, but it still showed adverse effects. This was the case with regular, refined olive oil. But what about extra-virgin olive oil?

Extra-virgin olive oil retains a fraction of the anti-inflammatory phytonutrients found in the olive fruit, and so doesn't appear to induce the spike in inflammatory markers caused by regular olive oil. What does that mean for our arteries? Extra-virgin olive oil may have more of a neutral effect compared to butter, which exerted a noxious effect that lasted for up to six hours--basically right up until our next meal. In the largest prospective study ever to assess the relationship between olive oil consumption and cardiac events like heart attacks, there was a suggestion that virgin olive oil may be better than regular olive oil, but neither was found to significantly reduce heart attack rates after controlling for healthy dietary behaviors like vegetable intake, which tends to go hand-in-hand with olive oil intake.

There have also been studies showing that even extra-virgin olive oil, contrary to expectations, may significantly impair endothelial function. Why then do some studies suggest endothelial function improves on a Mediterranean diet, which is rich in olive oil? It may be because the Mediterranean diet is also rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, and walnuts. Fruits and vegetables appear to provide some protection against the direct impairment of endothelial function produced by high-fat foods, including olive oil; therefore, improvements in health may be in spite of, rather than because of, the oil. In terms of their effects on post-meal endothelial function, the beneficial components of the Mediterranean diet may primarily be the antioxidant-rich foods, the vegetables, fruits, and their derivatives, such as balsamic vinegar. Adding some vegetables to a fatty meal may partially restore arterial functioning and blood flow.


If olive oil can impair our arterial function, Why Was Heart Disease Rare in the Mediterranean? I've got a whole series of videos on the Mediterranean diet that I invite you to check out.

Fatty Meals May Impair Artery Function so much that a single high-fat meal can trigger angina chest pain. But, whole-food sources of fat such as nuts appear to be the exception. See Extra Virgin Olive Oil vs. Nuts and Walnuts and Artery Function.

I've also examined artery function with several other foods: eggs, dark chocolate, coffee, vinegar, tea, and plant-based diets.

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

What About Extra Virgin Olive Oil?

Oct 17 Olive Oil copy.jpeg

The relative paralysis of our arteries for hours after eating fast food and cheesecake may also occur after consuming olive oil. Olive oil was found to have the same impairment to endothelial function as high-fat foods like sausage and egg breakfast sandwiches. (See my Olive Oil and Artery Function video for an illustrative chart with different foods.)

Studies that have suggested endothelial benefits after olive oil consumption have measured something different: ischemia-induced dilation as opposed to flow-mediated dilation. There's just not good evidence that's actually an accurate index of endothelial function, which is what predicts heart disease. Hundreds of studies have shown that the ischemia-induced dilation test can give a false negative result.

Other oils have also been shown to have deleterious results on endothelial function. A significant and constant decrease in endothelial function appears within three hours after each meal, independent of the type of oil and whether the oil was fresh or deep fried. Olive oil may be better than omega-6-rich oils or saturated fats, but it still showed adverse effects. This was the case with regular, refined olive oil. But what about extra-virgin olive oil?

Extra-virgin olive oil retains a fraction of the anti-inflammatory phytonutrients found in the olive fruit, and so doesn't appear to induce the spike in inflammatory markers caused by regular olive oil. What does that mean for our arteries? Extra-virgin olive oil may have more of a neutral effect compared to butter, which exerted a noxious effect that lasted for up to six hours--basically right up until our next meal. In the largest prospective study ever to assess the relationship between olive oil consumption and cardiac events like heart attacks, there was a suggestion that virgin olive oil may be better than regular olive oil, but neither was found to significantly reduce heart attack rates after controlling for healthy dietary behaviors like vegetable intake, which tends to go hand-in-hand with olive oil intake.

There have also been studies showing that even extra-virgin olive oil, contrary to expectations, may significantly impair endothelial function. Why then do some studies suggest endothelial function improves on a Mediterranean diet, which is rich in olive oil? It may be because the Mediterranean diet is also rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, and walnuts. Fruits and vegetables appear to provide some protection against the direct impairment of endothelial function produced by high-fat foods, including olive oil; therefore, improvements in health may be in spite of, rather than because of, the oil. In terms of their effects on post-meal endothelial function, the beneficial components of the Mediterranean diet may primarily be the antioxidant-rich foods, the vegetables, fruits, and their derivatives, such as balsamic vinegar. Adding some vegetables to a fatty meal may partially restore arterial functioning and blood flow.


If olive oil can impair our arterial function, Why Was Heart Disease Rare in the Mediterranean? I've got a whole series of videos on the Mediterranean diet that I invite you to check out.

Fatty Meals May Impair Artery Function so much that a single high-fat meal can trigger angina chest pain. But, whole-food sources of fat such as nuts appear to be the exception. See Extra Virgin Olive Oil vs. Nuts and Walnuts and Artery Function.

I've also examined artery function with several other foods: eggs, dark chocolate, coffee, vinegar, tea, and plant-based diets.

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

Plant-Based Diets as the Nutritional Equivalent of Quitting Smoking

The Best Kept Secret in Medicine.jpeg

Despite the most widely accepted and well-established chronic disease practice guidelines uniformly calling for lifestyle change as the first line of therapy, doctors often don't follow these recommendations. As seen in my video, The Best Kept Secret in Medicine, lifestyle interventions are not only safer and cheaper but often more effective in reducing heart disease and failure, hypertension, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and deaths from all causes than nearly any other medical intervention.

"Some useful lessons may come from the war on tobacco," Dr. Neal Barnard wrote in the American Medical Association's ethics journal. When he stopped smoking himself in the 1980s, the lung cancer death rate was peaking in the United States. As the prevalence of smoking dropped, so have lung cancer rates. No longer were doctors telling patients to "[g]ive your throat a vacation" by smoking a fresh cigarette. Doctors realized they were "more effective at counseling patients to quit smoking if they no longer had tobacco stains on their own fingers." "In other words, doctors went from being bystanders--or even enablers--to leading the fight against smoking." And today, says Dr. Barnard, "Plant-based diets are the nutritional equivalent of quitting smoking."

From an editorial in the journal Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine: "If we were to gather the world's top nutrition scientists and experts (free from food industry influence), there would be very little debate about the essential properties of good nutrition. Unfortunately, most doctors are nutritionally illiterate. And worse, they don't know how to use the most powerful medicine available to them: food."

Physician advice matters. When doctors told patients to improve their diets by cutting down on meat, dairy, and fried foods, patients were more likely to make dietary changes. It may work even better if doctors practice what they preach. Researchers at Emory University randomized patients to watch one of two videos. In one video, a physician briefly mentioned her personal dietary and exercise practices and visible on her desk were both a bike helmet and an apple. In the other video, she did not discuss her personal healthy practices, and the helmet and apple were missing. In both videos, the doctor advised the patients to cut down on meat, not usually have meat for breakfast, and have no meats for lunch or dinner at least half the time. In the disclosure video, the physician related that she herself had successfully cut down on meat. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients rated that physician to be more believable and motivating. Physicians who walk the walk--literally--and have healthier eating habits not only tend to counsel more about exercise and diet, but have been found to seem more credible or motivating when they do so.

It may also make them better doctors. A randomized controlled intervention to clean up doctors' diets, called the Promoting Health by Self Experience (PHASE) trial, found that healthcare providers' personal lifestyles were correlated directly with their clinical performance. Healthcare providers' improved wellbeing and lifestyle cascaded to the patients and clinics, suggesting an additional strategy to achieve successful health promotion.

Are you ready for the best kept secret in medicine? Given the right conditions, the body can heal itself. For example, treating cardiovascular disease with appropriate dietary changes is good medicine, reducing mortality without any adverse effects. We should keep doing research, certainly, but educating physicians and patients alike about the existing knowledge regarding the power of nutrition as medicine may be the best investment we can make.

Of course, to advise patients about nutrition, physicians first have to educate themselves, as it is unlikely they received formal nutrition education during their medical training:

For more on the power of healthy living, 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

Plant-Based Diets as the Nutritional Equivalent of Quitting Smoking

The Best Kept Secret in Medicine.jpeg

Despite the most widely accepted and well-established chronic disease practice guidelines uniformly calling for lifestyle change as the first line of therapy, doctors often don't follow these recommendations. As seen in my video, The Best Kept Secret in Medicine, lifestyle interventions are not only safer and cheaper but often more effective in reducing heart disease and failure, hypertension, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and deaths from all causes than nearly any other medical intervention.

"Some useful lessons may come from the war on tobacco," Dr. Neal Barnard wrote in the American Medical Association's ethics journal. When he stopped smoking himself in the 1980s, the lung cancer death rate was peaking in the United States. As the prevalence of smoking dropped, so have lung cancer rates. No longer were doctors telling patients to "[g]ive your throat a vacation" by smoking a fresh cigarette. Doctors realized they were "more effective at counseling patients to quit smoking if they no longer had tobacco stains on their own fingers." "In other words, doctors went from being bystanders--or even enablers--to leading the fight against smoking." And today, says Dr. Barnard, "Plant-based diets are the nutritional equivalent of quitting smoking."

From an editorial in the journal Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine: "If we were to gather the world's top nutrition scientists and experts (free from food industry influence), there would be very little debate about the essential properties of good nutrition. Unfortunately, most doctors are nutritionally illiterate. And worse, they don't know how to use the most powerful medicine available to them: food."

Physician advice matters. When doctors told patients to improve their diets by cutting down on meat, dairy, and fried foods, patients were more likely to make dietary changes. It may work even better if doctors practice what they preach. Researchers at Emory University randomized patients to watch one of two videos. In one video, a physician briefly mentioned her personal dietary and exercise practices and visible on her desk were both a bike helmet and an apple. In the other video, she did not discuss her personal healthy practices, and the helmet and apple were missing. In both videos, the doctor advised the patients to cut down on meat, not usually have meat for breakfast, and have no meats for lunch or dinner at least half the time. In the disclosure video, the physician related that she herself had successfully cut down on meat. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients rated that physician to be more believable and motivating. Physicians who walk the walk--literally--and have healthier eating habits not only tend to counsel more about exercise and diet, but have been found to seem more credible or motivating when they do so.

It may also make them better doctors. A randomized controlled intervention to clean up doctors' diets, called the Promoting Health by Self Experience (PHASE) trial, found that healthcare providers' personal lifestyles were correlated directly with their clinical performance. Healthcare providers' improved wellbeing and lifestyle cascaded to the patients and clinics, suggesting an additional strategy to achieve successful health promotion.

Are you ready for the best kept secret in medicine? Given the right conditions, the body can heal itself. For example, treating cardiovascular disease with appropriate dietary changes is good medicine, reducing mortality without any adverse effects. We should keep doing research, certainly, but educating physicians and patients alike about the existing knowledge regarding the power of nutrition as medicine may be the best investment we can make.

Of course, to advise patients about nutrition, physicians first have to educate themselves, as it is unlikely they received formal nutrition education during their medical training:

For more on the power of healthy living, 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

Organic versus Conventional: Which has More Nutrients?

Organic versus Conventional - Which has More Nutrients?.jpeg

Are organic foods safer and healthier than conventional alternatives? Those are two separate questions. Some consumers are interested in getting more nutrients; others are more concerned about getting fewer pesticides. Let's do nutrition first.

As seen in my video, Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?, hundreds of studies have been reviewed and researchers didn't find significant differences for most of the traditional nutrients like vitamins and minerals. They concluded that despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious, they didn't find robust evidence to support that perception. They did, however, find higher levels of phenolic phytonutrients in organic.

These so-called "secondary metabolites" of plants are thought to be behind many of the benefits ascribed to eating fruits and vegetables. Organic fruits and vegetables had between 19 and 69% more of a variety of these antioxidant compounds. The theory was that these phytonutrients are created by the plant for its own protection. For example, broccoli releases the bitter compounds like sulforaphane when the plant is chewed to ward off those who might eat it. Bugs take one bite and say, "Ew, this tastes like broccoli!" But pesticide-laden plants are bitten less by bugs and so may be churning out fewer of these compounds. Plants raised organically, on the other hand, are in a fight for their lives and may necessarily have to produce more protection. That was the theory anyway, but we don't have good evidence to back it up. The more likely reason has to do with the fertilizer; plants given high dose synthetic nitrogen fertilizers may divert more resources to growth rather than defense.

These antioxidants may protect the plant, but what about us? More antioxidant phytonutrients are found in organic vegetables and so yes, they displayed more antioxidant activity, but also more antimutagenic activity. Researchers exposed bacteria to a variety of mutagenic chemicals like benzopyrene, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon found in barbecued meat, or IQ, the heterocyclic amine found in grilled/broiled/fried meats (as well as cigarette smoke), and there were fewer DNA mutations in the petri dishes where they added organic vegetables compared to the petri dishes where they added conventional vegetables.

Preventing DNA damage in bacteria is one thing, but what about effects on actual human cells? Organic strawberries may taste better, and have higher antioxidant activity and more phenolic phytonutrients, but what happens when you stack them up head-to-head against human cancer cells? Extracts from organically grown strawberries suppressed the growth of colon cancer cells and breast cancer cells significantly better than extracts from conventional strawberries. Now this was dripping strawberries onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, but as I showed in Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer, there are real life circumstances in which strawberries come into direct contact with cancerous and precancerous lesions, and so presumably organic strawberries would work even better, but they haven't yet been tested in clinical trials.

Although in vitro studies show higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, clinical studies on the impact of eating organic on human disease simply haven't been done. Based on antioxidant phytonutrient levels, organic produce may be considered 20 to 40% healthier, the equivalent of adding one or two serving's worth to a five-a-day regimen. But organic produce may be 40% more expensive, so for the same money you could just buy the extra servings worth of conventional produce. From a purely nutrients-per-dollar standpoint, it's not clear that organic foods are any better. But people often buy organic foods to avoid chemicals, not because they are more nutritious. For more on the best available science comparing the nutritional content, pesticide risk, heavy metal toxicity, and food poisoning risk of organic versus conventionally raised foods )including practical tips for making your own DIY fruit and veggie wash), see:

I imagine that the reaction to this series will be similar to that for the one I did on GMO foods, riling up critics on both sides of the debate:

More on the nutritional implications of stressed-out plants here:

Production method aside, in vitro, Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better?

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

Organic versus Conventional: Which has More Nutrients?

Organic versus Conventional - Which has More Nutrients?.jpeg

Are organic foods safer and healthier than conventional alternatives? Those are two separate questions. Some consumers are interested in getting more nutrients; others are more concerned about getting fewer pesticides. Let's do nutrition first.

As seen in my video, Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?, hundreds of studies have been reviewed and researchers didn't find significant differences for most of the traditional nutrients like vitamins and minerals. They concluded that despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious, they didn't find robust evidence to support that perception. They did, however, find higher levels of phenolic phytonutrients in organic.

These so-called "secondary metabolites" of plants are thought to be behind many of the benefits ascribed to eating fruits and vegetables. Organic fruits and vegetables had between 19 and 69% more of a variety of these antioxidant compounds. The theory was that these phytonutrients are created by the plant for its own protection. For example, broccoli releases the bitter compounds like sulforaphane when the plant is chewed to ward off those who might eat it. Bugs take one bite and say, "Ew, this tastes like broccoli!" But pesticide-laden plants are bitten less by bugs and so may be churning out fewer of these compounds. Plants raised organically, on the other hand, are in a fight for their lives and may necessarily have to produce more protection. That was the theory anyway, but we don't have good evidence to back it up. The more likely reason has to do with the fertilizer; plants given high dose synthetic nitrogen fertilizers may divert more resources to growth rather than defense.

These antioxidants may protect the plant, but what about us? More antioxidant phytonutrients are found in organic vegetables and so yes, they displayed more antioxidant activity, but also more antimutagenic activity. Researchers exposed bacteria to a variety of mutagenic chemicals like benzopyrene, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon found in barbecued meat, or IQ, the heterocyclic amine found in grilled/broiled/fried meats (as well as cigarette smoke), and there were fewer DNA mutations in the petri dishes where they added organic vegetables compared to the petri dishes where they added conventional vegetables.

Preventing DNA damage in bacteria is one thing, but what about effects on actual human cells? Organic strawberries may taste better, and have higher antioxidant activity and more phenolic phytonutrients, but what happens when you stack them up head-to-head against human cancer cells? Extracts from organically grown strawberries suppressed the growth of colon cancer cells and breast cancer cells significantly better than extracts from conventional strawberries. Now this was dripping strawberries onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, but as I showed in Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer, there are real life circumstances in which strawberries come into direct contact with cancerous and precancerous lesions, and so presumably organic strawberries would work even better, but they haven't yet been tested in clinical trials.

Although in vitro studies show higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, clinical studies on the impact of eating organic on human disease simply haven't been done. Based on antioxidant phytonutrient levels, organic produce may be considered 20 to 40% healthier, the equivalent of adding one or two serving's worth to a five-a-day regimen. But organic produce may be 40% more expensive, so for the same money you could just buy the extra servings worth of conventional produce. From a purely nutrients-per-dollar standpoint, it's not clear that organic foods are any better. But people often buy organic foods to avoid chemicals, not because they are more nutritious. For more on the best available science comparing the nutritional content, pesticide risk, heavy metal toxicity, and food poisoning risk of organic versus conventionally raised foods )including practical tips for making your own DIY fruit and veggie wash), see:

I imagine that the reaction to this series will be similar to that for the one I did on GMO foods, riling up critics on both sides of the debate:

More on the nutritional implications of stressed-out plants here:

Production method aside, in vitro, Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better?

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

When Charities Collaborate With the Food Industry

NF-Mar29 Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease.jpeg

When the history of the world's attempt to address obesity is written, one researcher writes, "the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry." For instance, Yum! Brands, who owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, linked up with a leading U.S. breast cancer charity, to sell pink buckets of fried chicken.

Save the Children, an organization aiming to positively change the lives of children, was initially a staunch supporter of soda taxes. Recently, however, the organization withdrew its support, saying that support of the soda taxes did not fit the way Save the Children works. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that it was seeking a grant from Coca-Cola and had accepted a $5 million grant from Pepsi.

Through these partnerships, the food industry seeks to emphasize that inactivity -- not the promotion and consumption of its calorie-rich products -- is the prime cause of obesity. But studies showing that obesity is rising even in areas where people are exercising more are most likely explained by the fact that the rate of physical activity levels are being outstripped by our eating activity levels. We can outrun our mouths.

As stated by researcher, Bruce Neal, from the University of Sydney (highlighted in my video, Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease), "The message is plain - the primary driver of the obesity epidemic in the United States is now the food supply, and interventions targeting physical activity are not going to resolve it. So, while physical activity is good regardless, it will not address most of the burden of ill health caused by obesity. That is going to require a new focus on the root cause of the problem--the American diet."

This researcher adds, "At the heart of the 'energy in' side of the obesity problem is the food and beverage industry. Put simply, the enormous commercial success enjoyed by the food industry is now causing what promises to be one of the greatest public health disasters of our time. As fast as we rid the world of the microbial causes of pestilence and famine, they are replaced by new vectors of disease in the form of trans-national food corporations that market salt, fat, sugar, and calories in unprecedented quantities. So policy makers should work on pricing strategies that subsidize the cost of healthier foods."

First, we need to shift relative prices to make it more expensive to consume animal products compared to fruit, vegetables and beans. Second, we need to increase demand for plant foods, which is not as easy given the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies - our tax payer dollars going to make animal products artificially cheap.

Dr. Bruce Neal then concludes, "The food industry will rail against the 'nanny state' and fight tooth and nail for its right to market a range of options to responsible individuals able to make choices for themselves-it's the American way. For context though, these arguments are no different to those used by the tobacco industry, which also markets habituating unhealthy products in pursuit of profit. In the case of tobacco, the American people have agreed that controls must be applied to limit the harms caused. Poor diet is now responsible for an even greater burden of disease than tobacco, and food companies must be controlled in the same way if the harms are to be reduced. As unpalatable as this may be, the food industry would do well to strengthen their public health conscience, given that consumers are always going to need their goods, something that cannot be said for the tobacco industry." You hear that a lot in public health circles, how we have to work with the companies, because unlike tobacco, we have to eat. But just like yes, we need to breath, but we don't need to breathe smoke, yes we need to eat, but we don't need to eat junk.

Is it our physical activity or eating activity? See Diet vs. Exercise for Weight Loss and How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss?

I touched on the pink buckets of KFC in my video Breast Cancer Survival, Butterfat, and Chicken.

For more on the idea of subsidizing healthy foods or at least stopping tax money to supporting junk, check out my video Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods.

It's sad when non-profits collaborate with companies that contribute to suffering, but seems particularly egregious when the Registered Dietitian group does it. See Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Conflicts of Interest.

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, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Rafael Edwards / Flickr

Original Link

What To Do if You Suspect Gluten Problems

NF-Mar1 How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance.jpeg

Symptoms of gluten sensitivity include irritable bowel type symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, and changes in bowel habits, as well as systemic manifestations such as brain fog, headache, fatigue, depression, joint and muscle aches, numbness in the extremities, skin rash, or anemia. I previously discussed why people who suspect they might be gluten sensitive should not go on a gluten-free diet. But if that's true, what should they do?

The first thing is a formal evaluation for celiac disease, which currently involves blood tests and a small intestinal biopsy. If the evaluation is positive, then a gluten-free diet is necessary. If it's negative, it's best to try a healthier diet with more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans while avoiding processed junk. In the past, a gluten-free diet had many benefits over the traditional American diet because it required increasing fruit and vegetable intake--so no wonder people felt better eating gluten-free: no more unhealthy bread products, no more fast food restaurants. Now, there is just as much gluten-free junk out there.

If a healthy diet doesn't help, then the next step is to try ruling out other causes of chronic gastrointestinal distress. In a study of 84 people who claim gluten causes them adverse reactions (they're referred to in the literature as"PWAWGs," People Who Avoid Wheat and/or Gluten), highlighted in my video, How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance, about a third didn't appear to have gluten sensitivity at all. Instead, they either had an overgrowth of bacteria in their small intestine, were fructose or lactose intolerant, or had a neuromuscular disorder like gastroparesis or pelvic floor dysfunction. Only if those are also ruled out, would I suggest people suffering from chronic suspicious symptoms try a gluten-free diet. If symptoms improve, stick with it and maybe re-challenge with gluten periodically.

Unlike the treatment for celiac disease, a gluten-free diet for gluten sensitivity is ideal not only to prevent serious complications from an autoimmune reaction, but to resolve symptoms and try to improve a patient's quality of life. However, a gluten-free diet itself can also reduce quality of life, so it's a matter of trying to continually strike the balance. For example, gluten-free foods can be expensive, averaging about triple the cost. Most people would benefit from buying an extra bunch of kale or blueberries instead.

No current data suggests that that general population should maintain a gluten-free lifestyle, but for those with celiac disease, a wheat allergy, or a sensitivity diagnosis, gluten-free diets can be a lifesaver.

For more on gluten, check out Is Gluten Sensitivity Real? and Gluten-Free Diets: Separating the Wheat from the Chat.

Some food strategies that may help with irritable bowel symptoms are covered in a few of my previous videos, such as Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

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: Jeremy Segrott/ Flickr

Original Link

Do Dietary Toxins Contribute to Hand Tremors?

NF-Nov26 Essential Tremor and Diet.jpg

Essential tremor, affecting 1 in 25 adults over 40 and up to 1 in 5 of those in their 90s, is one of the most common neurological diseases. In addition to the potentially debilitating hand tremor, there can be other neuropsychiatric manifestations, including difficulty walking and various levels of cognitive impairment.

Might beta-carboline neurotoxins play a role in essential tremor? Harmane is one of the most potent of the tremor-producing neurotoxins. Expose people to harmane, and they develop tremors; take it away, and the tremors disappear. What if we're exposed long-term? A recent study at Columbia University, highlighted in my video, Essential Tremor and Diet, found that those with essential tremor have much higher levels of this toxin in their bloodstream compared to those without tremor. Furthermore, the higher the harmane levels, the worse the tremor. The highest levels are found in those who have both essential tremor and cancer, suggesting harmane may be playing a role in both diseases.

How did folks get exposed to these chemicals? Primarily through meat: beef, pork, fish, and especially chicken. So if this potent, tremor-producing neurotoxin is concentrated in cooked muscle foods, is meat consumption associated with a higher risk of essential tremor? Another Columbia University study found that men who ate the most meat had 21 times the odds of essential tremor. To put that in context, if we go back to the original studies on smoking and lung cancer, we see that smoking was only linked to about 14 times the odds, not 21.

Blood levels of this neurotoxin may shoot up within five minutes of eating meat. Five minutes? It's not even digested by then. This rapid uptake is indicative of significant absorption directly through the mouth straight into the bloodstream, bypassing the stomach and, most importantly, bypassing the detoxifying enzymes of the liver. This may lead to higher exposure levels in peripheral organs, like the brain.

Due to its high fat solubility, harmane accumulates in brain tissue, and, using a fancy brain scan called "proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging," higher harmane levels have been linked to greater metabolic dysfunction in the brains of essential tremor sufferers.

Harmane is also found in certain heated plants, like tobacco. A broiled chicken breast has about 13 micrograms of harmane, and cigarettes average about one microgram, so a half pack of cigarettes could expose us to almost as much of this neurotoxin as a serving of chicken. Harman is created when tobacco is burned, and also when coffee beans are roasted. However, coffee intake has not been tied to increased risk (and neither has tobacco for that matter), so it may be something else in meat that's to blame for the 2,000 percent increase in odds for this disabling brain disease.

I also have a few videos about the other major tremor condition, Parkinson's Disease: Preventing Parkinson's Disease with Diet and Treating Parkinson's Disease with Diet

Other compounds created in cooked meats may also have implications for cancer risk:

-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: Gennaro D'Orio / Flickr

Original Link

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

NF-Nov19 best method for cooking sweet potatoes.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Avital Pinnick / Flickr

Original Link