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

Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

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

Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

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

Does Rye Bread Protect Against Cancer?

Sept 14 Rye Bread copy.jpeg

Previously, I've explored the beneficial effects of flaxseeds on prostate cancer (Flaxseeds vs. Prostate Cancer), as well as breast cancer prevention and survival (Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Prevention and Breast Cancer Survival & Lignan Intake). The cancer-fighting effect of flaxseeds is thought to be because of the lignans, which are cancer-fighting plant compounds found in red wine, whole grains, greens (cruciferous vegetables), and especially sesame seeds and flaxseeds, the most concentrated source on Earth. But this is based on per unit weight. People eat a lot more grains than seeds. Of the grains people eat, the highest concentration of lignans is found in rye. So, can rye intake decrease the risk of cancer? Theoretically yes, but unlike flaxseeds, it's never been directly put to the test... until now.

In my video Does Rye Bread Protect Against Cancer?, I discuss the evidence that does exist. If you measure the levels of lignans in the bloodstream of women living in a region where they eat lots of rye, the odds of breast cancer in women with the highest levels do seem to be just half that of women with the lowest levels. But lignans are also found in tea and berries, so we couldn't be sure where the protection is coming from. To get around this, researchers decided to measure alkylresorcinol metabolites, a class of phytonutrients relatively unique to whole grains.

Researchers collected urine from women with breast cancer and women without, and the women with breast cancer had significantly lower levels compared to those without. This suggests that women at risk for breast cancer consume significantly lower amounts of whole grains like rye. But if we follow older women in their 50s through 60s, the intake of whole grain products was not associated with risk of breast cancer. A similar result was found in older men for prostate cancer. Is it just too late at that point?

We know from data on dairy that diet in our early life may be important in the development of prostate cancer, particularly around puberty when the prostate grows and matures. If you look at what men were drinking in adolescence, daily milk consumption appeared to triple their risk of advanced prostate cancer later in life. (Learn more about milk and prostate cancer in my video Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk.) So, researchers looked at daily rye bread consumption during adolescence.

Those who consumed rye bread daily as kids did appear to only have half the odds of advanced prostate cancer. This is consistent with immigrant studies suggesting that the first two decades of life may be most important for setting the pattern for cancer development in later life. These findings are certainly important for how we should feed our kids, but if we're already middle-aged, is it too late to change course? To answer this question, researchers in Sweden put it to the test.

Researchers took men with prostate cancer and split them into two groups. One group got lots of rye bread, while the other got lots of high-fiber, but low-lignan, wheat bread. There's been some indirect evidence that rye may be active against prostate cancer--like lower cancer rates in regions with high rye consumption--but it had never been directly investigated... until this study. Biopsies were taken from the subjects' tumors before and after three weeks of bread eating, and the number of cancer cells that were dying off were counted. Though there was no change in the cancer cell clearance of the control bread group, there was a 180% increase in the number of cancer cells being killed off in the rye group. A follow-up study lasting 6 weeks found a 14% decrease in PSA levels, a cancer marker suggesting a shrinkage of the tumor.

The researchers note they used very high rye bread intakes, and it remains to be tested if more normal intake levels would have effects that are of clinical importance. As a sadly typical American, my lack of intimate familiarity of the metric system did not flag the "485 grams" of rye bread a day as far out of the ordinary, but that translates to 15 slices! Rather than eating a loaf a day, the same amount of lignans can be found in a single teaspoon of ground flaxseeds.


I've created several videos on flaxseeds for both breast cancer prevention and treatment, including Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Prevention, Breast Cancer Survival and Lignan Intake, Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Survival Epidemiological Evidence, and Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Survival: Clinical Evidence.

What's more, flaxseeds may help with cyclical breast pain (Flaxseeds for Breast Pain), prostate cancer (Flaxseed vs. Prostate Cancer), diabetes (Flaxseeds vs. Diabetes), and hypertension (Flaxseeds for Hypertension).

And if you're wondering Which Are Better: Chia Seeds or Flaxseeds?, get the answer in the video!

The wonders of whole grains are also discussed in Whole Grains May Work as Well as Drugs, Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?, and Can Oatmeal Help Fatty Liver Disease?.

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

Does Rye Bread Protect Against Cancer?

Sept 14 Rye Bread copy.jpeg

Previously, I've explored the beneficial effects of flaxseeds on prostate cancer (Flaxseeds vs. Prostate Cancer), as well as breast cancer prevention and survival (Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Prevention and Breast Cancer Survival & Lignan Intake). The cancer-fighting effect of flaxseeds is thought to be because of the lignans, which are cancer-fighting plant compounds found in red wine, whole grains, greens (cruciferous vegetables), and especially sesame seeds and flaxseeds, the most concentrated source on Earth. But this is based on per unit weight. People eat a lot more grains than seeds. Of the grains people eat, the highest concentration of lignans is found in rye. So, can rye intake decrease the risk of cancer? Theoretically yes, but unlike flaxseeds, it's never been directly put to the test... until now.

In my video Does Rye Bread Protect Against Cancer?, I discuss the evidence that does exist. If you measure the levels of lignans in the bloodstream of women living in a region where they eat lots of rye, the odds of breast cancer in women with the highest levels do seem to be just half that of women with the lowest levels. But lignans are also found in tea and berries, so we couldn't be sure where the protection is coming from. To get around this, researchers decided to measure alkylresorcinol metabolites, a class of phytonutrients relatively unique to whole grains.

Researchers collected urine from women with breast cancer and women without, and the women with breast cancer had significantly lower levels compared to those without. This suggests that women at risk for breast cancer consume significantly lower amounts of whole grains like rye. But if we follow older women in their 50s through 60s, the intake of whole grain products was not associated with risk of breast cancer. A similar result was found in older men for prostate cancer. Is it just too late at that point?

We know from data on dairy that diet in our early life may be important in the development of prostate cancer, particularly around puberty when the prostate grows and matures. If you look at what men were drinking in adolescence, daily milk consumption appeared to triple their risk of advanced prostate cancer later in life. (Learn more about milk and prostate cancer in my video Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk.) So, researchers looked at daily rye bread consumption during adolescence.

Those who consumed rye bread daily as kids did appear to only have half the odds of advanced prostate cancer. This is consistent with immigrant studies suggesting that the first two decades of life may be most important for setting the pattern for cancer development in later life. These findings are certainly important for how we should feed our kids, but if we're already middle-aged, is it too late to change course? To answer this question, researchers in Sweden put it to the test.

Researchers took men with prostate cancer and split them into two groups. One group got lots of rye bread, while the other got lots of high-fiber, but low-lignan, wheat bread. There's been some indirect evidence that rye may be active against prostate cancer--like lower cancer rates in regions with high rye consumption--but it had never been directly investigated... until this study. Biopsies were taken from the subjects' tumors before and after three weeks of bread eating, and the number of cancer cells that were dying off were counted. Though there was no change in the cancer cell clearance of the control bread group, there was a 180% increase in the number of cancer cells being killed off in the rye group. A follow-up study lasting 6 weeks found a 14% decrease in PSA levels, a cancer marker suggesting a shrinkage of the tumor.

The researchers note they used very high rye bread intakes, and it remains to be tested if more normal intake levels would have effects that are of clinical importance. As a sadly typical American, my lack of intimate familiarity of the metric system did not flag the "485 grams" of rye bread a day as far out of the ordinary, but that translates to 15 slices! Rather than eating a loaf a day, the same amount of lignans can be found in a single teaspoon of ground flaxseeds.


I've created several videos on flaxseeds for both breast cancer prevention and treatment, including Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Prevention, Breast Cancer Survival and Lignan Intake, Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Survival Epidemiological Evidence, and Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Survival: Clinical Evidence.

What's more, flaxseeds may help with cyclical breast pain (Flaxseeds for Breast Pain), prostate cancer (Flaxseed vs. Prostate Cancer), diabetes (Flaxseeds vs. Diabetes), and hypertension (Flaxseeds for Hypertension).

And if you're wondering Which Are Better: Chia Seeds or Flaxseeds?, get the answer in the video!

The wonders of whole grains are also discussed in Whole Grains May Work as Well as Drugs, Can Oatmeal Reverse Heart Disease?, and Can Oatmeal Help Fatty Liver Disease?.

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

9 out of 10 That Die From it Never Knew They Even Had This Preventable Disease

9 out of 10 That Die From it Never Knew They Even Had This Preventable Disease.jpeg

Diverticula are out-pouchings of our intestine. Doctors like using a tire analogy: high pressures within the gut can force the intestines to balloon out through weak spots in the intestinal wall like an inner tube poking out through a worn tire tread. You can see what they actually look like in my video, Diverticulosis: When Our Most Common Gut Disorder Hardly Existed. These pockets can become inflamed and infected, and, to carry the tire analogy further, can blow out and spill fecal matter into the abdomen, and lead to death. Symptoms can range from no symptoms at all, to a little cramping and bloating, to "incapacitating pain that is a medical emergency." Nine out of ten people who die from the disease never even knew they had it.

The good news is there may be a way to prevent the disease. Diverticular disease is the most common intestinal disorder, affecting up to 70% of people by age 60. If it's that common, though, is it just an inevitable consequence of aging? No, it's a new disease. In 1907, 25 cases had been reported in the medical literature. Not cases in 25% of people, but 25 cases period. And diverticular disease is kind of hard to miss on autopsy. A hundred years ago, in 1916, it didn't even merit mention in medical and surgical textbooks. The mystery wasn't solved until 1971.

How did a disease that was almost unknown become the most common affliction of the colon in the Western world within one lifespan? Surgeons Painter and Burkitt suggested diverticulosis was a deficiency disease--i.e., a disease caused by a deficiency of fiber. In the late 1800s, roller milling was introduced, further removing fiber from grain, and we started to fill up on other fiber-deficient foods like meat and sugar. A few decades of this and diverticulosis was rampant.

This is what Painter and Burkitt thought was going on: Just as it would be easy to squeeze a lump of butter through a bicycle tube, it's easy to move large, soft, and moist intestinal contents through the gut. In contrast, try squeezing through a lump of tar. When we eat fiber-deficient diets, our feces can become small and firm, and our intestines have to really squeeze down hard to move them along. This buildup of pressure may force out those bulges. Eventually, a low-fiber diet can sometimes lead to the colon literally rupturing itself.

If this theory is true, then populations eating high­-fiber diets would have low rates of diverticulosis. That's exactly what's been found. More than 50% of African Americans in their 50s were found to have diverticulosis, compared to less than 1% in African Africans eating traditional plant-based diets. By less than 1%, we're talking zero out of a series of 2,000 autopsies in South Africa and two out of 4,000 in Uganda. That's about one thousand times lower prevalence.

What, then, do we make of a new study concluding that a low-fiber diet was not associated with diverticulosis. I cover that in my video Does Fiber Really Prevent Diverticulosis?

For more on bowel health, see:

What if your doctor says you shouldn't eat healthy foods like nuts and popcorn because of your diverticulosis? Share with them my Diverticulosis & Nuts video.

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: Sean T Evans / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

9 out of 10 That Die From it Never Knew They Even Had This Preventable Disease

9 out of 10 That Die From it Never Knew They Even Had This Preventable Disease.jpeg

Diverticula are out-pouchings of our intestine. Doctors like using a tire analogy: high pressures within the gut can force the intestines to balloon out through weak spots in the intestinal wall like an inner tube poking out through a worn tire tread. You can see what they actually look like in my video, Diverticulosis: When Our Most Common Gut Disorder Hardly Existed. These pockets can become inflamed and infected, and, to carry the tire analogy further, can blow out and spill fecal matter into the abdomen, and lead to death. Symptoms can range from no symptoms at all, to a little cramping and bloating, to "incapacitating pain that is a medical emergency." Nine out of ten people who die from the disease never even knew they had it.

The good news is there may be a way to prevent the disease. Diverticular disease is the most common intestinal disorder, affecting up to 70% of people by age 60. If it's that common, though, is it just an inevitable consequence of aging? No, it's a new disease. In 1907, 25 cases had been reported in the medical literature. Not cases in 25% of people, but 25 cases period. And diverticular disease is kind of hard to miss on autopsy. A hundred years ago, in 1916, it didn't even merit mention in medical and surgical textbooks. The mystery wasn't solved until 1971.

How did a disease that was almost unknown become the most common affliction of the colon in the Western world within one lifespan? Surgeons Painter and Burkitt suggested diverticulosis was a deficiency disease--i.e., a disease caused by a deficiency of fiber. In the late 1800s, roller milling was introduced, further removing fiber from grain, and we started to fill up on other fiber-deficient foods like meat and sugar. A few decades of this and diverticulosis was rampant.

This is what Painter and Burkitt thought was going on: Just as it would be easy to squeeze a lump of butter through a bicycle tube, it's easy to move large, soft, and moist intestinal contents through the gut. In contrast, try squeezing through a lump of tar. When we eat fiber-deficient diets, our feces can become small and firm, and our intestines have to really squeeze down hard to move them along. This buildup of pressure may force out those bulges. Eventually, a low-fiber diet can sometimes lead to the colon literally rupturing itself.

If this theory is true, then populations eating high­-fiber diets would have low rates of diverticulosis. That's exactly what's been found. More than 50% of African Americans in their 50s were found to have diverticulosis, compared to less than 1% in African Africans eating traditional plant-based diets. By less than 1%, we're talking zero out of a series of 2,000 autopsies in South Africa and two out of 4,000 in Uganda. That's about one thousand times lower prevalence.

What, then, do we make of a new study concluding that a low-fiber diet was not associated with diverticulosis. I cover that in my video Does Fiber Really Prevent Diverticulosis?

For more on bowel health, see:

What if your doctor says you shouldn't eat healthy foods like nuts and popcorn because of your diverticulosis? Share with them my Diverticulosis & Nuts video.

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: Sean T Evans / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization

Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization.jpeg

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends we reduce our consumption of salt, trans fats, saturated fats, and added sugars. Why? Because consumption of such foods is the cause of at least 14 million deaths every year from chronic diseases.

"Several decades ago, it was heresy to talk about an impending global pandemic of obesity." Today, we're seeing chronic disease rates skyrocket around the world. The Western diet has been exported to the far reaches of the planet, with white flour, sugar, fat, and animal-based foods replacing beans, peas, lentils, other vegetables, and whole grains.

In order to understand the reasons underlying this trend toward greater consumption of animal products, sugar, and oils, and reduced consumption of whole plant foods, we need to begin by understanding the purposeful economic manipulations that have occurred since World War II relating to agricultural policies around the world. For example, since early in the last century, the U.S. government "has supported food production through subsidies and other policies, resulting in large surpluses of food commodities, meat, and calories. In this artificial market, large food producers and corporations-Big Agriculture and Big Food-became very profitable." Their profitability may be part of the problem.

Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, gave the opening address at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion. One of the biggest challenges facing health promotion worldwide, she said, is that the efforts to prevent our top killers "go against the business interests of powerful economic operators." It is not just Big Tobacco anymore. "Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation and protect themselves by using the same tactics...front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and industry-funded research that confuses the evidence and keeps the public in doubt."

And the World Health Organization should know. In 2003, the organization released a draft report that outlined a global strategy to address issues of diet. Although many of the WHO's recommendations were rather tame, a remarkable series of events was spurred by six words in the report: "limit the intake of 'free' sugars" (added sugar). Within days, the sugar industry, through the Sugar Association, enlisted the support of officials high in the U.S. government and led a vigorous attack on both the report and the World Health Organization itself, culminating in a threat to get Congress to withdraw U.S. funding to the WHO. The WHO, the organization that "deals with AIDS, malnutrition, infectious disease, bioterrorism, and more, threatened because of its stance on sugar." At the same time, the U.S. went to bat for American tobacco companies and led the charge against the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

As discussed in my video, Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization, the threat from the sugar industry was described by WHO insiders as worse than any pressure they ever got from the tobacco lobby. As revealed in an internal memo, the U.S. government apparently had a list of demands. These included deletion of all references to the science that WHO experts had compiled on the matter and the removal of all references to fat, oils, sugar, and salt.

The threats failed to make the WHO withdraw their report. Entitled "Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease," it "concluded that a diet low in saturated fat, sugar and salt and high in fruit and vegetables was required to tackle the epidemic rise in chronic diseases worldwide." They did end up watering it down, though. Gone was reference to the comprehensive scientific report, and gone was its call for its recommendations to be actually translated into national guidelines.

History has since repeated. At the last high-level United Nations meeting to address chronic diseases, representatives from some Western countries, including the United States, helped block a consensus on action after lobbying from the alcohol, food, tobacco, and drug industries. When asked why Michelle Obama's successful childhood obesity programs in the U.S. should not be modeled around the world, a U.S. official responded that they might harm American exports.

See also: How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?

If sugar is bad, then what about all the sugar in fruit? See If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit? and How Much Fruit Is Too Much?.

For more on the corrupting political and economic influences in nutrition, see videos such as:

And because of that, check out a couple of my introductory videos: Why You Should Care about Nutrition and Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health.

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

Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization

Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization.jpeg

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends we reduce our consumption of salt, trans fats, saturated fats, and added sugars. Why? Because consumption of such foods is the cause of at least 14 million deaths every year from chronic diseases.

"Several decades ago, it was heresy to talk about an impending global pandemic of obesity." Today, we're seeing chronic disease rates skyrocket around the world. The Western diet has been exported to the far reaches of the planet, with white flour, sugar, fat, and animal-based foods replacing beans, peas, lentils, other vegetables, and whole grains.

In order to understand the reasons underlying this trend toward greater consumption of animal products, sugar, and oils, and reduced consumption of whole plant foods, we need to begin by understanding the purposeful economic manipulations that have occurred since World War II relating to agricultural policies around the world. For example, since early in the last century, the U.S. government "has supported food production through subsidies and other policies, resulting in large surpluses of food commodities, meat, and calories. In this artificial market, large food producers and corporations-Big Agriculture and Big Food-became very profitable." Their profitability may be part of the problem.

Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, gave the opening address at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion. One of the biggest challenges facing health promotion worldwide, she said, is that the efforts to prevent our top killers "go against the business interests of powerful economic operators." It is not just Big Tobacco anymore. "Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation and protect themselves by using the same tactics...front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and industry-funded research that confuses the evidence and keeps the public in doubt."

And the World Health Organization should know. In 2003, the organization released a draft report that outlined a global strategy to address issues of diet. Although many of the WHO's recommendations were rather tame, a remarkable series of events was spurred by six words in the report: "limit the intake of 'free' sugars" (added sugar). Within days, the sugar industry, through the Sugar Association, enlisted the support of officials high in the U.S. government and led a vigorous attack on both the report and the World Health Organization itself, culminating in a threat to get Congress to withdraw U.S. funding to the WHO. The WHO, the organization that "deals with AIDS, malnutrition, infectious disease, bioterrorism, and more, threatened because of its stance on sugar." At the same time, the U.S. went to bat for American tobacco companies and led the charge against the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

As discussed in my video, Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization, the threat from the sugar industry was described by WHO insiders as worse than any pressure they ever got from the tobacco lobby. As revealed in an internal memo, the U.S. government apparently had a list of demands. These included deletion of all references to the science that WHO experts had compiled on the matter and the removal of all references to fat, oils, sugar, and salt.

The threats failed to make the WHO withdraw their report. Entitled "Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease," it "concluded that a diet low in saturated fat, sugar and salt and high in fruit and vegetables was required to tackle the epidemic rise in chronic diseases worldwide." They did end up watering it down, though. Gone was reference to the comprehensive scientific report, and gone was its call for its recommendations to be actually translated into national guidelines.

History has since repeated. At the last high-level United Nations meeting to address chronic diseases, representatives from some Western countries, including the United States, helped block a consensus on action after lobbying from the alcohol, food, tobacco, and drug industries. When asked why Michelle Obama's successful childhood obesity programs in the U.S. should not be modeled around the world, a U.S. official responded that they might harm American exports.

See also: How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?

If sugar is bad, then what about all the sugar in fruit? See If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit? and How Much Fruit Is Too Much?.

For more on the corrupting political and economic influences in nutrition, see videos such as:

And because of that, check out a couple of my introductory videos: Why You Should Care about Nutrition and Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health.

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