Are Sugar Pills Better than Antidepressant Drugs?

Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work.jpg

We've learned that exercise compares favorably to antidepressant medications as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate depression (in my video Exercise vs. Drugs for Depression). But how much is that really saying? How effective are antidepressant drugs in the first place?

A recent meta-analysis sparked huge scientific and public controversy by stating that the placebo effect can explain the apparent clinical benefits of antidepressants. But aren't there thousands of clinical trials providing compelling evidence for antidepressant effectiveness? If a meta-analysis compiles together all the best published research, how could it say they don't work much better than sugar pills?

The key word is "published."

What if a drug company decided only to publish studies that showed a positive effect, but quietly shelved and concealed any studies showing the drug didn't work? If you didn't know any better, you'd look at the published medical literature and think "Wow, this drug is great." And what if all the drug companies did that? To find out if this was the case, researchers applied to the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to get access to the published and unpublished studies submitted by pharmaceutical companies, and what they found was shocking.

According to the published literature, the results of nearly all the trials of antidepressants were positive, meaning they worked. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed only roughly half of the trials had positive results. In other words, about half the studies showed the drugs didn't work. Thus, when published and unpublished data are combined, they fail to show a clinically significant advantage for antidepressant medication over a sugar pill. Not publishing negative results undermines evidence-based medicine and puts millions of patients at risk for using ineffective or unsafe drugs, and this was the case with these antidepressant drugs.

These revelations hit first in 2008. Prozac, Serzone, Paxil and Effexor worked, but so did sugar pills, and the difference between the drug and placebo was small. That was 2008. Where were we by 2014? Analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants are due to the placebo effect. And what's even worse, Freedom of Information Act documents show the FDA knew about it but made an explicit decision to keep this information from the public and from prescribing physicians.

How could drug companies get away with this?

The pharmaceutical industry is considered the most profitable and politically influential industry in the United States, and mental illness can be thought of as the drug industry's golden goose: incurable, common, long term and involving multiple medications. Antidepressant medications are prescribed to 8.7 percent of the U.S. population. It's a multi-billion dollar market.

To summarize, there is a strong therapeutic response to antidepressant medication; it's just that the response to placebo is almost as strong. Indeed, antidepressants offer substantial benefits to millions of people suffering from depression, and to cast them as ineffective is inaccurate. Just because they may not work better than fake pills doesn't mean they don't work. It's like homeopathy--just because it doesn't work better than the sugar pills, doesn't mean that homeopathy doesn't work. The placebo effect is real and powerful.

In one psychopharmacology journal, a psychiatrist funded by the Prozac company defends the drugs stating, "A key issue is disregarded by the naysaying critics. If the patient is benefiting from antidepressant treatment does it matter whether this is being achieved via drug or placebo effects?"

Of course it matters!

Among the side effects of antidepressants are: sexual dysfunction in up to three quarters of people, long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea and diarrhea. About one in five show withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. And perhaps more tragically, the drugs may make people more likely to become depressed in the future. Let me say that again: People are more likely to become depressed after treatment by antidepressants than after treatment by other means - including placebo.

So if doctors are willing to give patients placebo-equivalent treatments, maybe it'd be better for them to just lie to patients and give them actual sugar pills. Yes, that involves deception, but isn't that preferable than deception with a side of side effects? See more on this in my video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?

If different treatments are equally effective, then choice should be based on risk and harm, and of all of the available treatments, antidepressant drugs may be among the riskiest and most harmful. If they are to be used at all, it should be as a last resort, when depression is extremely severe and all other treatment alternatives have been tried and failed.

Antidepressants may not work better than placebo for mild and moderate depression, but for very severe depression, the drugs do beat out sugar pills. But that's just a small fraction of the people taking these drugs. That means that the vast majority of depressed patients--as many as nine out of ten--are being prescribed medications that have negligible benefits to them.

Too many doctors quickly decide upon a depression diagnosis without necessarily listening to what the patient has to say and end up putting them on antidepressants without considering alternatives. And fortunately, there are effective alternatives. Physical exercise, for example can have lasting effects, and if that turns out to also be a placebo effect, it is at least a placebo with an enviable list of side effects. Whereas side effects of antidepressants include things like sexual dysfunction and insomnia, side effects of exercise include enhanced libido, better sleep, decreased body fat, improved muscle tone and a longer life.


There are other ways meta-analyses can be misleading. See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

More on the ethical challenges facing doctors and whether or not to prescribe sugar pills in The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

I've used the Freedom of Information Act myself to get access to behind the scenes industry shenanigans. See, for example, what I found out about the egg industry in Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe? and Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims.

This isn't the only case of the medical profession overselling the benefits of drugs. See How Smoking in 1956 is Like Eating in 2016, The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure (though if you're worried about your mood they might make you even more depressed!)

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: GraphicStock. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Are Sugar Pills Better than Antidepressant Drugs?

Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work.jpg

We've learned that exercise compares favorably to antidepressant medications as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate depression (in my video Exercise vs. Drugs for Depression). But how much is that really saying? How effective are antidepressant drugs in the first place?

A recent meta-analysis sparked huge scientific and public controversy by stating that the placebo effect can explain the apparent clinical benefits of antidepressants. But aren't there thousands of clinical trials providing compelling evidence for antidepressant effectiveness? If a meta-analysis compiles together all the best published research, how could it say they don't work much better than sugar pills?

The key word is "published."

What if a drug company decided only to publish studies that showed a positive effect, but quietly shelved and concealed any studies showing the drug didn't work? If you didn't know any better, you'd look at the published medical literature and think "Wow, this drug is great." And what if all the drug companies did that? To find out if this was the case, researchers applied to the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to get access to the published and unpublished studies submitted by pharmaceutical companies, and what they found was shocking.

According to the published literature, the results of nearly all the trials of antidepressants were positive, meaning they worked. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed only roughly half of the trials had positive results. In other words, about half the studies showed the drugs didn't work. Thus, when published and unpublished data are combined, they fail to show a clinically significant advantage for antidepressant medication over a sugar pill. Not publishing negative results undermines evidence-based medicine and puts millions of patients at risk for using ineffective or unsafe drugs, and this was the case with these antidepressant drugs.

These revelations hit first in 2008. Prozac, Serzone, Paxil and Effexor worked, but so did sugar pills, and the difference between the drug and placebo was small. That was 2008. Where were we by 2014? Analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits of antidepressants are due to the placebo effect. And what's even worse, Freedom of Information Act documents show the FDA knew about it but made an explicit decision to keep this information from the public and from prescribing physicians.

How could drug companies get away with this?

The pharmaceutical industry is considered the most profitable and politically influential industry in the United States, and mental illness can be thought of as the drug industry's golden goose: incurable, common, long term and involving multiple medications. Antidepressant medications are prescribed to 8.7 percent of the U.S. population. It's a multi-billion dollar market.

To summarize, there is a strong therapeutic response to antidepressant medication; it's just that the response to placebo is almost as strong. Indeed, antidepressants offer substantial benefits to millions of people suffering from depression, and to cast them as ineffective is inaccurate. Just because they may not work better than fake pills doesn't mean they don't work. It's like homeopathy--just because it doesn't work better than the sugar pills, doesn't mean that homeopathy doesn't work. The placebo effect is real and powerful.

In one psychopharmacology journal, a psychiatrist funded by the Prozac company defends the drugs stating, "A key issue is disregarded by the naysaying critics. If the patient is benefiting from antidepressant treatment does it matter whether this is being achieved via drug or placebo effects?"

Of course it matters!

Among the side effects of antidepressants are: sexual dysfunction in up to three quarters of people, long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea and diarrhea. About one in five show withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. And perhaps more tragically, the drugs may make people more likely to become depressed in the future. Let me say that again: People are more likely to become depressed after treatment by antidepressants than after treatment by other means - including placebo.

So if doctors are willing to give patients placebo-equivalent treatments, maybe it'd be better for them to just lie to patients and give them actual sugar pills. Yes, that involves deception, but isn't that preferable than deception with a side of side effects? See more on this in my video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?

If different treatments are equally effective, then choice should be based on risk and harm, and of all of the available treatments, antidepressant drugs may be among the riskiest and most harmful. If they are to be used at all, it should be as a last resort, when depression is extremely severe and all other treatment alternatives have been tried and failed.

Antidepressants may not work better than placebo for mild and moderate depression, but for very severe depression, the drugs do beat out sugar pills. But that's just a small fraction of the people taking these drugs. That means that the vast majority of depressed patients--as many as nine out of ten--are being prescribed medications that have negligible benefits to them.

Too many doctors quickly decide upon a depression diagnosis without necessarily listening to what the patient has to say and end up putting them on antidepressants without considering alternatives. And fortunately, there are effective alternatives. Physical exercise, for example can have lasting effects, and if that turns out to also be a placebo effect, it is at least a placebo with an enviable list of side effects. Whereas side effects of antidepressants include things like sexual dysfunction and insomnia, side effects of exercise include enhanced libido, better sleep, decreased body fat, improved muscle tone and a longer life.


There are other ways meta-analyses can be misleading. See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

More on the ethical challenges facing doctors and whether or not to prescribe sugar pills in The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

I've used the Freedom of Information Act myself to get access to behind the scenes industry shenanigans. See, for example, what I found out about the egg industry in Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe? and Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims.

This isn't the only case of the medical profession overselling the benefits of drugs. See How Smoking in 1956 is Like Eating in 2016, The Actual Benefit of Diet vs. Drugs and Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure (though if you're worried about your mood they might make you even more depressed!)

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: GraphicStock. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Side-Effects of Aspartame on the Brain

NF-Sept1 Aspartame and the Brain.jpeg

The National Institutes of Health AARP study of hundreds of thousands of Americans followed for years found that frequent consumption of sweetened beverages, especially diet drinks, may increase depression risk among older adults. Whether soda, fruit-flavored drinks, or iced tea, those artificially sweetened drinks appeared to carry higher risk. There was a benefit in coffee drinkers compared to non-drinkers, but if they added sugar, much of the benefits appeared to disappear, and if they added Equal or Sweet-and-Low, the risk appeared to go up.

Various effects of artificial sweeteners, including neurological effects, have been suspected. For example, aspartame--the chemical in Equal and Nutrasweet--may modulate brain neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin, although data have been controversial and inconsistent. Scientific opinions range from "safe under all conditions" to "unsafe at any dose." The controversy started in the 80's soon after aspartame was approved. Researchers at the Mass College of Pharmacy and MIT noted:

"given the very large number of Americans routinely exposed, if only 1% of the 100,000,000 Americans thought to consume aspartame ever exceed the sweetener's acceptable daily intake, and if only 1% of this group happen coincidentally to have an underlying disease that makes their brains vulnerable to the effects, then the number of people who might manifest adverse brain reactions attributable to aspartame could still be about 10,000, a number on the same order as the number of brain and nerve-related consumer complaints already registered with the FDA before they stopped accepting further reports on adverse reactions to the sweetener."

Those with a history of depression might be especially vulnerable. Researchers at Case Western designed a study I highlighted in my video Aspartame and the Brain to ascertain whether individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame. Although they had planned on recruiting 40 patients with depression and 40 controls, the project was halted early by the Institutional Review Board for safety reasons because of the severity of reactions to aspartame within the group of patients with a history of depression.

It was decided that it was unethical to continue to expose people to the stuff.

Normally when we study a drug or a food, the company donates the product to the researchers because they're proud of the benefits or safety of their product. But the Nutrasweet company refused to even sell it to these researchers. The researchers managed to get their hands on some, and within a week there were significantly more adverse effects reported in the aspartame group than in the placebo group. They concluded that individuals with mood disorders may be particularly sensitive to aspartame, and therefore its use in this population should be discouraged.

In a review of the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, it was noted that there are reports of aspartame causing neurological and behavioral disturbances in sensitive individuals, such as headaches, insomnia and seizures. The researchers go even further and propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the development of certain mental disorders and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning. They conclude that "due to all the adverse effects caused by aspartame, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies," to which someone responded in the journal that "there really is no controversy," arguing that aspartame was conclusively toxic.

But what do they mean by excessive ingestion? The latest study on the neuro-behavioral effects of aspartame consumption put people on a high aspartame diet compared to a low aspartame diet. But even the high dose at 25 mg/kg was only half the adequate daily intake set by the FDA. The FDA says one can safely consume 50mg a day, but after just eight days on half of that, participants had more irritable mood, exhibited more depression, and performed worse on certain brain function tests. And these weren't people with a pre-existing history of mental illness; these were just regular people. The researchers concluded that "given that the higher intake level tested here was well below the maximum acceptable daily intake level [40mg in Europe, 50mg here] careful consideration is warranted when consuming food products that may affect neurobehavioral health."

Easier said than done, since it's found in more than 6,000 foods, apparently making artificial sweeteners "impossible to completely eradicate from daily exposure." While that may be true for the great majority of Americans, it's only because they elect to eat processed foods. If we stick to whole foods, we don't even have to read the ingredients lists, because the healthiest foods in the supermarket are label-free, they don't even have ingredients lists--produce!

I've previously touched on artificial sweeteners before:

The healthiest caloric sweeteners are blackstrap molasses and date sugar (whole dried powdered dates). The least toxic low-calorie sweetener is probably erythritol (Erythritol May Be a Sweet Antioxidant).

Coffee may decrease suicide and cancer risk (Preventing Liver Cancer with Coffee? and Coffee and Cancer) but may impair blood flow to the heart (Coffee and Artery Function).

Other ways to improve mood include:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Original Link

Which are More Anti-Inflammatory: Sweet Cherries or Tart Cherries?

NF-Oct6 Anti-inflammatory life is a bowl full of cherries.jpg

Haggis, the national dish of Scotland, is a savory pudding of heart, liver, lungs, and oatmeal traditionally stuffed inside of a stomach. When that stomach goes into our own stomach, our digestive enzymes and stomach acid have no problem digesting it away. How do our bodies digests the stomach lining of a sheep on our plate without digesting our own stomach linings? It's meat and we're meat, so why don't we digest our own stomach every time we eat?

Partly because we have an enzyme called cyclooxygenase (COX) that protects the lining of our stomach. There are two types, COX-1 and COX-2. COX-1 is thought to be the primary protector of our stomach, whereas COX-2 is an enzyme responsible for pain and inflammation. In fact, anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen work by inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme. But these are non-selective drugs, so in addition to inhibiting COX-2 they also inhibit COX-1, which is trying to protect our stomach linings. Thus, although drugs like ibuprofen are great at relieving pain and inflammation, they kill thousands every year due to ulcerations through the stomach wall that result in life-threatening bleeding and perforation.

What are the risks on an individual level? On average, one in about 1,200 people who take this class of drugs for at least two months will die as a result. To put this into perspective, we can compare the death rate from anti-inflammatory drug side-effects to the risks associated with some well-known events. For example, it may be safer to go bungee jumping a few hundred times.

What we need is a selective COX-2 inhibitor, inhibiting the pain and inflammation of COX-2 without inhibiting the stomach protection of COX-1. We thought we got it with Vioxx, a blockbuster drug that brought in billions in profits before it started killing tens of thousands of peoples. Internal emails reveal how the drug manufacturer responded to the revelation that they were killing people: They drew up a list of doctors who were trying to warn people to "neutralize" them. If that didn't work, they tried to discredit them (You can see the emails in the video, Anti-inflammatory Life Is a Bowl of Cherries).

We're left then with two options: death from internal bleeding from one type of drug or death from side effects from another type of drug. If only there was some sort of natural COX-2 inhibitor. There is: cherries, which unlike ibuprofen suppress COX-2 more than COX-1.

In videos I did on insomnia and reducing muscle soreness (See Tart Cherries for Insomnia and Reducing Muscle Soreness with Berries), I talked about the benefits of sour cherries, the types of cherries used in baking. But sweet cherries, the kind you eat fresh, seem to be the MVP for COX-2 inhibition. Tart cherries had less of an effect. Regular red sweet cherries (Bing sweet cherries) were shown to have a greater anti-inflammatory activity than tart cherries. This makes sense since we think it may be the anthocyanin phytonutrients, and there are much more in sweet red cherries than in tart, and nearly none in yellow Rainer cherries.

Because fresh cherries have limited availability, what about other cherry products? In terms of anthocyanin phytonutrients, fresh is best, but frozen would appear to be the second-best choice.

Here are two ways I incorporate cherries into my diet:

Other studies in which anti-inflammatory drugs were compared natural dietary remedies include: Turmeric Curcumin and Osteoarthritis and Turmeric Curcumin and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Anti-inflammatory activity in a test tube is one thing, but can cherries actually be used clinically to treat inflammatory diseases? See Gout Treatment with a Cherry on Top.

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: Valdemar Fishmen / Flickr

Original Link

Foods With Natural Melatonin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foods With Natural Melatonin

We know that inadequate sleeping is associated with changes in diet—people tend to eat worse—but what about the opposite question: Can food affect sleep? In a study on kiwifruit, this seemed possible (see Kiwifruit For Insomnia), but the mechanism the researchers suggested for the effect—the serotonin levels in kiwifruit—doesn’t make any sense, since serotonin can’t cross the blood-brain barrier. We can eat all the serotonin we want and it shouldn’t affect our brain chemistry. A different brain chemical, though, melatonin, can get from our gut to our brain.

Melatonin is a hormone secreted at night by the pineal gland in the center of our brain to help regulate our circadian rhythm. Supplements of the stuff are used to prevent and reduce jet lag, and about 20 years ago MIT got the patent to use melatonin to help people sleep. But melatonin "is not only produced in the pineal gland—it is also naturally present in edible plants."

That might explain the results of a study, “Effects of a Tart Cherry Juice Beverage on the Sleep of Older Adults with Insomnia” (See Tart Cherries for Insomnia). The research group had been doing an earlier study on tart cherry juice as a sports recovery drink. There’s a phytonutrient in cherries with anti-inflammatory effects on par with drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen, so the researchers were trying to see whether tart cherry juice could reduce muscle soreness after exercise. During the study, some of the participants anecdotally noted that they were sleeping better on the cherries. That was unexpected, but the researchers realized that cherries were a source of melatonin so they put them to the test.

The reason they chose older subjects is that melatonin production tends to drop as we age, which may be one reason why there’s a higher insomnia rates among the elderly. So, they took a group of older men and women suffering from chronic insomnia and put half on cherries and half on placebo. They couldn’t use whole cherries for the study—how could you fool people with a placebo cherry? So they used cherry juice versus cherry Kool-Aid.

They found that participants did in fact sleep a little better on the cherry juice. The effect was modest, but significant. Some, for example, fell to sleep a few minutes faster and had 17 fewer minutes of waking after sleep onset (waking up in the middle of the night). It was no insomnia cure, but it helped—without side effects.

How do we know it was the melatonin, though? They repeated the study, this time measuring the melatonin levels, and indeed saw a boost in circulating melatonin levels after the cherry juice, but not after the Kool-Aid. Similar results were found in people eating the actual cherries—seven different varieties boosted melatonin levels and actual sleep times. The effects of all the other phytonutrients in cherries can’t be precluded—maybe they helped too—but if it is the melatonin, there are more potent sources than cherries.

Orange bell peppers have a lot, as do walnuts—and a tablespoon of flaxseeds has about as much as a tomato. See the chart in my video Tart Cherries for Insomnia. The melatonin content of tomatoes was suggested as one of the reasons traditional Mediterranean diets were so healthy. They have less melatonin than the tart cherries, but people may eat a lot more tomatoes than cherries. Sweet cherries have 50 times less melatonin than tart ones; dried cherries appear to have none.

A few spices are pretty potent: just a teaspoon of fenugreek or mustard seeds has as much as a few tomatoes.  The bronze and silver go to almonds and raspberries, though. And the gold goes to gojis. Goji berries were just off the charts.

Aren’t goji berries really expensive, though? Not if you buy them as lycium berries. Check out my video Are Goji Berries Good for You?

I’ve previously explored Human Neurotransmitters in Plants in the context of boosting serotonin levels in the brain to improve mood. See:

Melatonin may also play a role in cancer prevention. See Melatonin & Breast Cancer. 

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image credit: Elizabeth / Flickr

Original Link

Two Kiwifruit an Hour Before Bedtime

NF-Apr1 Kiwis Might Improve Your Sleep!.jpg

The number one question in sleep research is “Why do we sleep?” followed by the question,“How much sleep do we need?” After literally hundreds of studies, we still don’t know the best answer to either question. A few years ago, I featured a large, 100,000-person study which suggested that both short and long sleep duration were associated with increased mortality, with people getting around seven hours of sleep living longest (See Optimal Sleep Duration). Since then, a meta-analysis that included over a million people was published, and found the same thing.

We still don’t know, however, whether "sleep duration is a cause or simply a marker of ill health." Maybe sleeping too little or too long does make us unhealthy—or maybe we see the associated shortened lifespan because being unhealthy causes us to sleep shorter or longer.

Similar work has now been published on cognitive function. After controlling for a long list of factors, men and women in their 50s and 60s getting seven or eight hours appeared to have the best short-term memory compared to those that got much more or much less. The same thing was just demonstrated with immune function where “both reduced and prolonged habitual sleep durations were associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.”

It’s easy to not get too much sleep—just set an alarm. But what if we’re having problems getting enough? What if we’re one of the one in three adults that suffer symptoms of insomnia? There are sleeping pills like Valium that we can take in the short term, but they have a number of adverse side effects. Non-pharmacological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy are often difficult, time-consuming, and not always effective. Wouldn’t it be great to have “natural treatments that can improve both sleep onset and help patients improve the quality of sleep while improving next-day symptoms over the long term?”

What about a study on kiwifruit, featured in my video, Kiwifruit for Insomnia? Participants were given two kiwifruit an hour before bed every night for four weeks. Why kiwifruits? Well, people with sleep disorders tend to have high levels of oxidative stress, so maybe antioxidant rich foods might help? But all fruits and vegetables have antioxidants. Kiwifruits contain twice the serotonin of tomatoes—but it shouldn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Kiwifruit has folate, and a deficiency might cause insomnia—but there’s a lot more folate in some other plant foods.

The reason they studied kiwifruits is because they got grant money from a kiwifruit company. And I’m glad they did because they found some really remarkable results: significantly improved sleep onset, duration, and efficiency using both subjective and objective measurements. Participants went from sleeping an average of six hours a night to seven—by just eating a few kiwifruits.

More on the power of kiwis in my videos Kiwifruit and DNA Repair and Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and more on sleep in Sleep & Immunity.

Videos on other natural remedies for various conditions include:

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image credit: Peter Miller / Flickr

Original Link

Two Kiwifruit an Hour Before Bedtime

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Kiwifruit an Hour Before Bedtime

The number one question in sleep research is “Why do we sleep?” followed by the question,“How much sleep do we need?” After literally hundreds of studies, we still don’t know the best answer to either question. A few years ago, I featured a large, 100,000-person study which suggested that both short and long sleep duration were associated with increased mortality, with people getting around seven hours of sleep living longest (See Optimal Sleep Duration). Since then, a meta-analysis that included over a million people was published, and found the same thing.

We still don’t know, however, whether "sleep duration is a cause or simply a marker of ill health." Maybe sleeping too little or too long does make us unhealthy—or maybe we see the associated shortened lifespan because being unhealthy causes us to sleep shorter or longer.

Similar work has now been published on cognitive function. After controlling for a long list of factors, men and women in their 50s and 60s getting seven or eight hours appeared to have the best short-term memory compared to those that got much more or much less. The same thing was just demonstrated with immune function where “both reduced and prolonged habitual sleep durations were associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.”

It’s easy to not get too much sleep—just set an alarm. But what if we’re having problems getting enough? What if we’re one of the one in three adults that suffer symptoms of insomnia? There are sleeping pills like Valium that we can take in the short term, but they have a number of adverse side effects. Non-pharmacological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy are often difficult, time-consuming, and not always effective. Wouldn’t it be great to have “natural treatments that can improve both sleep onset and help patients improve the quality of sleep while improving next-day symptoms over the long term?”

What about a study on kiwifruit, featured in my video, Kiwifruit for Insomnia? Participants were given two kiwifruit an hour before bed every night for four weeks. Why kiwifruits? Well, people with sleep disorders tend to have high levels of oxidative stress, so maybe antioxidant rich foods might help? But all fruits and vegetables have antioxidants. Kiwifruits contain twice the serotonin of tomatoes—but it shouldn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Kiwifruit has folate, and a deficiency might cause insomnia—but there’s a lot more folate in some other plant foods.

The reason they studied kiwifruits is because they got grant money from a kiwifruit company. And I’m glad they did because they found some really remarkable results: significantly improved sleep onset, duration, and efficiency using both subjective and objective measurements. Participants went from sleeping an average of six hours a night to seven—by just eating a few kiwifruits.

More on the power of kiwis in my videos Kiwifruit and DNA Repair and Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and more on sleep in Sleep & Immunity.

Videos on other natural remedies for various conditions include:

-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 and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image credit: Peter Miller / Flickr

Original Link