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

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet

How to Treat High Blood Pressure with Diet.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Sally Plank / Flickr. Image has been modified.

Original Link

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?

How Much Water Should We Drink Every Day?.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Sally Plank / Flickr. Image has been modified.

Original Link

Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?

Vegsource.jpeg

Pesticides have been classified as probable carcinogens for 25 years. Different pesticides have been associated with different cancers through a variety of mechanisms, including genetic damage--direct hits to our DNA or chromosomes--and epigenetic modification, changes in the way our genes are expressed. These effects have been documented in workers who are spraying the pesticides, but exposure to pesticide residues that remain on food is much smaller.

More recently, higher cancer rates have also been noted in people who live in areas where pesticides are heavily sprayed, but what about the food we buy at the store? Organic fruits and vegetables have fewer pesticides, but even the levels on conventional produce are generally well below acceptable limits. There is still scientific controversy about the safety of some pesticides even under the regulatory limits, however, given the possible additive effects of the mixture of pesticides to which we're exposed. The pesticide approval process also doesn't take into account toxic breakdown products such as dioxins that can form once pesticides are released into the environment.

Cadmium is another issue. In the largest review to date, involving hundreds of studies, not only did organic foods have more antioxidant phytonutrients, but lower concentrations of cadmium. Cadmium is one of three highly toxic heavy metals (along with lead and mercury) found in the food supply. Cadmium accumulates in the body, so we should try to keep intake as low as possible. Organic crops only have about half the cadmium, which is thought to come from the phosphate fertilizers that are added to conventional crops.

Of course, not all organic foods are healthy. The organic food industry is now worth tens of billions of dollars, and they didn't get that way just selling carrots. We can now buy pesticide-free potato chips and organic jelly beans. Organic foods can be even worse because, for example, people falsely judge organic Oreo cookies to have fewer calories than conventional Oreos, and so may eat more. Forgoing exercise was deemed more acceptable when the person had just chosen an organic dessert rather than a conventional one. In fact, leniency toward forgoing exercise was slightly greater after choosing an organic dessert than after eating no dessert at all--organic cookies were effectively viewed as having negative calories! Organic junk food is still junk food.

Not only do people tend to overestimate the nutritional benefits of organic foods, they also overestimate the risks of pesticides. People think that as many people die from pesticide residues on conventional food as die in motor vehicle accidents in the United States. Surveys have found organic food buyers may think eating conventional produce is almost as bad as smoking a pack of cigarettes. That kind of thinking is dangerous because it could potentially lead to a decrease in overall fruit and vegetable consumption.

If just half of the U.S. population were to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by a single serving a day, an estimated 20,000 cancer cases might be avoided each year. That's how powerful produce may be. But, because the model was using conventional fruits and veggies, the pesticide burden from those extra fruits and vegetables might result in 10 additional cancer cases. So overall, if half of us ate one more serving, we'd just prevent 19,990 cases of cancer a year.

Now that was a paper written by scientists-for-hire paid for by the Alliance for Food and Farming, which is a bunch of conventional produce growers, so they probably exaggerated the benefits and minimized the risks, but I think the bottom line is sound. We get a tremendous benefit from eating conventional fruits and vegetables that far outweighs whatever tiny bump in risk we may get from the pesticides. Why not reap the benefits without the risk and choose organic? Great! But we should never let concern about pesticides stop us from stuffing our face with as many fruits and vegetables as possible.

My video, Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?, was the final installment of a 5-part series on organics. The first four videos are:

I've covered the issue of cadmium in our diet before in Cadmium and Cancer: Plant vs. Animal Foods and Male Fertility and Diet. Heavy metals are found concentrated in seafood and organ meats, but can also be found in certain supplements and protein powders.

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

Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?

Vegsource.jpeg

Pesticides have been classified as probable carcinogens for 25 years. Different pesticides have been associated with different cancers through a variety of mechanisms, including genetic damage--direct hits to our DNA or chromosomes--and epigenetic modification, changes in the way our genes are expressed. These effects have been documented in workers who are spraying the pesticides, but exposure to pesticide residues that remain on food is much smaller.

More recently, higher cancer rates have also been noted in people who live in areas where pesticides are heavily sprayed, but what about the food we buy at the store? Organic fruits and vegetables have fewer pesticides, but even the levels on conventional produce are generally well below acceptable limits. There is still scientific controversy about the safety of some pesticides even under the regulatory limits, however, given the possible additive effects of the mixture of pesticides to which we're exposed. The pesticide approval process also doesn't take into account toxic breakdown products such as dioxins that can form once pesticides are released into the environment.

Cadmium is another issue. In the largest review to date, involving hundreds of studies, not only did organic foods have more antioxidant phytonutrients, but lower concentrations of cadmium. Cadmium is one of three highly toxic heavy metals (along with lead and mercury) found in the food supply. Cadmium accumulates in the body, so we should try to keep intake as low as possible. Organic crops only have about half the cadmium, which is thought to come from the phosphate fertilizers that are added to conventional crops.

Of course, not all organic foods are healthy. The organic food industry is now worth tens of billions of dollars, and they didn't get that way just selling carrots. We can now buy pesticide-free potato chips and organic jelly beans. Organic foods can be even worse because, for example, people falsely judge organic Oreo cookies to have fewer calories than conventional Oreos, and so may eat more. Forgoing exercise was deemed more acceptable when the person had just chosen an organic dessert rather than a conventional one. In fact, leniency toward forgoing exercise was slightly greater after choosing an organic dessert than after eating no dessert at all--organic cookies were effectively viewed as having negative calories! Organic junk food is still junk food.

Not only do people tend to overestimate the nutritional benefits of organic foods, they also overestimate the risks of pesticides. People think that as many people die from pesticide residues on conventional food as die in motor vehicle accidents in the United States. Surveys have found organic food buyers may think eating conventional produce is almost as bad as smoking a pack of cigarettes. That kind of thinking is dangerous because it could potentially lead to a decrease in overall fruit and vegetable consumption.

If just half of the U.S. population were to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by a single serving a day, an estimated 20,000 cancer cases might be avoided each year. That's how powerful produce may be. But, because the model was using conventional fruits and veggies, the pesticide burden from those extra fruits and vegetables might result in 10 additional cancer cases. So overall, if half of us ate one more serving, we'd just prevent 19,990 cases of cancer a year.

Now that was a paper written by scientists-for-hire paid for by the Alliance for Food and Farming, which is a bunch of conventional produce growers, so they probably exaggerated the benefits and minimized the risks, but I think the bottom line is sound. We get a tremendous benefit from eating conventional fruits and vegetables that far outweighs whatever tiny bump in risk we may get from the pesticides. Why not reap the benefits without the risk and choose organic? Great! But we should never let concern about pesticides stop us from stuffing our face with as many fruits and vegetables as possible.

My video, Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?, was the final installment of a 5-part series on organics. The first four videos are:

I've covered the issue of cadmium in our diet before in Cadmium and Cancer: Plant vs. Animal Foods and Male Fertility and Diet. Heavy metals are found concentrated in seafood and organ meats, but can also be found in certain supplements and protein powders.

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

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression.jpeg

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rates of all of our top 10 killers have fallen or stabilized except for one, suicide. As shown in my video, Antioxidants & Depression, accumulating evidence indicates that free radicals may play important roles in the development of various neuropsychiatric disorders including major depression, a common cause of suicide.

In a study of nearly 300,000 Canadians, for example, greater fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with lower odds of depression, psychological distress, self-reported mood and anxiety disorders and poor perceived mental health. They conclude that since a healthy diet comprised of a high intake of fruits and vegetables is rich in anti-oxidants, it may consequently dampen the detrimental effects of oxidative stress on mental health.

But that study was based on asking how many fruits and veggies people ate. Maybe people were just telling the researchers what they thought they wanted to hear. What if you actually measure the levels of carotenoid phytonutrients in people's bloodstreams? The same relationship is found. Testing nearly 2000 people across the United States, researchers found that a higher total blood carotenoid level was indeed associated with a lower likelihood of elevated depressive symptoms, and there appeared to be a dose-response relationship, meaning the higher the levels, the better people felt.

Lycopene, the red pigment predominantly found in tomatoes (but also present in watermelon, pink grapefruit, guava and papaya) is the most powerful carotenoid antioxidant. In a test tube, it's about 100 times more effective at quenching free radicals than a more familiar antioxidant like vitamin E.

Do people who eat more tomatoes have less depression, then? Apparently so. A study of about a thousand older men and women found that those who ate the most tomato products had only about half the odds of depression. The researchers conclude that a tomato-rich diet may have a beneficial effect on the prevention of depressive symptoms.

Higher consumption of fruits and vegetables has been found to lead to a lower risk of developing depression, but if it's the antioxidants can't we just take an antioxidant pill? No.

Only food sources of antioxidants were protectively associated with depression. Not antioxidants from dietary supplements. Although plant foods and food-derived phytochemicals have been associated with health benefits, antioxidants from dietary supplements appear to be less beneficial and may, in fact, be detrimental to health. This may indicate that the form and delivery of the antioxidants are important. Alternatively, the observed associations may be due not to antioxidants but rather to other dietary factors, such as folate, that also occur in plant-rich diets.

In a study of thousands of middle-aged office workers, eating lots of processed food was found to be a risk factor for at least mild to moderate depression five years later, whereas a whole food pattern was found to be protective. Yes, it could be because of the high content of antioxidants in fruits and vegetables but could also be the folate in greens and beans, as some studies have suggested an increased risk of depression in folks who may not have been eating enough.

Low folate levels in the blood are associated with depression, but since most of the early studies were cross-sectional, meaning a snapshot in time, we didn't know if the low folate led to depression or the depression led to low folate. Maybe when you have the blues you don't want to eat the greens.

But since then a number of cohort studies were published, following people over time. They show that a low dietary intake of folate may indeed be a risk factor for severe depression, as much as a threefold higher risk. Note this is for dietary folate intake, not folic acid supplements; those with higher levels were actually eating healthy foods. If you give people folic acid pills they don't seem to work. This may be because folate is found in dark green leafy vegetables like spinach, whereas folic acid is the oxidized synthetic compound used in food fortification and dietary supplements because it's more shelf-stable. It may have different effects on the body as I previously explored in Can Folic Acid Be Harmful?

These kinds of findings point to the importance of antioxidant food sources rather than dietary supplements. But there was an interesting study giving people high dose vitamin C. In contrast to the placebo group, those given vitamin C experienced a decrease in depression scores and also greater FSI. What is FSI? Frequency of Sexual Intercourse.

Evidently, high dose vitamin C improves mood and intercourse frequency, but only in sexual partners that don't live with one another. In the placebo group, those not living together had sex about once a week, and those living together a little higher, once every five days, with no big change on vitamin C. But for those not living together, on vitamin C? Every other day! The differential effect for non-cohabitants suggests that the mechanism is not a peripheral one, meaning outside the brain, but a central one--some psychological change which motivates the person to venture forth to have intercourse. The mild antidepressant effect they found was unrelated to cohabitation or frequency, so it does not appear that the depression scores improved just because of the improved FSI.

For more mental health video, see:

Anything else we can do to enhance our sexual health and attractiveness? 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 / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression.jpeg

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rates of all of our top 10 killers have fallen or stabilized except for one, suicide. As shown in my video, Antioxidants & Depression, accumulating evidence indicates that free radicals may play important roles in the development of various neuropsychiatric disorders including major depression, a common cause of suicide.

In a study of nearly 300,000 Canadians, for example, greater fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with lower odds of depression, psychological distress, self-reported mood and anxiety disorders and poor perceived mental health. They conclude that since a healthy diet comprised of a high intake of fruits and vegetables is rich in anti-oxidants, it may consequently dampen the detrimental effects of oxidative stress on mental health.

But that study was based on asking how many fruits and veggies people ate. Maybe people were just telling the researchers what they thought they wanted to hear. What if you actually measure the levels of carotenoid phytonutrients in people's bloodstreams? The same relationship is found. Testing nearly 2000 people across the United States, researchers found that a higher total blood carotenoid level was indeed associated with a lower likelihood of elevated depressive symptoms, and there appeared to be a dose-response relationship, meaning the higher the levels, the better people felt.

Lycopene, the red pigment predominantly found in tomatoes (but also present in watermelon, pink grapefruit, guava and papaya) is the most powerful carotenoid antioxidant. In a test tube, it's about 100 times more effective at quenching free radicals than a more familiar antioxidant like vitamin E.

Do people who eat more tomatoes have less depression, then? Apparently so. A study of about a thousand older men and women found that those who ate the most tomato products had only about half the odds of depression. The researchers conclude that a tomato-rich diet may have a beneficial effect on the prevention of depressive symptoms.

Higher consumption of fruits and vegetables has been found to lead to a lower risk of developing depression, but if it's the antioxidants can't we just take an antioxidant pill? No.

Only food sources of antioxidants were protectively associated with depression. Not antioxidants from dietary supplements. Although plant foods and food-derived phytochemicals have been associated with health benefits, antioxidants from dietary supplements appear to be less beneficial and may, in fact, be detrimental to health. This may indicate that the form and delivery of the antioxidants are important. Alternatively, the observed associations may be due not to antioxidants but rather to other dietary factors, such as folate, that also occur in plant-rich diets.

In a study of thousands of middle-aged office workers, eating lots of processed food was found to be a risk factor for at least mild to moderate depression five years later, whereas a whole food pattern was found to be protective. Yes, it could be because of the high content of antioxidants in fruits and vegetables but could also be the folate in greens and beans, as some studies have suggested an increased risk of depression in folks who may not have been eating enough.

Low folate levels in the blood are associated with depression, but since most of the early studies were cross-sectional, meaning a snapshot in time, we didn't know if the low folate led to depression or the depression led to low folate. Maybe when you have the blues you don't want to eat the greens.

But since then a number of cohort studies were published, following people over time. They show that a low dietary intake of folate may indeed be a risk factor for severe depression, as much as a threefold higher risk. Note this is for dietary folate intake, not folic acid supplements; those with higher levels were actually eating healthy foods. If you give people folic acid pills they don't seem to work. This may be because folate is found in dark green leafy vegetables like spinach, whereas folic acid is the oxidized synthetic compound used in food fortification and dietary supplements because it's more shelf-stable. It may have different effects on the body as I previously explored in Can Folic Acid Be Harmful?

These kinds of findings point to the importance of antioxidant food sources rather than dietary supplements. But there was an interesting study giving people high dose vitamin C. In contrast to the placebo group, those given vitamin C experienced a decrease in depression scores and also greater FSI. What is FSI? Frequency of Sexual Intercourse.

Evidently, high dose vitamin C improves mood and intercourse frequency, but only in sexual partners that don't live with one another. In the placebo group, those not living together had sex about once a week, and those living together a little higher, once every five days, with no big change on vitamin C. But for those not living together, on vitamin C? Every other day! The differential effect for non-cohabitants suggests that the mechanism is not a peripheral one, meaning outside the brain, but a central one--some psychological change which motivates the person to venture forth to have intercourse. The mild antidepressant effect they found was unrelated to cohabitation or frequency, so it does not appear that the depression scores improved just because of the improved FSI.

For more mental health video, see:

Anything else we can do to enhance our sexual health and attractiveness? 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 / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link