Breast Cancer Cells Feed on Cholesterol

NF-Jul14 Cholesterol Feeds Breast Cancer Cells.jpg

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. There are a number of compounds in plant foods that may protect against breast cancer by a variety of mechanisms. I've talked about the benefits of broccoli, flaxseeds, and soy foods before (See Breast Cancer Survival Vegetable, Flaxseeds & Breast Cancer Prevention, and Breast Cancer Survival and Soy) but a recent German study reported something new. The researchers found that sunflower and pumpkin seeds were associated with reduced breast cancer risk. They initially chalked the association up to the lignans in the seeds (See Breast Cancer Survival and Lignan Intake), but their lignan lead didn't pan out. Maybe it's the phytosterols found concentrated in seeds? (See Optimal Phytosterol Source).

There is evidence that phytosterols may be anticancer nutrients and play a role in reducing breast cancer risk. I thought phytosterols just lowered cholesterol? (See How Phytosterols Lower Cholesterol) What does cancer have to do with cholesterol?

Increasing evidence demonstrates the role that cholesterol may play in the development and progression of breast cancer. Cancer feeds on cholesterol. Transformed cells take up LDL, so-called "bad" cholesterol, and it's capable of stimulating the growth of human breast cancer cells in a petri dish.

The ability to accumulate fat and cholesterol may enable cancer cells to take advantage of people eating high fat and high cholesterol diets and at least partially explain the benefit of a low-fat diet on lowering human breast cancer recurrence. Although the data has been mixed, the largest study to date (highlighted in my video, Cholesterol Feeds Breast Cancer Cells) found a 17% increased breast cancer risk in women who had a total cholesterol over 240 compared to women whose cholesterol was under 160. However, the researchers could not rule out that there may be something else in cholesterol-raising foods that's increasing breast cancer risk.

Tumors suck up so much cholesterol that LDL has been considered a vehicle for delivering antitumor drugs to cancer cells. Since cancer feeds on cholesterol, maybe we could stuff some chemo into it like a Trojan horse poison pill?

The uptake of LDL into tumors may be why people's cholesterol levels drop low after they get cancer--the tumor is eating it up. In fact, patient survival may be lowest when cholesterol uptake is highest. "High LDL receptor content in breast cancer tissue seems to indicate a poor prognosis, [suggesting] that breast tumors rich in LDL receptors may grow rapidly [in the body]." We've known about this for decades. You can tell that wass an old study because, when it was published in the '80s, only 1 in 11 American women got breast cancer.

If cholesterol increases breast cancer risk, what about the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs? See Statin Cholesterol Drugs and Invasive Breast Cancer.

More videos on broccoli and soy's protective effects against breast cancer:

Some I didn't mention 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, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Andrew Bennett / Flickr

Original Link

Phytates in Beans: Anti-Nutrient or Anti-Cancer?

NF-May28 Phytates for the Treatment of Cancer.jpg

In my videos, Phytates in the Prevention of Cancer and Phytates for Rehabilitating Cancer Cells, I described how phytates in beans may be the reason why legumes are so successful in preventing cancer and re-educating cancer cells. What about phytates for the treatment of cancer?

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. It arises from "adenomatous polyps," meaning that colon cancer starts out as a benign little bump called a polyp and then grows into cancer that can eventually spread to other organs and kill. So the National Cancer Institute funded the Polyp Prevention Trial, highlighted in my video, Phytates for the Treatment of Cancer, to determine the effects of a high-fiber, high fruit and vegetable, low-fat diet.

Researchers found no significant associations between polyp formation and overall change in fruit and vegetable consumption. However, those with the greatest increase in bean intake only had about a third of the odds of advanced polyps popping up. It could have been the fiber in the beans, but there's lots of fiber in fruits and vegetables, too. So it may have been the phytate.

If the tumors develop from polyps, they still need to spread. Tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis are multistep processes that include cell proliferation, digestion through the surrounding tissue, and migration through barrier membranes to reach the bloodstream so the tumor can establish new proliferating colonies of cancer cells. A critical event in tumor cell invasion is the first step: the tunneling through the surrounding matrix. To do this, the cancer cells use a set of enzymes called matrix metalloproteinases. This is where phytates might come in. We've known that phytates inhibit cancer cell migration in vitro, and now perhaps we know why. Phytates help block the ability of cancer cells to produce the tumor invasion enzyme in the first place (at least for human colon and breast cancer cells).

So what happens if you give phytates to breast cancer patients? Although a few case studies where phytates were given in combination with chemotherapy clearly showed encouraging data, organized, controlled, randomized clinical studies were never done--until now. Fourteen women with invasive breast cancer were divided randomly into two groups. One group got extra phytates; the other got placebo. At the end of six months, the phytate group had a better quality of life, significantly more functionality, fewer symptoms from the chemo, and did not get the drop in immune cells and platelets chemo patients normally experience.

What are the potential side effects of phytates? Less heart disease, less diabetes, and fewer kidney stones.

Because cancer development is such an extended process--it can take decades to grow--we need cancer preventive agents that we can take long-term. Phytates, which naturally occur in beans, grains, nuts, and seeds, seem to fit the bill.

In the past, there were concerns that the intake of foods high in phytates might reduce the bioavailability of dietary minerals, but recent studies demonstrate that this co-called "anti-nutrient" effect can be manifested only when large quantities of phytates are consumed in combination with a nutrient poor diet. For example, there used to be a concern that phytate consumption might lead to calcium deficiency, which then led to weakened bones, but researchers discovered that the opposite was true, that phytates actually protect against osteoporosis (See Phytates for the Prevention of Osteoporosis). In essence, phytates have many characteristics of a vitamin, contrary to the established and, unfortunately, still existing dogma among nutritionists regarding its 'anti-nutrient' role.

As one paper in the International Journal of Food Science & Technology suggests:

"Given the numerous health benefits, phytates participation in important intracellular biochemical pathways, normal physiological presence in our cells, tissues, plasma, urine, etc., the levels of which fluctuate with intake, epidemiological correlates of phytate deficiency with disease and reversal of those conditions by adequate intake, and safety - all strongly suggest for phytates inclusion as an essential nutrient, perhaps a vitamin."

The paper concludes that inclusion of phytates in our diet for prevention and therapy of various ailments, cancer in particular, is warranted.

More on preventing tumor invasion and metastasis in:

Other foods that can help stop the progression of precancerous lesions (like the adenomatous polyps) are profiled in Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer and Black Raspberries versus Oral Cancer.

There's a substance in mushrooms that's also another "essential" nutrient candidate. See Ergothioneine: A New Vitamin?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: The Ewan / Flickr

Original Link

What’s Driving America’s Obesity Problem?

NF-Mar17 What's Driving America's Obesity Problem?.jpg

Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight. By 2030 it is estimated more than half our population may be clinically obese. Childhood obesity has tripled, and most children will grow up to be overweight as well. The United States may be in the midst of raising the first generation since our nation's founding that will have a shorter predicted life span than that of the previous generation.

The food industry blames inactivity. We just need to move more, they say. But what is the role of exercise in the treatment of obesity?

"There is considerable debate in the medical literature today about whether physical activity has any role whatsoever in the epidemic of obesity that has swept the globe since the 1980s." The increase in calories per person is more than sufficient to explain the U.S. epidemic of obesity. In fact, if anything, the level of physical activity over the last few decades has actually gone up in both Europe and North America.

This has important policy implications. We still need to exercise more, but the priorities for reversing the obesity epidemic should focus on the overconsumption of calories (See How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss?). American children are currently eating about an extra 350 calories (equal to about a can of soda and small fries), and adults are eating about an extra 500 calories (equal to about a Big Mac). We'd have to walk two hours a day, seven days a week to burn off those calories. So exercise can prevent weight gain, but the amount required to prevent weight gain may be closer to twice the current recommendations. It's more effective to stick to foods rich in nutrients but poor in calories: see my video Calculate Your Healthy Eating Score. It's cheaper too, see Best Nutrition Bang For Your Buck.

Public health advocates have been experimenting with including this kind of information. One study found that fast food menus labeled with calories and the number of miles to walk to burn those calories appeared the most effective in influencing the selection of lower calorie meals.

Exercise alone may have a small effect, and that small effect can make a big difference on a population scale. A 1% decrease in BMI nationwide might prevent millions of cases of diabetes and heart disease and thousands of cases of cancer. But why don't we lose more weight from exercise? It may be because we're just not doing it enough. "The small magnitude of weight loss observed from the majority of exercise interventions may be primarily due to low doses of prescribed exercise."

People tend to overestimate how many calories are burned by physical activity. For example, there's this myth that a bout of sexual activity burns a few hundred calories. So may think, "Hey, I could get a side of fries with that." But if we actually hook people up and measure energy expenditure during the act (and the study subjects don't get too tangled up with all the wires and hoses) it may be only close to the metabolic equivalent of calisthenics. Given that the average bout of sexual activity only lasts about six minutes, a young man might expend approximately 21 calories during sexual intercourse. Due to baseline metabolic needs, he would have spent roughly one third of that just lying around watching TV, so the incremental benefit is plausibly on the order of 14 calories. So maybe he could have one fry with that.

I previously touched on this in my video Diet or Exercise, What's More Important For Weight Loss?

Don't get me wrong--exercise is wonderful! Check out, for example:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Glamhag / Flickr

Original Link

Comparing Vegans’ Arteries to Runners’

NF-Dec16 How a Vegan's Arteries Compare to a Runner's.jpg

We know from the work of Drs. Dean Ornish and Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr. that switching to a plant-based diet can reverse heart disease, opening up arteries in some cases without drugs or surgery. We can't wait until our first heart attack to start eating healthy, though, because our first symptom of heart disease may be our last (See China Study on Sudden Cardiac Death). Fifty percent of men and 64% of women who die suddenly from coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms.

To predict the risk of dying from a heart attack, we can measure risk factors such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure. But wouldn't it be nice to actually see what's going on inside our arteries before it's too late? Our imaging technologies are so good now that we can, but the required dose of radiation delivered to one's chest is so high that a young woman getting just a single scan may increase her lifetime risk of breast cancer and lung cancer by between around 1% and 4%. More on the radiation risks associated with diagnostic procedures in Cancer Risk From CT Scan Radiation and Do Dental X-Rays Cause Brain Tumors?

Our carotid arteries, though, which connect our heart to our brain, come close enough to the surface in our necks that we can visualize the arterial wall using harmless sound waves (ultrasound). Carotid artery wall thickness is what was measured in the study I profiled in Eggs vs. Cigarettes in Atherosclerosis. How do the arteries of those eating plant-based diets compare to those eating the standard American diet? Researchers gathered up some vegans to find out.

In the video, Arteries of Vegans vs. Runners, you can see the thickness of the inner wall of the carotid arteries where the atherosclerotic plaque (considered a predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality) builds up in the standard American diet group. This same inner layer was significantly slimmer in vegans, but so were the vegans themselves. Those eating the standard American diet were, on average, overweight with a BMI over 26 while the vegans were a trim 21--about 36 pounds lighter on average.

So maybe the only reason those eating meat, eggs, and dairy had thickened arterial walls was because they were overweight--maybe the diet per se had nothing to do with it. To solve the riddle one would have to find a group of people still eating the standard American diet, but as slim as vegans. To find a group that trim, researchers had to use long-distance endurance athletes, who ate the standard American diet, but ran an average of 48 miles per week for 21 years. Both the vegans and the conventional diet group were sedentary--less than an hour of exercise a week.

As you can see in the video, the average thickness of endurance runners' carotid arteries is between that of sedentary vegans and omnivores. It appears that if we run an average of about a thousand miles every year we can rival some couch potato vegans. But that doesn't mean we can't do both.

Another comparison between athletes and plant-eaters can be found in Is It the Diet, the Exercise, or Both? It compares cancer-fighting abilities with a similar result.

None of this is to disparage exercise, which is critical for a variety of important reasons, immunity (Preserving Immune Function in Athletes With Nutritional Yeast), breast health (Exercise & Breast Cancer), and brain protection (Reversing Cognitive Decline). So diet and exercise, not or exercise. My physical activity comes from walking while I work: Standing Up for Your Health.

Not all studies showed vegans have superior arterial form and function. Find out why in my video Vitamin B12 Necessary for Arterial Health.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Oscar Rethwill / Flickr

Original Link

How Fatty Foods May Affect Our Love Life

NF-Oct23 Are Fatty Foods Addictive?.jpg

The food industry, like the tobacco companies and other drug lords, has been able to come up with products that tap into the same dopamine reward system that keeps people smoking cigarettes, using marijuana, and eating candy bars (See Are Sugary Foods Addictive?). New research, highlighted in my video Are Fatty Foods Addictive? suggests that fat may have similar effects on the brain. If people are fed yogurt packed with butter fat, within 30 minutes they exhibit the same brain activity as those who just drank sugar water.

People who regularly eat ice cream (sugar and fat) have a deadened dopamine response in their brains in response to drinking a milkshake. It's similar to when drug abusers have to use more and more to get the same high. Frequent ice cream consumption "is related to a reduction in reward-region (pleasure center) responsivity in humans, paralleling the tolerance observed in drug addiction." Once we've so dulled our dopamine response, we may subsequently overeat in an effort to achieve the degree of satisfaction experienced previously, contributing to unhealthy weight gain.

What do fatty and sugary foods have in common? They are energy-dense. It may be less about the number of calories than their concentration. Consumption of a calorie-dilute diet doesn't lead to deadened dopamine responsivity, but a calorie-dense diet with the same number of calories does. It's like the difference between cocaine and crack: same stuff chemically, but by smoking crack cocaine we can deliver a higher dose quicker to our brain.

As an aside, I found it interesting that the control drink in these milkshake studies wasn't just water. They can't use water because our brain actually tastes water on the tongue (who knew!). So instead the researchers had people drink a solution "designed to mimic the natural taste of saliva." Ew!

Anyway, with this new understanding of the neural correlates of food addiction, there have been calls to include obesity as an official mental disorder. After all, both obesity and addiction share the inability to restrain behavior in spite of an awareness of detrimental health consequences, one of the defining criteria of substance abuse. We keep putting crap in our bodies despite the knowledge that we have a problem that is likely caused by the crap, yet we can't stop (a phenomena called the "pleasure trap").

Redefining obesity as an addiction, a psychiatric disease, would be a boon to the drug companies that are already working on a whole bunch of drugs to muck with our brain chemistry. For example, subjects given an opiate blocker (like what's done for people with heroin overdoses to block the effects of the drug) eat significantly less cheese -- it just doesn't do as much for them anymore when their opiate receptors are blocked.

Rather than taking drugs, though, we can prevent the deadening of our pleasure center in the first place by sticking to foods that are naturally calorically dilute, like whole plant foods. This can help bring back our dopamine sensitivity such that we can again derive the same pleasure from the simplest of foods (see Changing Our Taste Buds). And this is not just for people who are obese. When we regularly eat calorie dense animal and junk foods like ice cream, we can blunt our pleasure so that we may overeat to compensate. When our brain down-regulates dopamine receptors to deal with all these jolts of fat and sugar, we may experience less enjoyment from other activities as well.

That's why cocaine addicts may have an impaired neurological capacity to enjoy sex, and why smokers have an impaired ability to respond to positive stimuli. Since these all involve the same dopamine pathways, what we put into our body--what we eat--can affect how we experience all of life's pleasures.

So to live life to the fullest, what should we do? The food industry, according to some addiction specialists, "should be given incentives to develop low calorie foods that are more attractive, palatable and affordable so that people can adhere to diet programs for a long time." No need! Mother Nature beat them to it--that's what the produce aisle is for.

By starting to eat healthfully, we can actually change how things taste. Healthiest means whole plant foods, which tend to be naturally dilute given their water and fiber content. Not only is fiber also calorie-free, but one might think of it as having "negative" calories, given the fermentation of fiber in our bowel into anti-obesity compounds (as well as anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer compounds). For this reason, those eating plant-based diets eat hundreds of fewer calories without even trying. (See my video Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management).

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Images thanks to Burger Austin / Flickr

Original Link

Quadrupling Breast Cancer Survival

NF-July24 The Breast Cancer Survival Vegetable.jpg

Half a million Americans are expected to die this year from cancer, equal to five jumbo jets crashing every day. The number of Americans who die from cancer each year is more than all those who have died in all U.S. wars combined. And this happens every single year.

After a cancer diagnosis people tend to clean up their diets. About a third to a half of breast cancer patients, for example, make healthy dietary changes following diagnosis, such as increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and decreasing meat, fat, and sugar intakes. Does it actually help that late in the game? Well, the Women's Healthy Eating and Living Study was undertaken in a few thousand breast cancer survivors to determine if a plant-based, low-fat, high-fiber diet could influence breast cancer recurrence rates and survival.

Previously they famously reported that simple changes -- five or more servings of fruits and veggies a day and just walking 30 minutes a day six days a week -- were associated with a significant survival advantage, cutting the risk of death nearly in half. Note: it was fruits and veggies and exercise. In the video, Breast Cancer Survival Vegetable, you can see the proportion of women with breast cancer surviving nine years in the study if they had low fruit and vegetable consumption and low physical activity, compared to those high in one and low in the other, compared to the survival curve of those high in both. And it worked just as well in women with estrogen receptor negative tumors, which normally have twice the mortality -- unless women eat those few fruits and veggies and take a few strolls.

Imagine, for a second, you or a loved one has just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Imagine sitting in that chair, in the doctor's office, as your doctor gives you the news. But, she says, there's a new experimental treatment that can cut your chances of dying in the next few years from 16 percent down to just 4 percent. To quadruple their survival rate, many women would re-mortgage their homes to fly to some quack clinic in Mexico and would lose all their hair to chemo, but most, apparently, couldn't stand the thought of eating broccoli.

The Women's Healthy Eating and Living Study found that while fruits and vegetables in general may be good, cruciferous vegetables may be better. For women on tamoxifen, for example, women who consumed one of their five daily servings of fruits and veggies as broccoli, cauliflower, collards, cabbage, or kale had their risk of cancer recurrence cut in half.

I recommend that all women with breast cancer eat broccoli sprouts. See my 8-part video series:

1. DNA Protection from Broccoli
2. Sulforaphane: From Broccoli to Breast
3. Broccoli Versus Breast Cancer Stem Cells
4. Liver Toxicity Due to Broccoli Juice?
5. How Much Broccoli Is Too Much?
6. The Best Detox
7. Sometimes the Enzyme Myth Is True
8. Biggest Nutrition Bang for Your Buck

They may also help out with other cancers (Lung Cancer Metastases and Broccoli and Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival).

For more on breast cancer survival, see:

What's even better is preventing breast cancer in the first place. Here are the 10 latest videos, but there are 81 other videos on breast cancer:

Some of this video may sound familiar -- I included it in my 2013 live presentation, which you can watch here.

-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 presentation Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

Image Credit: Kris A / Flickr

Original Link

How to Treat Multiple Sclerosis With Diet

NF-July17 Treating Multiple Sclerosis with Diet.jpg

Multiple sclerosis is an unpredictable and frightening degenerative autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system in which our body attacks our own nerves. It often strikes in the prime of life and can cause symptoms in the brain, such as cognitive impairment; in the eye, such as painful loss of vision; as well as tremors, weakness, loss of bladder control, pain, and fatigue.

The most frequently prescribed drug for multiple sclerosis is interferon beta, which can make one feel lousy and cost $30,000 a year. But hey, it might be worthwhile--if it actually worked. We learned recently that it doesn't seem to prevent or delay long-term disability. That leaves chemo drugs like mitoxantrone that causes irreversible heart damage in one out of every eight people who go on the drug and causes cancer (leukemia) in nearly 1% of people who take it. But MS is no walk in the park either.

If only there was a cheap, simple, safe, side-effect free solution that also just so happened to be the most effective treatment for MS ever prescribed...

Dr. Roy Swank, who we lost recently at age 99, was a distinguished neurologist whose research culminated in over 170 scientific papers. In the video, Treating Multiple Sclerosis with the Swank MS Diet, I highlight a few.

As far back as 1950, we knew there were areas in the world that had a lot of MS--North America, Europe--and other places--Africa and Asia--that hardly had any. And migration studies show that those who move from a high risk area to a low risk area significantly drop their risk, and vice versa. So it seems less genetic and more lifestyle.

Dr. Swank had an idea. As he recounts in an interview with Dr. John McDougall at the ripe young age of 84, "it seemed possible to me that this could be a matter of food, because the further north you go the less vegetarian a life is led and the more people are carnivores, you might say--they spend a lot more time eating meat."

After looking at the multiple sclerosis data from World War II in occupied countries where meat and dairy were rationed, along with his famous study in '52 that found that the frequency of MS related directly to the amount of saturated animal fat consumed daily in different areas of Norway, he concluded that it might be the animal fat that was causing the increased risk. He decided to put it to the test by restricting people's intake of saturated animal fat, most commonly coming from dairy and chicken in the U.S. (See Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero).

In Treating Multiple Sclerosis with the Swank MS Diet, you can see data on his first 47 patients before cutting out about 90% of the saturated fat from their diet and after, showing a decrease in both the frequency and severity of MS attacks. Normally, we're lucky if we can get people to stick to a diet for six months, and so that's why most dietary trials last a year at the most. The first study he published reported results from the first three and a half years.

Then came the five and a half year follow-up in which he added about another 100 patients. Then the seven year follow-up, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Then the 20 year follow-up, and then the 34 year follow-up.

How did his patients do? If we can get to people early in their disease, when they're only mildly disabled, and restrict their saturated fat intake, Dr. Swank showed he could stop their disease in 95% of cases--no further disability 34 years later. But if they started slacking on their diet--even years in, their disease could become reactivated. They felt so great that some felt that they could cheat a little bit, since they had their disease so well under control. But eating just eight grams of saturated fat more a day was accompanied by a striking increase in disability and a near tripling of their death rate.

How about a 50 year follow-up! They were able to track down 15 of the original patients that stuck to the diet, now in their 70s and 80s, with multiple sclerosis for over 50 years, and 13 out of 15 were walking around normal in all respects. Conclusion: "This study indicated that, in all probability, MS is caused largely by consumption of saturated animal fat."

Dr. Swank thought it was the sludging of the blood caused by even a single meal of saturated fats that can clog tiny capillaries that feed our nervous system. Diets rich in saturated fat and cholesterol can thicken the blood and make our red cells sticky. A single meal of sausage and eggs can stick our blood cells together like rolls of quarters. And that kind of hyperaggregation can lead to a reduction of blood flow and oxygenation of our tissues. What's in sausage and eggs that may cause so much inflammation? See my video series on endotoxins described in my blog How Does Meat Cause Inflammation?

If we put someone's blood through a machine that sucks out about 90% of the cholesterol in their blood, we can demonstrate an immediate improvement in microcirculation in the heart muscle. But what about the brain?

The eyes are the windows... to our brain. We can visualize--in real-time--changes in blood vessel function in the retina at the back of the eye, which gives us a sense of what's happening further back in the brain. And if we lower the cholesterol level in the blood, we can immediately get a significant improvement in vasodilation--the little veins open wider and let the blood flow.

So yes, it could be the animal fat leading to clogging of our capillaries, but now we know animal fats can have all sorts of other deleterious effects such as inflammation, so who knows what the actual mechanism may be by which cutting animal fat can cut MS progression. Regardless, patients with MS that follow a diet with no more than 10 or 15 grams of saturated fat can expect to survive and thrive to a ripe old age. Of course, cutting out saturated fat completely might be better, given that heart disease is our number one killer.

The bottom line is that the results Dr. Swank published remain "the most effective treatment of multiple sclerosis ever reported in the peer reviewed medical literature." In patients with early stage MS, 95% were without progression of their disease 34 years later after adopting his low saturated fat dietary program. Even patients with initially advanced disease showed significant benefit. To date, no medication or invasive procedure has ever even come close, to demonstrating such success.

Doesn't cost $30,000 dollars; doesn't give you leukemia--and works. Better!

This all begs one big obvious question: If Dr. Swanks results are "so stunningly impressive, why haven't other physicians, neurologists, and centers adopted this method of treatment?" One reason may be that MRI machines weren't invented until the 1970s, decades after Dr. Swank's study began. MRIs are how we track the progress of MS today. We don't have to rely on patients' subjective reports or doctor's clinical judgments, we can see the disease get better or worse right there in black and white.

It's like in the 1970s when Nathan Pritikin appeared to reverse heart disease by the thousands but no one took him seriously until angiography was invented and the likes of Ornish and Esselstyn (see Our Number One Killer Can Be Stopped) could hold up angiographic images, proving conclusively that a plant-based diet could help literally open up arteries.

So what we need is someone to repeat Swank's experiment today with MRI scans every step of the way. And I'm happy to report that exact experiment was just completed by Dr. John McDougall. Dr. Swank was one of Dr. McDougall's heroes, and Dr. McDougall is one of mine. Study enrollment was completed last year and we should have the full results soon.

I touched on this in my live 2013 year-in-review lecture More Than an Apple a Day, but I'm excited to be able to take a deeper dive into this extraordinary story.

Those interested in supporting Dr. McDougall's landmark study (headed by Dr. Dennis Bourdette, M.D. and under the supervision of Dr. Vijayshree Yadav) can donate to his nonprofit McDougall Research & Education Foundation (you can also donate to NutritionFacts.org to help keep us bringing you similarly underreported yet life-saving science).

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live 2012 year-in-review presentation Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

Image Credit: Theen Moy / Flickr

Original Link

Stopping Heart Disease in Childhood

NF-July15 Heart Disease Starts in Childhood.jpg

A landmark paper in 1953 radically changed our view about the development of heart disease forever. The study looked at a series of 300 autopsies performed on U.S. battle casualties of the Korean War. The average age was 22 years old, but 77% of the soldiers' hearts had gross evidence--meaning visible-to-the-eye evidence--of coronary atherosclerosis, hardening of their arteries. Some of them had vessels that were clogged off 90% or more. As an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, "This widely cited publication dramatically showed that atherosclerotic changes appear in the coronary arteries years and decades before the age at which coronary heart disease (CHD) becomes a clinically recognized problem." Follow-up studies on the hearts of thousands of more soldiers over the subsequent years confirmed their results.

How young does it go? Fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, were found in the arteries of 100% of kids by age ten. What's accounting for this buildup of plaque even in childhood? In the '80s we got our first clue in the famous Bogalusa Heart Study. This looked at autopsies of those who died between the ages of 3 to 26 years old, and the #1 risk factor was cholesterol intake. There was a dramatic stepwise increase in the proportion of their arteries covered in fatty streaks as the level of bad cholesterol in the blood increased. As powerful as this was, the study only looked at 30 kids. So they decided to study 3000: three thousand accidental death victims, ages 15 through 34.

After thousands of autopsies, they were able to produce a scoring system that could predict the presence of advanced atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries of young people. The higher our score, the higher the likelihood we have these lesions growing in the arteries that pump blood and oxygen to our heart. So if we're young and we smoke, our risk goes up by one point. If we have high blood pressure at such a young age, that's four points. If we're an obese male, that's six points, but high cholesterol was the worst of all. If our non-HDL cholesterol (meaning the total cholesterol minus the good cholesterol) is above 220 or so, our risk increased eight times more than if we smoked.

Let's say you're a woman with relatively high cholesterol, but you don't smoke, you're not overweight, your blood pressure and blood sugars are OK. At your sweet 16 there's just about a 1 in 30 (3%) chance you already have an advanced atherosclerotic lesion in your heart, but if you don't improve your diet, by your 30th birthday, it's closer to a one in five (20%) chance you have some serious heart disease, and if you have really high cholesterol it could be closer to one in three (33%).

In the video, Heart Disease Starts in Childhood, you can see what happens to our risk if we bring our cholesterol down to even just that of a lacto-ovo vegetarian, or if we exercise to boost our HDL, etc. It shows that even in 15 to 19-year-olds, atherosclerosis has begun in a substantial number of individuals, and this observation suggests beginning primary prevention at least by the late teenage years to ameliorate every stage of atherosclerosis and to prevent or retard progression to more advanced lesions.

If we start kids out on a low saturated fat diet, we may see a significant improvement in their arterial function by 11 years old. The study concluded, "Exposure to high serum cholesterol concentration even in childhood may accelerate the development of atherosclerosis. Consequently the long-term prevention of atherosclerosis might be most effective when initiated early in life." And by early in life they meant infancy.

Atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, begins in childhood. By age ten nearly all kids have fatty streaks, the first stage of the disease. Then the plaques start forming in our 20s, get worse in our 30s, and can start killing us off in middle age. In our hearts it's a heart attack, in our brains it's a stroke, in our extremities it can mean gangrene, and in our aorta, an aneurism.

For those of us older than ten years of age, the choice likely isn't whether or not to eat healthy to prevent heart disease, it's whether or not we want to reverse the heart disease we likely already have.

Drs. Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. proved that we can reverse heart disease with a plant-based diet, but we don't have to wait until our first heart attack to start unclogging our arteries. We can start reversing our heart disease right now. We can start reversing heart disease in our kids tonight.

The bottom line is that we have tremendous control over our medical destinies. How do we go about reversing our heart disease? I address that question in my latest live annual review presentation More Than an Apple a Day. Or, for shorter snippets:

Heart disease is a choice.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my 2012 live year-in-review presentation Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

Image Credit: James MacDonald / Flickr

Original Link

Want to be Healthier? Change Your Taste Buds

NF-June24 Want to Be Healthier? Change Your Taste Buds.jpg

How can we overcome our built-in hunger drives for salt, sugar, and fat? We now have evidence showing that if we go a few weeks cutting down on junk food and animal products, our tastes start to change. We may actually be able to taste fat--just like we taste sweet, sour, and salty--and people on low fat diets start liking low fat foods more and high fat foods less.

Our tongues appear to become more sensitive to fat if we eat less of it. And the more sensitive our tongues become, the less butter, meat, dairy, and eggs study subjects ate. We also get a blunted taste for fat if we eat too much. This diminished fat sensitivity has been linked to eating more calories; more fat; more dairy, meat, and eggs; and becoming fatter ourselves. And this change in sensation, this numbing of our ability to taste fat, can happen within just a few weeks.

In my video, Changing Our Taste Buds, you can see when researchers put people on a low-salt diet, over the ensuing weeks, study subjects like the taste of salt-free soup more and more, and the taste of salty soup less and less. Our tastes physically change. If we let them salt their own soup to taste, they add less and less the longer they're on the diet. By the end, soup tastes just as salty with half the salt. For those who've been on sodium restricted diets, regularly salted foods taste too salty and they actually prefer less salty food. That's why it's important for doctors to explain to patients that a low-salt diet will gradually become more palatable as their taste for salt diminishes. The longer we eat healthier foods, the better they taste.

That's why I've always encouraged my patients to think of healthy eating as an experiment. I ask them to give it three weeks. The hope is by then they feel so much better (not only physically, but in the knowledge that they don't have to be on medications for chronic diseases the rest of their lives after all!--see Say No to Drugs by Saying Yes to More Plants) and their taste sensitivity has been boosted such that whole foods-as-grown regain their natural deliciousness.

To see how a healthy diet can make you feel, check out the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine's 21-Day Kickstart program at http://www.21daykickstart.org/.

-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: M Glasgow / Flickr

Original Link

Which Seaweed to Help Prevent Breast Cancer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Seaweed is Protective Against Cancer?

Sushi lovers, rejoice. Nori seaweed may favorably alter estrogen metabolism by modulating women’s gut flora, resulting in decreased breast cancer risk.

As traditional East Asian diets have westernized, breast cancer rates have risen. Some researchers have linked this to a quadrupling of animal product consumption. In my video Which Seaweed Is Most Protective Against Breast Cancer, you can see the breast cancer rate of Japanese women living in Japan. Within 10 years of immigrating to the United States, their risk increases, and if they hang around long enough, their risk goes up even more, although it is still somewhat lower than the U.S. national average. This may be because of some of the dietary habits they carry with them—soy and green tea consumption, perhaps eating more mushrooms and seaweed.

We’ve known for over a decade that in vitro (in a Petri dish) seaweed broth is effective at clearing cancer cells. In the video, you can see three different types of human breast cancer exposed to either a widely used chemotherapy drug or a sea vegetable. The seaweed worked better. And unlike the chemo, it didn’t hurt normal, non-cancerous breast cells. What about outside of the test tube, in people?

Well, a population study comparing women with breast cancer to women without found that consuming a single sheet of nori a day may cut a woman’s odds of breast cancer in half. We think it’s because seaweed favorably alters estrogen metabolism, likely due to modulating women’s gut bacteria. The more seaweed we eat, the less estrogen we have in our system, which may lower breast cancer risk.

The breast cancer protection may be because of all the fiber in sea vegetables, or because seaweed may block the enzyme that undermines our body’s attempt to flush out excess hormones. Or seaweed may somehow interfere with estrogen binding to estrogen receptors. Whatever the cause, to effectively lower their estrogen levels, Asian women may be able to get away with about one sheet of nori a day, but American women are physically so much larger that it may take closer to two. There are lots of yummy seaweed snacks out there to make it a tasty experience—just try to get some low-fat, low-sodium ones. They’re just like kale chips, munchies made out of dark green leafy vegetables—can’t beat that!

For more on lowering breast cancer through diet:

The seaweed used fresh in seaweed salads, wakame, unfortunately did not appear to reduce breast cancer risk. Wakame consumption has, however, been found to lower blood pressure in hypertensives (people with high blood pressure). Just two teaspoons of seaweed salad a day for a month dropped people’s blood pressure 14 points, and two months of wakame was associated with up to a two inch skinnier waistline.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’d recommend avoiding hijike, which tends to have too much arsenic (see Avoiding Iodine Deficiency), and kelp, which tends to have too much iodine (see Too Much Iodine Can Be as Bad as Too Little). In fact, too much seaweed of any type may actually increase our risk for thyroid cancer because of the amount of iodine we’d be taking in, but there does not appear to be any increased risk at the levels of consumption I’m talking about, like a sheet of nori every day. And a study of seaweed eaters in California actually found decreased risk, but, again, we’re talking a modest level of intake.

I’ve frequently talked about the benefits of dietary diversity, eating different families of fruits and vegetables, eating different parts of individual plants—such as beets and beet greens. If we just stick to land plants, though, we’re missing out on all the plants from the other 70% of planet earth. Sea vegetables have phytonutrients found nowhere else, special types of fiber, and unique carotenoids and polysaccharides, and various polyphenol defense compounds, each of which may have anti-cancer properties. I encourage everyone to try experimenting until you find a sea vegetable you like, even if that means just sprinkling some powdered dulse on your food. More on the importance of dietary diversity in Garden Variety Anti-Inflammation, Apples and Oranges: Dietary Diversity, and Constructing a Cognitive Portfolio.

For more on some of the other protective dietary components in the diets of Japanese women, check out Why Do Asian Women Have Less Breast Cancer? and Breast Cancer Survival and Soy.

And if you enjoy anti-cancer comparison videos, make sure to also check out Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better? and #1 Anticancer Vegetable.

-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: srsldy / Flickr

Original Link