A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.jpeg

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, episodic intestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. It affects 1 in 7 Americans, although most go undiagnosed. IBS can have a substantial impact on well-being and health, but doctors underestimate the impact the disease can have, particularly the pain and discomfort. Using some measures, the health-related quality of life of irritable bowel sufferers can rival that of sufferers of much more serious disorders, such as diabetes, kidney failure, and inflammatory bowel diseases. The first step toward successful treatment is for doctors to acknowledge the condition and not just dismiss the patient as just hysterical or something.

Another reason sufferers often don't seek medical care may be the lack of effectiveness of the available treatments. There is a huge unmet therapeutic need. Since IBS has no cure, treatment is targeted to alleviate the symptoms. Typical antispasmodic drugs can cause side effects, including dry mouth, dizziness, blurred vision, confusion, and fall risk. New drugs now on the market, like Lubiprostone and Linaclotide, can cost up to $3,000 a year and can cause as side effects many of symptoms we're trying to treat.

Antidepressants are commonly given but may take weeks or even months to start helping. Prozac or Celexa take 4 to 6 weeks to help, and Paxil can take up to 12 weeks. They also have their own array of side effects, including sexual dysfunction in over 70% of the people who take these drugs.

There's got to be a better way.

Acupuncture works, but not better than placebo. Placebo acupuncture? That's where you poke people with a fake needle away from any known acupuncture points. Yet that worked just as well as real acupuncture, showing the power of the placebo effect.

I've talked about the ethics of so many doctors who effectively pass off sugar pills as effective drugs, arguing that the ends justify their means. There's actually a way to harness the placebo effect without lying to patients, though. We tell them it's a sugar pill. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome were randomized to either get nothing or a prescription medicine bottle of placebo pills with a label clearly marked "placebo pills" "take 2 pills twice daily." I kid you not.

Lo and behold, it worked! That's how powerful the placebo effect can be for irritable bowel. They conclude that for some disorders it may be appropriate for clinicians to recommend that patients try an inexpensive and safe placebo. Indeed, sugar pills probably won't cost $3,000 a year. But is there a safe alternative that actually works?

As you can see in my video, Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, nine randomized placebo-controlled studies have indeed found peppermint oil to be a safe and effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome. A few adverse events were reported, but were mild and transient in nature, such as a peppermint taste, peppermint smell, and a cooling sensation around one's bottom on the way out. In contrast, in some of the head-to-head peppermint versus drug studies, some of the drug side effects were so unbearable that patients had to drop out of the study. This suggests it might be a reasonable approach for clinicians to treat IBS patients with peppermint oil as a first-line therapy, before trying anything else.

The longest trial only lasted 12 weeks, so we don't yet know about long-term efficacy. The benefits may last at least a month after stopping, though, perhaps due to lasting changes in our gut flora.

The studies used peppermint oil capsules so researchers could match them with placebo pills. What about peppermint tea? It's never been tested, but one might assume it wouldn't be concentrated enough. However, a quarter cup of fresh peppermint leaves has as much peppermint oil as some of the capsule doses used in the studies. One could easily blend it into a smoothie or with frozen berries to make something like my pink juice recipe. You can grow mint right on your window sill.

We doctors need effective treatments that "are cheap, safe, and readily available. This is particularly relevant at the present time as newer and more expensive drugs have either failed to show efficacy or been withdrawn from the market owing to concerns about serious adverse events." Just like it may be a good idea to only eat foods with ingredients you can pronounce, it may be better to try some mint before novel pharmacological approaches, such the new dual mu-opioid agonist delta-antagonist drug with a name like JNJ-27018966.

I have some other mint videos: Enhancing Athletic Performance With Peppermint and Peppermint Aromatherapy for Nausea. Lemon balm is also in the mint family, so check out Reducing Radiation Damage With Ginger & Lemon Balm and Best Aromatherapy Herb for Alzheimer's.

You can also sprinkle dried mint on various dishes. See Antioxidants in a Pinch.

What else might work for IBS? See Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

Irritable bowel symptoms can overlap with problems with gluten, so make sure your physician rules out celiac disease. These may be helpful:

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

A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.jpeg

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, episodic intestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. It affects 1 in 7 Americans, although most go undiagnosed. IBS can have a substantial impact on well-being and health, but doctors underestimate the impact the disease can have, particularly the pain and discomfort. Using some measures, the health-related quality of life of irritable bowel sufferers can rival that of sufferers of much more serious disorders, such as diabetes, kidney failure, and inflammatory bowel diseases. The first step toward successful treatment is for doctors to acknowledge the condition and not just dismiss the patient as just hysterical or something.

Another reason sufferers often don't seek medical care may be the lack of effectiveness of the available treatments. There is a huge unmet therapeutic need. Since IBS has no cure, treatment is targeted to alleviate the symptoms. Typical antispasmodic drugs can cause side effects, including dry mouth, dizziness, blurred vision, confusion, and fall risk. New drugs now on the market, like Lubiprostone and Linaclotide, can cost up to $3,000 a year and can cause as side effects many of symptoms we're trying to treat.

Antidepressants are commonly given but may take weeks or even months to start helping. Prozac or Celexa take 4 to 6 weeks to help, and Paxil can take up to 12 weeks. They also have their own array of side effects, including sexual dysfunction in over 70% of the people who take these drugs.

There's got to be a better way.

Acupuncture works, but not better than placebo. Placebo acupuncture? That's where you poke people with a fake needle away from any known acupuncture points. Yet that worked just as well as real acupuncture, showing the power of the placebo effect.

I've talked about the ethics of so many doctors who effectively pass off sugar pills as effective drugs, arguing that the ends justify their means. There's actually a way to harness the placebo effect without lying to patients, though. We tell them it's a sugar pill. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome were randomized to either get nothing or a prescription medicine bottle of placebo pills with a label clearly marked "placebo pills" "take 2 pills twice daily." I kid you not.

Lo and behold, it worked! That's how powerful the placebo effect can be for irritable bowel. They conclude that for some disorders it may be appropriate for clinicians to recommend that patients try an inexpensive and safe placebo. Indeed, sugar pills probably won't cost $3,000 a year. But is there a safe alternative that actually works?

As you can see in my video, Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, nine randomized placebo-controlled studies have indeed found peppermint oil to be a safe and effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome. A few adverse events were reported, but were mild and transient in nature, such as a peppermint taste, peppermint smell, and a cooling sensation around one's bottom on the way out. In contrast, in some of the head-to-head peppermint versus drug studies, some of the drug side effects were so unbearable that patients had to drop out of the study. This suggests it might be a reasonable approach for clinicians to treat IBS patients with peppermint oil as a first-line therapy, before trying anything else.

The longest trial only lasted 12 weeks, so we don't yet know about long-term efficacy. The benefits may last at least a month after stopping, though, perhaps due to lasting changes in our gut flora.

The studies used peppermint oil capsules so researchers could match them with placebo pills. What about peppermint tea? It's never been tested, but one might assume it wouldn't be concentrated enough. However, a quarter cup of fresh peppermint leaves has as much peppermint oil as some of the capsule doses used in the studies. One could easily blend it into a smoothie or with frozen berries to make something like my pink juice recipe. You can grow mint right on your window sill.

We doctors need effective treatments that "are cheap, safe, and readily available. This is particularly relevant at the present time as newer and more expensive drugs have either failed to show efficacy or been withdrawn from the market owing to concerns about serious adverse events." Just like it may be a good idea to only eat foods with ingredients you can pronounce, it may be better to try some mint before novel pharmacological approaches, such the new dual mu-opioid agonist delta-antagonist drug with a name like JNJ-27018966.

I have some other mint videos: Enhancing Athletic Performance With Peppermint and Peppermint Aromatherapy for Nausea. Lemon balm is also in the mint family, so check out Reducing Radiation Damage With Ginger & Lemon Balm and Best Aromatherapy Herb for Alzheimer's.

You can also sprinkle dried mint on various dishes. See Antioxidants in a Pinch.

What else might work for IBS? See Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

Irritable bowel symptoms can overlap with problems with gluten, so make sure your physician rules out celiac disease. These may be helpful:

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

A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

A Dietary Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.jpeg

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, episodic intestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. It affects 1 in 7 Americans, although most go undiagnosed. IBS can have a substantial impact on well-being and health, but doctors underestimate the impact the disease can have, particularly the pain and discomfort. Using some measures, the health-related quality of life of irritable bowel sufferers can rival that of sufferers of much more serious disorders, such as diabetes, kidney failure, and inflammatory bowel diseases. The first step toward successful treatment is for doctors to acknowledge the condition and not just dismiss the patient as just hysterical or something.

Another reason sufferers often don't seek medical care may be the lack of effectiveness of the available treatments. There is a huge unmet therapeutic need. Since IBS has no cure, treatment is targeted to alleviate the symptoms. Typical antispasmodic drugs can cause side effects, including dry mouth, dizziness, blurred vision, confusion, and fall risk. New drugs now on the market, like Lubiprostone and Linaclotide, can cost up to $3,000 a year and can cause as side effects many of symptoms we're trying to treat.

Antidepressants are commonly given but may take weeks or even months to start helping. Prozac or Celexa take 4 to 6 weeks to help, and Paxil can take up to 12 weeks. They also have their own array of side effects, including sexual dysfunction in over 70% of the people who take these drugs.

There's got to be a better way.

Acupuncture works, but not better than placebo. Placebo acupuncture? That's where you poke people with a fake needle away from any known acupuncture points. Yet that worked just as well as real acupuncture, showing the power of the placebo effect.

I've talked about the ethics of so many doctors who effectively pass off sugar pills as effective drugs, arguing that the ends justify their means. There's actually a way to harness the placebo effect without lying to patients, though. We tell them it's a sugar pill. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome were randomized to either get nothing or a prescription medicine bottle of placebo pills with a label clearly marked "placebo pills" "take 2 pills twice daily." I kid you not.

Lo and behold, it worked! That's how powerful the placebo effect can be for irritable bowel. They conclude that for some disorders it may be appropriate for clinicians to recommend that patients try an inexpensive and safe placebo. Indeed, sugar pills probably won't cost $3,000 a year. But is there a safe alternative that actually works?

As you can see in my video, Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, nine randomized placebo-controlled studies have indeed found peppermint oil to be a safe and effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome. A few adverse events were reported, but were mild and transient in nature, such as a peppermint taste, peppermint smell, and a cooling sensation around one's bottom on the way out. In contrast, in some of the head-to-head peppermint versus drug studies, some of the drug side effects were so unbearable that patients had to drop out of the study. This suggests it might be a reasonable approach for clinicians to treat IBS patients with peppermint oil as a first-line therapy, before trying anything else.

The longest trial only lasted 12 weeks, so we don't yet know about long-term efficacy. The benefits may last at least a month after stopping, though, perhaps due to lasting changes in our gut flora.

The studies used peppermint oil capsules so researchers could match them with placebo pills. What about peppermint tea? It's never been tested, but one might assume it wouldn't be concentrated enough. However, a quarter cup of fresh peppermint leaves has as much peppermint oil as some of the capsule doses used in the studies. One could easily blend it into a smoothie or with frozen berries to make something like my pink juice recipe. You can grow mint right on your window sill.

We doctors need effective treatments that "are cheap, safe, and readily available. This is particularly relevant at the present time as newer and more expensive drugs have either failed to show efficacy or been withdrawn from the market owing to concerns about serious adverse events." Just like it may be a good idea to only eat foods with ingredients you can pronounce, it may be better to try some mint before novel pharmacological approaches, such the new dual mu-opioid agonist delta-antagonist drug with a name like JNJ-27018966.

I have some other mint videos: Enhancing Athletic Performance With Peppermint and Peppermint Aromatherapy for Nausea. Lemon balm is also in the mint family, so check out Reducing Radiation Damage With Ginger & Lemon Balm and Best Aromatherapy Herb for Alzheimer's.

You can also sprinkle dried mint on various dishes. See Antioxidants in a Pinch.

What else might work for IBS? See Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

Irritable bowel symptoms can overlap with problems with gluten, so make sure your physician rules out celiac disease. These may be helpful:

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

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

Music as Medicine

Music as Medicine.jpeg

We've been playing music since the Paleolithic Era, 40,000 years ago. Music as therapy has been documented since at least biblical times. The first music therapy experiment was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1914. As to why he placed a phonograph in the operating room as his patients lay fully conscious and awake during surgery, the surgeon explained it was "a means of calming and distracting my patients from the horror of the situation."

Now that we have anesthesia, music is used to calm nerves before surgery. Normally we use Valium-type drugs like midazolam (sold as Versed), but they can have a variety of side effects, including sometimes even making people more agitated. A study from Sweden sought to determine if relaxing music has a greater anxiety-reducing effect than a standard dose of midazolam. Researchers whipped out some Kenny G, and the music worked significantly better than the drug. Those listening to Mr. G had lower anxiety scores, heart rates, and blood pressures. This is perhaps the first report of any anti-anxiety therapy working not only as good as, but even better than, benzodiazepine drugs. The difference in side effects of relaxing music compared to the drug is obvious: There were none. Soft jazz causes no post-operative hangover. The researchers suggest we should start using music instead of midazolam.

Music may also reduce anxiety and pain in children undergoing minor medical and dental procedures, helping with blood draws and shots. It may even reduce the pain of spinal taps. However, Mozart is evidently powerless against the pain of circumcision.

It doesn't take a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that listening to music can be relaxing. Tell me something I don't know. Well, if you take someone with a latex allergy and inject their skin with latex, they get a big, red, angry bump. But if you repeat the test after they've been listening to Mozart for 30 minutes, they develop a much smaller bump (as you can see in my video, Music as Medicine). That is, they have less of an allergic reaction. If you think that's wild, get ready for this: Beethoven didn't work. The subjects had the same reaction before and after listening to his music! Schubert, Hayden, and Brahms didn't work either, as all failed to reduce the allergic skin response. The reducing effect on allergic responses may be specific to Mozart.

So Mozart's looking pretty good, but what if he could be suppressing our immune systems in general? That would not be good. The same researchers also injected a chemical that causes reactions in everyone, not just in allergic people. Mozart had no effect. It seems Mozart suppresses only the pathological allergic reaction. If that isn't crazy enough for you, the researchers drew subjects' blood after the music, stuck their white blood cells in a petri dish with a little latex, and measured the allergic antibody response. The white blood cells from those exposed to Mozart had less of an allergic response even outside the body compared to cells taken from Beethoven blood. How cool is that?

Music may even impact our metabolism. This inquiry started with a 2012 study published in the journal Pediatrics, which found the resting energy expenditure (the number of calories burned when just lying around) was lower in preterm infants when researchers piped in Mozart. This may explain why infants exposed to music put on weight faster, so much so they are able to go home earlier.

Gaining weight faster is great for premature babies, but not necessarily for adults. Could listening to music slow our metabolism and contribute to weight gain? Well, one study found no effect on adults. But the researchers used Bach, not Mozart. Bach doesn't cause a drop in energy expenditure in babies either. These data suggest there may be "more a 'Mozart effect' than a universal 'music effect'."

What if we just listen to music of our choice? Does that affect our metabolism? We didn't know... until now. It turns out that listening to music appears to actually increase our metabolic rate, such that we burn an average of 27.6 more calories a day just lying in bed. That's only like six M&M's worth, though, so it's better to use music to get up and start dancing or exercising. Music can not only improve exercise enjoyment but also performance--a way to improve athletic performance that's legal.

Male bodybuilders may be less enthused music's effects. After listening to music for just 30 minutes, testosterone levels drop 14% in young men and go up 21% in young women. Do all kinds of music have this effect or just some types? Thirty minutes of silence had no effect on testosterone levels at all, while a half-hour of Mozart, jazz, pop, or Gregorian chants (no relation :) all suppressed testosterone. What about a half-hour of people's personal favorites? Testosterone levels were cut in half! Testosterone decreased in males under all music conditions, whereas testosterone increased in females. What is going on? Well, in men, testosterone is related to libido, dominance, and aggressiveness, whereas women get a bigger boost in testosterone from cuddling than from sex. So maybe we evolved using music as a way to ensure we all got along, like a melodious cold shower to keep everyone chill.

Is that crazy or what? I'm fascinated by the whole topic. For more, see Music for Anxiety: Mozart vs. Metal.

Sounds are the only sensory-stimulators that can have an effect on us--so can scents! See:

Exposure to industrial pollutants may also affect both allergic diseases and testosterone levels:

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

Music as Medicine

Music as Medicine.jpeg

We've been playing music since the Paleolithic Era, 40,000 years ago. Music as therapy has been documented since at least biblical times. The first music therapy experiment was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1914. As to why he placed a phonograph in the operating room as his patients lay fully conscious and awake during surgery, the surgeon explained it was "a means of calming and distracting my patients from the horror of the situation."

Now that we have anesthesia, music is used to calm nerves before surgery. Normally we use Valium-type drugs like midazolam (sold as Versed), but they can have a variety of side effects, including sometimes even making people more agitated. A study from Sweden sought to determine if relaxing music has a greater anxiety-reducing effect than a standard dose of midazolam. Researchers whipped out some Kenny G, and the music worked significantly better than the drug. Those listening to Mr. G had lower anxiety scores, heart rates, and blood pressures. This is perhaps the first report of any anti-anxiety therapy working not only as good as, but even better than, benzodiazepine drugs. The difference in side effects of relaxing music compared to the drug is obvious: There were none. Soft jazz causes no post-operative hangover. The researchers suggest we should start using music instead of midazolam.

Music may also reduce anxiety and pain in children undergoing minor medical and dental procedures, helping with blood draws and shots. It may even reduce the pain of spinal taps. However, Mozart is evidently powerless against the pain of circumcision.

It doesn't take a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that listening to music can be relaxing. Tell me something I don't know. Well, if you take someone with a latex allergy and inject their skin with latex, they get a big, red, angry bump. But if you repeat the test after they've been listening to Mozart for 30 minutes, they develop a much smaller bump (as you can see in my video, Music as Medicine). That is, they have less of an allergic reaction. If you think that's wild, get ready for this: Beethoven didn't work. The subjects had the same reaction before and after listening to his music! Schubert, Hayden, and Brahms didn't work either, as all failed to reduce the allergic skin response. The reducing effect on allergic responses may be specific to Mozart.

So Mozart's looking pretty good, but what if he could be suppressing our immune systems in general? That would not be good. The same researchers also injected a chemical that causes reactions in everyone, not just in allergic people. Mozart had no effect. It seems Mozart suppresses only the pathological allergic reaction. If that isn't crazy enough for you, the researchers drew subjects' blood after the music, stuck their white blood cells in a petri dish with a little latex, and measured the allergic antibody response. The white blood cells from those exposed to Mozart had less of an allergic response even outside the body compared to cells taken from Beethoven blood. How cool is that?

Music may even impact our metabolism. This inquiry started with a 2012 study published in the journal Pediatrics, which found the resting energy expenditure (the number of calories burned when just lying around) was lower in preterm infants when researchers piped in Mozart. This may explain why infants exposed to music put on weight faster, so much so they are able to go home earlier.

Gaining weight faster is great for premature babies, but not necessarily for adults. Could listening to music slow our metabolism and contribute to weight gain? Well, one study found no effect on adults. But the researchers used Bach, not Mozart. Bach doesn't cause a drop in energy expenditure in babies either. These data suggest there may be "more a 'Mozart effect' than a universal 'music effect'."

What if we just listen to music of our choice? Does that affect our metabolism? We didn't know... until now. It turns out that listening to music appears to actually increase our metabolic rate, such that we burn an average of 27.6 more calories a day just lying in bed. That's only like six M&M's worth, though, so it's better to use music to get up and start dancing or exercising. Music can not only improve exercise enjoyment but also performance--a way to improve athletic performance that's legal.

Male bodybuilders may be less enthused music's effects. After listening to music for just 30 minutes, testosterone levels drop 14% in young men and go up 21% in young women. Do all kinds of music have this effect or just some types? Thirty minutes of silence had no effect on testosterone levels at all, while a half-hour of Mozart, jazz, pop, or Gregorian chants (no relation :) all suppressed testosterone. What about a half-hour of people's personal favorites? Testosterone levels were cut in half! Testosterone decreased in males under all music conditions, whereas testosterone increased in females. What is going on? Well, in men, testosterone is related to libido, dominance, and aggressiveness, whereas women get a bigger boost in testosterone from cuddling than from sex. So maybe we evolved using music as a way to ensure we all got along, like a melodious cold shower to keep everyone chill.

Is that crazy or what? I'm fascinated by the whole topic. For more, see Music for Anxiety: Mozart vs. Metal.

Sounds are the only sensory-stimulators that can have an effect on us--so can scents! See:

Exposure to industrial pollutants may also affect both allergic diseases and testosterone levels:

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

Ginger Root for Migraines

Ginger Root for Migraines.jpeg

Many successful herbal treatments start like this: Some doctor learns that some plant has been used in some ancient medical tradition, like ginger for headaches. Well, the physician has patients with headaches and so tries advising one with migraines to give it a try since it's just some safe, common spice. At the first sign of a migraine coming on, the patient mixed a quarter teaspoon of powdered ginger in some water, drank it down, and poof! Within a half-hour, the migraine went away. It worked every time for them with no side effects. That's what's called a case report.

In my video, Ginger for Migraines, I show the remarkable case report, but case reports are really just glorified anecdotes. Case reports have played an important role in the history of medicine, though. AIDS was first discovered as a series of case reports. Some young guy walks into a clinic in Los Angeles with a bad case of thrush, and the rest is history. Reports of an unusual side effect of a failed chest pain drug led to the billion-dollar blockbuster, Viagra. Case reports may represent the weakest level of evidence, but they are often the first line of evidence, where everything starts. The ginger and migraine report isn't helpful in itself, but it can inspire researchers to put the treatment to the test.

The problem is, who's going to fund it? The market for migraine drugs is worth billions of dollars. A quarter teaspoon of powdered ginger costs about a penny. Who would fund a study pitting ginger versus the leading migraine drug?

No one... that is, until now. A double-blinded, randomized, controlled, clinical trial compared the efficacy of ginger to sumatriptan, also known as Imitrex, one of the top-selling billion-dollar drugs in the world in the treatment of migraine headaches. Researchers tried using only one-eighth of a teaspoon of powdered ginger versus a good dose of the drug.

They both worked just as well and just as fast.

Most patients started out in moderate or severe pain but, after taking the ginger or the drug, ended up in mild pain or completely pain-free. The same proportion of migraine sufferers reported satisfaction with the results either way. As far as I'm concerned, ginger won--not only because it's a few billion dollars cheaper than the drug, but because there were significantly fewer side effects in the ginger group. People taking sumatriptan reported dizziness, a sedative effect, vertigo, and heartburn. The only thing reported for ginger was an upset tummy in about 1 out of 25 people. (As a note of caution, taking a whole tablespoon of ginger powder at one time on an empty stomach could irritate anyone's stomach.)

An eighth of a teaspoon of ginger is not only up to 3000-times cheaper than the drug, but you're also less likely to end up as a case report yourself of someone who had a heart attack or died after taking the drug--tragedies that have occurred due to sumatriptan.

These are my favorite kinds of posts to do because I can offer something that is immediately practical, cheap, safe, and effective to reduce suffering. If this kind of information helps you or someone you love, I hope you'll consider making a tax-deductible donation to support the nonprofit organization that runs NutritionFacts.org. We have a growing staff and server costs to cover, and any help you could give would be much appreciated (and there are perks!).

For more on ginger root:

Avoiding aspartame (Aspartame and the Brain) and using lavender may also help (Lavender for Migraine Headaches). If you have cluster headaches, ask your physician about capsaicin (Hot Sauce in the Nose for Cluster Headaches?).

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

Original Link