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

Two New Papers Putting the Power of Plant-Based Diets in the Spotlight

The Power of Plant-Based Diets Validated Once Again in Recent Research

According to abundant scientific support, plant-based diets have consistently been associated with not only significant health advantages, but also nutrient adequacy. Despite headlines blaring out messages of deficiency and danger, the evidence continues to show otherwise.

Two brand new compelling papers were published expressing the safety, adequacy, and powerful health benefits of eating plants…

First, The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the leading organization for nutrition experts, Registered Dietitians, updated their Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets. Here is the abstract:

papers

 

Here is the link for the position paper to share with your physicians and other healthcare practitioners, friends or family, or anyone concerned about a plant-based diet, which is actually the most health-promoting, disease-fighting, sustainable, nutrient-dense way of eating possible.

Secondly, this revolutionary new paper authored by Ray Cronise, BS, Andrew Bremer, MD, Ph.D., and David Sinclair, Ph.D. shows why plant-based diets are optimal for health and weight management.

papers

 

This Food Triangle is a tool to understand the energy density of different diet schemes:

  • Western diets are “bottom feeders,” consuming combinations of the most energy-dense foods: meat and potatoes, fish and chips, pasta and meat sauce, burger and fries.
  • Paleo diets, on the left side of the triangle minimize energy from starch, which is why they may lose weight initially (while still missing out on critical nutrients found in plant foods such as beans and whole grains).
  • Vegan diets, on the right side of the triangle, omit the energy-dense animal products and focus on nutrient-dense, disease-fighting whole plant foods. When leaving out oils, sugars, salts, and flours, this offers the most nutritional bang for the caloric buck with all the ingredients for easy weight management and long-term health.

This paper is disruptive as the authors debunk deeply ingrained myths, clarifying that:

  • Nutrition is not an emergency.
  • Our metabolisms are not broken.
  • Using the terms “carbs, fats, and proteins” is confusing.
  • Our obesity epidemic is due to chronic overnutrition.
  • You simply cannot out-exercise your diet.

Both of these articles validate all we know about the benefits of eating plants. It is simply the most health-promoting, disease-fighting, nutrient-dense diet and it is ideal for people across the lifespan.
Here is more information on how to implement a plant-based diet, The Physician’s Guide to Plant-Based Diets for healthcare practitioners, and sample meal plans with hundreds of recipes.

The post Two New Papers Putting the Power of Plant-Based Diets in the Spotlight appeared first on Plant Based Dietitian.

Original Link

Improving Employee Diets Could Save Companies Millions

Plant-Based Workplace Intervention.jpg

The food, alcohol, and tobacco industries have been blamed for "manufacturing epidemics" of chronic disease, but they're just trying to sell more product like everyone else. And so if that means distorting science, creating front groups, compromising scientists, blocking public health policies... they're just trying to protect their business.

It's not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. How else could we have tobacco companies, for example, "continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?"

Civil society organizations concerned with public health have earned a reputation for being "anti-industry," but the issue is not industry, but that sector of industry whose products are harmful to public health. We like the broccoli industry. In fact, the corporate world might end up leading the lifestyle medicine revolution.

As shown in my video, Plant-Based Workplace Intervention, the annual cost attributable to obesity alone among full-time employees is estimated at 70 billion dollars, primarily because obese employees are not as productive on the job. Having healthy employees is good for the bottom-line. Every dollar spent on wellness programs may offer a $3 return on investment. And if you track the market performance of companies that strive to nurture a culture of health, they appear to outperform their competition.

That's why companies like GEICO are exploring workplace dietary interventions (see my video, Slimming the Gecko). The remarkable success at GEICO headquarters led to an expansion of the program at corporate offices across the country, with test sites from San Diego to Macon, Georgia. Given that previous workplace studies have found that workers who ate a lot of animal protein had nearly five times the odds of obesity, whereas those that ate mostly plant protein appeared protected, obese and diabetic employees were asked to follow a plant-based diet of whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruit while avoiding meat, dairy, and eggs. Compliance wasn't great. Fewer than half really got their animal product consumption down, but there were definitely improvements such as significant reductions in saturated fat, an increase in protective nutrients, and even noted weight loss, lower blood cholesterol levers, and better blood sugar control in diabetics.

And this was with no calorie counting, no portion control, and no exercise component. The weight reduction appears to result from feeling fuller earlier, due to higher dietary fiber intake. The difference in weight loss could also be the result of an increase in the thermic effect of food, allowing a small extra edge for weight loss in the vegan group. Those eating plant-based diets tend to burn off more calories in heat.

Eating plants appears to boost metabolism. This may be due to increased insulin sensitivity in cells, allowing cells to metabolize carbohydrates more quickly rather than storing them as body fat. "As a result, vegan diets have been shown to increase postprandial calorie burn by about 16%, up to three hours after consuming a meal."

Imagine how much money companies that self-insure their employees could save! See, for example:

Find out more on some of the potential downsides of corporate influence in videos like

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: Ryan McGuire / Pixabay. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Improving Employee Diets Could Save Companies Millions

Plant-Based Workplace Intervention.jpg

The food, alcohol, and tobacco industries have been blamed for "manufacturing epidemics" of chronic disease, but they're just trying to sell more product like everyone else. And so if that means distorting science, creating front groups, compromising scientists, blocking public health policies... they're just trying to protect their business.

It's not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. How else could we have tobacco companies, for example, "continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?"

Civil society organizations concerned with public health have earned a reputation for being "anti-industry," but the issue is not industry, but that sector of industry whose products are harmful to public health. We like the broccoli industry. In fact, the corporate world might end up leading the lifestyle medicine revolution.

As shown in my video, Plant-Based Workplace Intervention, the annual cost attributable to obesity alone among full-time employees is estimated at 70 billion dollars, primarily because obese employees are not as productive on the job. Having healthy employees is good for the bottom-line. Every dollar spent on wellness programs may offer a $3 return on investment. And if you track the market performance of companies that strive to nurture a culture of health, they appear to outperform their competition.

That's why companies like GEICO are exploring workplace dietary interventions (see my video, Slimming the Gecko). The remarkable success at GEICO headquarters led to an expansion of the program at corporate offices across the country, with test sites from San Diego to Macon, Georgia. Given that previous workplace studies have found that workers who ate a lot of animal protein had nearly five times the odds of obesity, whereas those that ate mostly plant protein appeared protected, obese and diabetic employees were asked to follow a plant-based diet of whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruit while avoiding meat, dairy, and eggs. Compliance wasn't great. Fewer than half really got their animal product consumption down, but there were definitely improvements such as significant reductions in saturated fat, an increase in protective nutrients, and even noted weight loss, lower blood cholesterol levers, and better blood sugar control in diabetics.

And this was with no calorie counting, no portion control, and no exercise component. The weight reduction appears to result from feeling fuller earlier, due to higher dietary fiber intake. The difference in weight loss could also be the result of an increase in the thermic effect of food, allowing a small extra edge for weight loss in the vegan group. Those eating plant-based diets tend to burn off more calories in heat.

Eating plants appears to boost metabolism. This may be due to increased insulin sensitivity in cells, allowing cells to metabolize carbohydrates more quickly rather than storing them as body fat. "As a result, vegan diets have been shown to increase postprandial calorie burn by about 16%, up to three hours after consuming a meal."

Imagine how much money companies that self-insure their employees could save! See, for example:

Find out more on some of the potential downsides of corporate influence in videos like

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: Ryan McGuire / Pixabay. This image has been modified.

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

The Healthiest Diet for Weight Control

NF-Sep4 Why Plant-Based Might be the Healthiest Diet for Weight Control.jpg

We know that vegetarians tend to be slimmer, but there's a perception that veg diets may somehow be deficient in nutrients. So how's this for a simple study, profiled in my video Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management: an analysis of the diets of 13,000 people, comparing the nutrient intake of those eating meat to those eating meat-free.

They found that those eating vegetarian were getting higher intakes of nearly every nutrient: more fiber, more vitamin A, more vitamin C, more vitamin E, more of the B vitamins (thiamin, riboflavin, & folate), more calcium, more magnesium, more iron, and more potassium. At the same time, they were also eating less of the harmful stuff like saturated fat and cholesterol. And yes, they got enough protein.

And some of those nutrients are the ones Americans really struggle to get enough of--like fiber, vitamins A, C, and E, calcium, magnesium, potassium--and those eating vegetarian got more of all of them. Even so, just because they did better than the standard American diet isn't saying much--they still didn't get as much as they should have. Those eating vegetarian ate significantly more dark green leafy vegetables, but that comes out to just two more teaspoons of greens than meat eaters on average every day.

In terms of weight management, the vegetarians were consuming, on average, 363 fewer calories every day. That's what people do when they go on a diet and restrict their food intake--but it seemed like that is how vegetarians just ate normally.

How sustainable are more plant-based diets long term? They are among the only type of diet that has been shown to be sustainable long-term, perhaps because not only do people lose weight but they often feel so much better.

And there's no calorie counting or portion control. In fact, vegetarians may burn more calories in their sleep. Those eating more plant-based diets appear to have an 11% higher resting metabolic rate. Both vegetarians and vegans seem to have a naturally revved up metabolism compared to those eating meat.

Having said that, the vegetarians in the first study mentioned were also eating eggs and dairy, so while they were significantly slimmer than those eating meat, they were still, on average, overweight. As profiled in my video, Thousands of Vegans Studied, the only dietary pattern associated on average with an ideal body weight was a strictly plant-based one. But at least the study helps to dispel the myth that meat-free diets are somehow nutrient-deficient. In fact, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association asked, "What could be more nutrient dense than a vegetarian diet?"

Anyone can lose weight in the short term on nearly any diet, but diets don't seem to work in the long-term. That's because we don't need a "diet"; we need a new way of eating that we can comfortably stick with throughout our lives. If that's the case, then we better choose to eat in a way that will most healthfully sustain us. That's why a plant-based diet may offer the best of both worlds. It's the only diet, for example, shown to reverse heart disease-our number one killer-in the majority of patients, as described in my video: One in a Thousand: Ending the Heart Disease Epidemic.

There are a number of theories offered as to why those eating plant-based are, on average, so much slimmer. Check out these videos for more information:

-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.

Original Link

Avoid Carnitine and Lethicin Supplements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avoid Carnitine and Lethicin Supplements

A landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that choline in eggs, poultry, dairy and fish produces the same toxic TMAO as carnitine in red meat, which may help explain plant-based protection from heart disease.

Earlier this year, a research team at the Cleveland Clinic offered another explanation as to why meat intake may be related to mortality (see, for example, Harvard’s Meat and Mortality Studies). They noted that “Numerous studies have suggested a decrease in atherosclerotic disease risk  [our  number 1 killer] in vegan and vegetarian individuals compared to omnivores,” but reduced intake of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat may not be the full story.  The researchers found that within 24 hours of carnitine consumption—eating a sirloin steak, taking a carnitine supplement—certain gut bacteria metabolize the carnitine to a toxic substance called trimethylamine, which then gets oxidized in our liver to TMAO, trimethylamine-n-oxide, which then circulates throughout our bloodstream. There’s a diagram in my 9-min video Carnitine, Choline, Cancer and Cholesterol: The TMAO Connection.

The way we know it’s the gut bacteria is that if you give people antibiotics to wipe out their friendly flora, you can apparently eat all the steak you want without making any TMAO, but then if you wait a couple weeks until your gut bacteria grows back, you’re back to the same problem.

What’s so bad about this TMAO stuff? It appears to increase the buildup of cholesterol in the inflammatory cells in the atherosclerotic plaques in our arteries, increasing our risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. The role of these inflammatory “foam” cells (so-called because they’re so packed with cholesterol they look foamy under a microscope) is explained in my video series that starts with Arterial Acne and Blocking the First Step of Heart Disease.

What does carnitine do? It’s involved in energy production in the mitochondria (“power plants”) in our cells. The enzyme that uses carnitine to help us burn fat, carnitine palmitoyl transferase, is actually upregulated by about 60 percent in those eating meat-free diets, which may help explain why those eating plant-based diets tend to be slimmer. More details in my video How to Upregulate Metabolism.

How do we keep carnitine away from our gut bacteria? Well there’s zero dietary requirement; our body normally makes all that we need. The problem is that the bodies of other animals also make all that they need so when we eat them, their carnitine can end up in our gut for those bacteria to feast upon, resulting in TMAO.

Some animals make more carnitine than others. Carnitine is concentrated in red meat, and so this new body of research has led to recommendations to decrease red meat consumption as well as avoid carnitine-containing supplements and energy drinks.

What most media reports missed, though, is that gut bacteria can turn the choline found in eggs, poultry, fish, dairy, and lecithin supplements into TMAO too. So it’s not just a problem with red meat. The good news is that this may mean a new approach to prevent or treat heart disease: “The most obvious is to limit dietary choline intake.” But if that just means decreasing egg, meat and dairy consumption, the “new” approach sounds just like the old approach.

Unlike carnitine, we do need to take in some choline, so should vegans be worried about the modest amounts of choline they’re getting from beans, veggies, grains, and fruit? And same question with carnitine. There’s a small amount of carnitine found in fruits, veggies, and grains as well. Of course it’s not the carnitine itself we’re worried about, but the toxic TMAO, and you can feed a vegan a steak without getting a TMAO spike. Literally. The researchers convinced a long-time vegan to eat an 8-ounce sirloin, in the name of science. The vegan got the whopping carnitine load, but hardly any TMAO was produced. Apparently, the vegans don’t develop those TMAO-producing bacteria in their gut, and why would they?

It’s like the whole prebiotic story I detail in videos like Boosting Good Bacteria in the Colon Without Probiotics. When we eat a lot of fiber, we select for fiber-munching bacteria, and some of the compounds they make with fiber are beneficial, like the propionate that appears to have an anti-obesity effect I explored in Fawning Over Flora. It seems that if we eat a lot of animal products we may instead be selecting for animal-munching bacteria, and some of those waste products—like the trimethylamine—may be harmful.

-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: avlxyz / Flickr

Original Link