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

What Animal Protein Does in Your Colon

What Animal Protein Does in Your Colon.jpeg

There's a take-off of the industry slogan, "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" - "Beef: It's What's Rotting in Your Colon." I saw this on a shirt once with some friends and I was such the party pooper--no pun intended--explaining to everyone that meat is fully digested in the small intestine, and never makes it down into the colon. It's no fun hanging out with biology geeks.

But I was wrong!

It's been estimated that with a typical Western diet, up to 12 grams of protein can escape digestion, and when it reaches the colon, it can be turned into toxic substances like ammonia. This degradation of undigested protein in the colon is called putrefaction, so a little meat can actually end up putrefying in our colon. The problem is that some of the by-products of this putrefaction process can be toxic.

It's generally accepted that carbohydrate fermentation--the fiber and resistant starches that reach our colon--results in beneficial effects because of the generation of short-chain fatty acids like butyrate, whereas protein fermentation is considered detrimental. Protein fermentation mainly occurs in the lower end of colon and results in the production of potentially toxic metabolites. That may be why colorectal cancer and ulcerative colitis tends to happen lower down--because that's where the protein is putrefying.

Probably the simplest strategy to reduce the potential harm of protein fermentation is to reduce dietary protein intake. But the accumulation of these toxic byproducts of protein metabolism may be attenuated by the fermentation of undigested plant matter. In my video, Bowel Wars: Hydrogen Sulfide vs. Butyrate, you can see a study out of Australia showed that if you give people foods containing resistant starch you can block the accumulation of potentially harmful byproducts of protein metabolism. Resistant starch is resistant to small intestine digestion and so it makes it down to our colon where it can feed our good bacteria. Resistant starch is found in cooked beans, split peas, chickpeas, lentils, raw oatmeal, and cooled cooked pasta (like macaroni salad). Apparently, the more starch that ends up in the colon, the less ammonia that is produced.

Of course, there's protein in plants too. The difference is that animal proteins tend to have more sulfur-containing amino acids like methionine, which can be turned into hydrogen sulfide in our colon. Hydrogen sulfide is the rotten egg gas that may play a role in the development of the inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis (see Preventing Ulcerative Colitis with Diet).

The toxic effects of hydrogen sulfide appear to be a result of blocking the ability of the cells lining our colon from utilizing butyrate, which is what our good bacteria make from the fiber and resistant starch we eat. It's like this constant battle in our colon between the bad metabolites of protein, hydrogen sulfide, and the good metabolites of carbohydrates, butyrate. Using human colon samples, researchers were able to show that the adverse effects of sulfide could be reversed by butyrate. So we can either cut down on meat, eat more plants, or both.

There are two ways hydrogen sulfide can be produced, though. It's mainly present in our large intestine as a result of the breakdown of sulfur-containing proteins, but the rotten egg gas can also be generated from inorganic sulfur preservatives like sulfites and sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide is used as a preservative in dried fruit, and sulfites are added to wines. We can avoid sulfur additives by reading labels or by just choosing organic, since they're forbidden from organic fruits and beverages by law.

More than 35 years ago, studies started implicating sulfur dioxide preservatives in the exacerbation of asthma. This so-called "sulfite-sensitivity" seems to affect only about 1 in 2,000 people, so I recommended those with asthma avoid it, but otherwise I considered the preservative harmless. I am now not so sure, and advise people to avoid it when possible.

Cabbage family vegetables naturally have some sulfur compounds, but thankfully, after following more than a hundred thousand women for over 25 years, researchers concluded cruciferous vegetables were not associated with elevated colitis risk.

Because of animal protein and processed food intake, the standard American diet may contain five or six times more sulfur than a diet centered around unprocessed plant foods. This may help explain the rarity of inflammatory bowel disease among those eating traditional whole food, plant-based diets.

How could companies just add things like sulfur dioxide to foods without adequate safety testing? See Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe? For other additives that may be a problem, see Titanium Dioxide & Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Is Carrageenan Safe?

More on this epic fermentation battle in our gut in Stool pH and Colon Cancer.

Does the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine sound familiar? You may remember it from such hits as Starving Cancer with Methionine Restriction and Methionine Restriction as a Life Extension Strategy.

These short-chain fatty acids released by our good bacteria when we eat fiber and resistant starches are what may be behind the second meal effect: Beans and the Second Meal Effect.

I mentioned ulcerative colitis. What about the other inflammatory bowel disease Crohn's? See Preventing Crohn's Disease With Diet and Dietary Treatment of Crohn's Disease.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

What Animal Protein Does in Your Colon

What Animal Protein Does in Your Colon.jpeg

There's a take-off of the industry slogan, "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" - "Beef: It's What's Rotting in Your Colon." I saw this on a shirt once with some friends and I was such the party pooper--no pun intended--explaining to everyone that meat is fully digested in the small intestine, and never makes it down into the colon. It's no fun hanging out with biology geeks.

But I was wrong!

It's been estimated that with a typical Western diet, up to 12 grams of protein can escape digestion, and when it reaches the colon, it can be turned into toxic substances like ammonia. This degradation of undigested protein in the colon is called putrefaction, so a little meat can actually end up putrefying in our colon. The problem is that some of the by-products of this putrefaction process can be toxic.

It's generally accepted that carbohydrate fermentation--the fiber and resistant starches that reach our colon--results in beneficial effects because of the generation of short-chain fatty acids like butyrate, whereas protein fermentation is considered detrimental. Protein fermentation mainly occurs in the lower end of colon and results in the production of potentially toxic metabolites. That may be why colorectal cancer and ulcerative colitis tends to happen lower down--because that's where the protein is putrefying.

Probably the simplest strategy to reduce the potential harm of protein fermentation is to reduce dietary protein intake. But the accumulation of these toxic byproducts of protein metabolism may be attenuated by the fermentation of undigested plant matter. In my video, Bowel Wars: Hydrogen Sulfide vs. Butyrate, you can see a study out of Australia showed that if you give people foods containing resistant starch you can block the accumulation of potentially harmful byproducts of protein metabolism. Resistant starch is resistant to small intestine digestion and so it makes it down to our colon where it can feed our good bacteria. Resistant starch is found in cooked beans, split peas, chickpeas, lentils, raw oatmeal, and cooled cooked pasta (like macaroni salad). Apparently, the more starch that ends up in the colon, the less ammonia that is produced.

Of course, there's protein in plants too. The difference is that animal proteins tend to have more sulfur-containing amino acids like methionine, which can be turned into hydrogen sulfide in our colon. Hydrogen sulfide is the rotten egg gas that may play a role in the development of the inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis (see Preventing Ulcerative Colitis with Diet).

The toxic effects of hydrogen sulfide appear to be a result of blocking the ability of the cells lining our colon from utilizing butyrate, which is what our good bacteria make from the fiber and resistant starch we eat. It's like this constant battle in our colon between the bad metabolites of protein, hydrogen sulfide, and the good metabolites of carbohydrates, butyrate. Using human colon samples, researchers were able to show that the adverse effects of sulfide could be reversed by butyrate. So we can either cut down on meat, eat more plants, or both.

There are two ways hydrogen sulfide can be produced, though. It's mainly present in our large intestine as a result of the breakdown of sulfur-containing proteins, but the rotten egg gas can also be generated from inorganic sulfur preservatives like sulfites and sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide is used as a preservative in dried fruit, and sulfites are added to wines. We can avoid sulfur additives by reading labels or by just choosing organic, since they're forbidden from organic fruits and beverages by law.

More than 35 years ago, studies started implicating sulfur dioxide preservatives in the exacerbation of asthma. This so-called "sulfite-sensitivity" seems to affect only about 1 in 2,000 people, so I recommended those with asthma avoid it, but otherwise I considered the preservative harmless. I am now not so sure, and advise people to avoid it when possible.

Cabbage family vegetables naturally have some sulfur compounds, but thankfully, after following more than a hundred thousand women for over 25 years, researchers concluded cruciferous vegetables were not associated with elevated colitis risk.

Because of animal protein and processed food intake, the standard American diet may contain five or six times more sulfur than a diet centered around unprocessed plant foods. This may help explain the rarity of inflammatory bowel disease among those eating traditional whole food, plant-based diets.

How could companies just add things like sulfur dioxide to foods without adequate safety testing? See Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe? For other additives that may be a problem, see Titanium Dioxide & Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Is Carrageenan Safe?

More on this epic fermentation battle in our gut in Stool pH and Colon Cancer.

Does the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine sound familiar? You may remember it from such hits as Starving Cancer with Methionine Restriction and Methionine Restriction as a Life Extension Strategy.

These short-chain fatty acids released by our good bacteria when we eat fiber and resistant starches are what may be behind the second meal effect: Beans and the Second Meal Effect.

I mentioned ulcerative colitis. What about the other inflammatory bowel disease Crohn's? See Preventing Crohn's Disease With Diet and Dietary Treatment of Crohn's Disease.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Clamless Chowder

This soup is reminiscent of New England clam chowder: it’s thick, creamy, and full of potatoes, as well as onion, celery, bay leaves, and thyme. Chopped oyster mushrooms provide a great clam-like texture. A few cashews blended in add richness instead of cream and butter, and if you want a seafood flavor, simply add some...

Read More »

The post Clamless Chowder appeared first on Straight Up Food.

Original Link

Making Your Own Mouthwash

NF-Jan26 Making Your Own Mouthwash.jpeg

The effects of a vegetarian diet on systemic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart diseases have been studied and have revealed predominantly less systemic diseases in those eating plant-based diets. However, there have only been a few studies on oral health, which I covered in my videos Plant-Based Diets: Oral Health and Plant-Based Diets: Dental Health.

What's the latest? In a study of 100 vegetarians compared to a 100 non-vegetarians, the vegetarians had better periodontal conditions, showing less signs of inflammation like gum bleeding, less periodontal damage, and better dental home care, brushing and flossing 2.17 times a day compared to 2.02 times a day. The difference in home hygiene is not that large, though, so maybe it was something about their diet. However, vegetarians may have a healthier lifestyle overall beyond just avoiding meat. The researchers controlled for smoking, but other factors like obesity can adversely affect oral health, so there may be confounding factors. What we need is an interventional study, where researchers take people eating the standard Western diet, improve their diets, and see what happens. But no such study existed... until now.

With professional support of nutritionists, the participants of the study (highlighted in my video What's the Best Mouthwash?) with existing periodontal disease changed their dietary patterns to so-called "wholesome nutrition," a diet emphasizing veggies, fruits, whole grains, potatoes, beans, peas, lentils, and spices, with water as the preferred beverage. To make sure any changes they witnessed were due to the diet, researchers made subjects maintain their same oral hygiene before and after the dietary change. What did they find? They found that eating healthier appeared to lead to a significant reduction of probing pocket depth, gingival inflammation, and levels of inflammatory cytokines, which mediate the tissue destruction in periodontal disease. Therefore, the researchers conclude that wholesome nutrition may improve periodontal health.

Why might diet help? Plant-based diets have a number of nutritional benefits in terms of nutrient density, but it also may be about improving balance between free radicals and our antioxidant defense system. Traditionally, dietary advice for oral health was just about avoiding sugar, which feed the bad bacteria on our teeth. We now realize that some foods and beverages, like green tea, possess antimicrobial properties to combat the plaque producing bacteria directly.

If plaque is caused by bacteria, why not use antibiotics? Many such attempts have been made, however undesirable side-effects such as "antibiotic resistance, vomiting, diarrhea and teeth stains have precluded their use." In a petri dish, green tea phytonutrients effectively inhibit the growth of these bacteria, but what about in our mouths? Researchers found that rinsing with green tea strongly inhibited the growth of the plaque bacteria on our teeth within minutes. Seven minutes after swishing with green tea, the number of harmful bacteria in the plaque scraped from people's teeth was cut nearly in half.

If you swish sugar water in your mouth, within three minutes the pH on our teeth can drop into the cavity formation danger zone. But if 20 minutes before swishing with sugar water, you swished with some green tea, you wipe out so many plaque bacteria that the same sugar water hardly has any effect at all. The researchers conclude that using green tea as a mouthwash or adding it to toothpaste could be a cost effective cavity prevention measure, especially in developing countries.

In the "civilized world," we have antiseptic mouthwashes with fancy chemicals like chlorhexidine, considered the gold standard anti-plaque agent. If only it didn't cause genetic damage. DNA damage has been detected in individuals who rinsed their mouths with chlorhexidine-containing mouthwashes, and not just to cells in the mouth. 13 volunteers rinsed their mouths with the stuff for a few weeks, and there was an increase in DNA damage both in the cells lining their cheeks as well as in their peripheral blood cells, suggesting that chlorhexidine was absorbed into their bodies. It reduced plaque better than other antiseptic chemicals, but it's doubtful whether chlorhexidine can still be considered the golden standard considering how toxic it is to human cells.

Are we left with having to decide between effectiveness and safety? How about a head to head test between chlorhexidine and green tea? Researchers found that green tea worked better than chlorhexidine at reducing plaque. Using green tea as a mouthwash may be cheaper, safer, and better. If, as a bonus, you want to sprinkle some amla powder (dried Indian gooseberry powder) into it, you may make it an even better plaque buster. Amla evidently shows an outstanding cavity-stopping potential not by killing off the bacteria like green tea, but by actually suppressing the bacteria's plaque forming abilities.

I now keep a mason jar filled with cold-steeped green tea (Cold Steeping Green Tea) with a spoonful of amla in the fridge and swish and swallow a few times a day. For extra credit you can gargle a bit with it too (see my video Can Gargling Prevent the Common Cold?).

Green tea shouldn't be the primary beverage of children, though, as the natural fluoride content may cause cosmetic spots on the teeth. For more check out my video Childhood Tea Drinking May Increase Fluorosis Risk.

Another reason we may want to avoid antibacterial mouthwashes is that they can kill off the good bacteria on our tongue that are instrumental in enhancing athletic performance with nitrate-containing vegetables (See Don't Use Antiseptic Mouthwash). For more on this, check out my video from yesterday, Antibacterial Toothpaste: Harmful, Helpful, or Harmless?

Need a reminder what amla is? More on dried Indian gooseberry powder power in:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Norio Nakayama / Flickr

Original Link

Starch-Blocking Foods for Diabetics?

NF-Dec29 Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.jpg

How did doctors treat diabetes before insulin? Almost a thousand medicinal plants are known antidiabetic agents, including beans, most of which have been used in traditional medicine. Of course, just because something has been used for centuries doesn't mean it's safe. Other treatments for diabetes in the past included arsenic and uranium. Thankfully many of these other remedies fell by the wayside, but scientific interest in the antidiabetic potential of beans was renewed in the past decade.

Diabetes is a global public health epidemic. Although oral hypoglycemic medications and injected insulin are the mainstay of treatment of diabetes and are effective in controlling high blood sugars, they have side effects such as weight gain, swelling, and liver disease. They also are not shown to significantly alter the progression of the disease. Thankfully, lifestyle modifications have proven to be greatly effective in the management of this disease. And if there is one thing diabetics should eat, it's legumes (beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils).

Increased consumption of whole grains and legumes for health-promoting diets is widely promoted by health professionals. One of the reasons is that they may decrease insulin resistance, the defining trait of type 2 diabetes. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the Canadian Diabetes Association and the American Diabetes Association all recommend the consumption of dietary pulses as a means of optimizing diabetes control. What are pulses? They're peas and beans that come dried, and are therefore a subset of legumes. They exclude green beans and fresh green peas, which are considered more vegetable crops, and the so-called oil seeds--soybeans and peanuts.

A review out of Canada (highlighted in my video, Diabetes Should Take Their Pulses) compiled 41 randomized controlled experimental trials, totaling more than a thousand patients, and corroborated the diabetes association nutrition guidelines recommending the consumption of pulses as a means of optimizing diabetes control. They discovered that some pulses are better than others. Some of the best results came from the studies that used chickpeas. In terms of beans, pintos and black beans may beat out kidney beans. Compared to the blood sugar spike of straight white rice, the combination of black or pinto beans with rice appeared to reduce the spike more than kidney beans and rice.

Dark red kidney beans may not be as effective because they have lower levels of indigestible starch. One of the reasons beans are so healthy is they contain compounds that partially block our starch-digesting enzyme, which allows some starch to make it down to our colon to feed our good gut bacteria. In fact, the inhibition of this starch-eating enzyme amylase, just by eating beans, approximates that of a carbohydrate-blocking drug called acarbose (sold as Precose), a popular diabetes medication. The long-term use of beans may normalize hemoglobin A1C levels (which is how you track diabetes) almost as well as the drug.

What about avoiding metabolic derangements in the first place? See my video Preventing Prediabetes By Eating More.

What else may help?

What may hurt?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Emily Carlin / Flickr

Original Link

Which Works Better: Adding Beans or Portion Control?

NF-Dec24 Preventing Prediabetes By Eating More.jpg
People who eat the most legumes appear to only have a fraction of the risk for a type of prediabetes known as metabolic syndrome. Legumes are beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils. In one studyout of Iran, people who ate three or more servings of beans a week only had about a quarter of the odds of the disease, compared to those who ate one serving or less.

Bean consumption is associated with lower body weight, a slimmer waist, less obesity and lower blood pressure in population studies, but whether the association of bean consumption with healthier body weight and risk factors of metabolic syndrome is due to physiological effects of the beans themselves or is simply an indicator of a healthy lifestyle is uncertain. Anyone smart enough to eat beans may be smart enough to eat all sorts of other healthy foods, so maybe bean consumption is just a marker for a healthy diet.

A study out of the British Journal of Nutrition put this to the test (highlighted in my video, Preventing Prediabetes by Eating More). The researchers note that reducing belly fat may be the best way to treat metabolic syndrome and reduce the risk of prediabetes turning into full-blown diabetes. "Energy restriction has been the cornerstone of most weight-loss strategies; however, evidence suggests that the majority of individuals who lose weight [by calorie-cutting] regain it during subsequent months or years." Starving ourselves almost never works long-term. Therefore, they conclude that "it is important to identify foods that can be easily incorporated into the diet and spontaneously lead to the attainment and maintenance of a healthy body weight and improved metabolic control."

So, for the first time ever, the researchers did a head-to-head test: beans versus caloric restriction. The bean group was asked to eat five cups of lentils, chickpeas, split peas, or navy beans a week, and the caloric restriction group was asked to reduce energy intake. In other words, the bean group was asked to eat more food and the cutting calories group was asked to eat less food. Not-so-surprisingly, the more-food group won. Not only was regular bean consumption as effective as portion control in reducing prediabetes risk factors like slimming waistlines and better blood sugar control, but the bean diet led to additional benefits beyond just calorie reduction, presumably due to some functional properties of the beans and peas.

The researchers concluded that five cups a week of beans, chickpeas, split peas and lentils in an ad libitum diet (meaning subjects weren't told to change their diet in any other way), reduced risk factors of metabolic syndrome. These effects were equivalent, and in some instances stronger, than telling people to cut 500 calories from their daily diet. These results are encouraging news for individuals with or at risk for type 2 diabetes since they indicate that simple diet changes, such as the inclusion of beans, can have a positive impact on blood sugar control.

What is metabolic syndrome? See: Metabolic Syndrome and Plant-Based Diets.

More on plants versus calorie restriction in:

More on magic beans:

What about treating full-blown diabetes with beans? All in my video: Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: homami / Flickr

Original Link

How Fruits and Vegetables Can Treat Asthma

NF-July2 Treating Asthma with Fruits and Vegetables.jpg

In my video Preventing Asthma With Fruits and Vegetables, I highlighted an international study of asthma and allergies involving more than a million kids. The study found a consistent inverse relationship between prevalence rates of asthma, allergies, and eczema and the intake of plants, starch, grains, and vegetables. Researchers speculated "over a decade ago that if these findings could be generalized, and if the average daily consumption of these foods increased, an important decrease in symptom prevalence could be achieved." No need to speculate any more, though, because plants were finally put to the test.

Researchers have proposed that "by eating fewer fruits and vegetables, the susceptibility to potentially harmful inhaled substances of the population as a whole may be increased because of the reduction in antioxidant defenses of the lungs." The thin lining of fluid that forms the interface between our respiratory tract and the external environment is our first line of defense against oxidative damage. Oxidative damage is important in asthma, contributing to airway contraction, excessive mucous production, and hypersensitivity. Antioxidants protect against oxidative stress, so our lung lining contains a range of antioxidants our body makes itself, as well as those obtained from our diet, particularly from fruits and vegetables.

We can even quantify the level of oxidative stress in people by measuring the level of oxidation products in their exhaled breath, which drops as we start eating more fruits and vegetables, and drops further as we combine more plants with fewer animal foods.

Do those with asthma really have lower levels of antioxidants than people without asthma? Compared to healthy controls, subjects with asthma had lower whole blood levels of total carotenoids and lower levels of each of the individual phytonutrients they measured: cryptoxanthin, lycopene, lutein, alpha-carotene and beta-carotene compared to healthy controls.

Therefore, they posit, "the accumulating evidence does suggest that diet has an influence in modulating the response of the lung to inhaled allergens and irritants. However, it is possible that the reduced carotenoid levels in asthma are a result of increased utilization in the presence of excess free radicals." So it's like a chicken-or-the-egg phenomenon.

We know antioxidant-rich diets have been associated with reduced asthma prevalence. However, direct evidence that altering intake of antioxidant-rich foods actually affects asthma was lacking, until now.

There are two ways to test the effects of fruits and vegetables on asthma. Add fruits and vegetables to people's diets and see if their asthma improves, or take asthmatics and remove fruits and vegetables from their diets and see if they get worse.

The first such study of its kind, highlighted in my video, Treating Asthma With Fruits and Vegetables, placed subjects with asthma on a low antioxidant diet. After just a matter of days, there was a significant worsening of lung function and asthma control. The researchers conclude that "This finding is highly significant for subjects with asthma, as it indicates that omitting antioxidant-rich foods from the diet, for even a short time frame, will have a detrimental effect on asthma symptoms."

Ironically, the low antioxidant diet consumed by subjects, where they were restricted to one serving of fruit and up to two servings of vegetables per day, is typical of Western diets. In other words, the low antioxidant diet they used to worsen people's asthma, crippling their lung function, was just like the standard American diet.

As about "half the population usually consumes a diet with an intake of fruit and vegetables equivalent to that in the study diet or less, it appears likely that this dietary pattern, which must be considered suboptimal for lung health, may have a significant impact on asthma management, indicating the potential for typical Western dietary patterns to contribute to a worsening of lung function and asthma control."

Within just days, cutting down fruit and vegetable intake can impair lung function, but does adding fruits and vegetables help with asthma? That was the second phase of the study.

Asthmatics on the standard American diet had about a 40% chance of relapsing into an asthma exacerbation within three months. However, put them on seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day instead of three, and we cut their exacerbation rate in half, down to 20%. Imagine if there were a drug that could work as powerfully as a few fruits and vegetables.

If manipulating antioxidant intake by increasing fruit and vegetable intake can so powerfully reduce asthma exacerbation rates, why not just take antioxidant pills instead? I cover that in my video Treating Asthma With Plants vs. Supplements?

And if a few extra servings of fruits and vegetables can make that kind of difference, what about a whole diet composed of plants? Check out Treating Asthma and Eczema With Plant-Based Diets.

What else might antioxidant-rich diets help with? See:

How many antioxidants should we shoot for? See:

Where are antioxidants found the most?

-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: Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center / Flickr

Original Link

Beefless Stew

This hearty stew has everything you love about beef stew, but without the beef! It has large chunks of potato, carrot, celery, and onion, and portabella mushrooms stand in for the beef. Garlic, paprika, and fresh rosemary provide excellent flavor. Print Beefless Stew Prep time:  30 mins Cook time:  35 mins Total time:  1 hour...

Read More »

The post Beefless Stew appeared first on Straight Up Food.

Original Link