Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

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:

Original Link

Chocolate is Finally Put to the Test

Oct 10 Chocolate copy.jpeg

Botanically speaking, seeds are small embryonic plants--the whole plant stuffed into a tiny seed and surrounded by an outer layer packed with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals to protect the seedling plant's DNA from free radicals. No wonder they're so healthy. By seeds, using the formal definition, we're talking all whole grains; grains are seeds--you plant them and they grow. Nuts are just dry fruits with one or two seeds. Legumes (beans, peas, and lentils) are seeds, too, as are cocoa and coffee beans. So, finding health-promoting effects in something like cocoa or coffee should not be all that surprising. There is substantial evidence that increased consumption of all these little plants is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Of course, much of chocolate research is just on how to get consumers to eat more. While it didn't seem to matter what kind of music people were listening to when it came to the flavor intensity, pleasantness, or texture of a bell pepper, people liked chocolate more when listening to jazz than classical, rock, or hip hop. Why is this important? So food industries can "integrate specific musical stimuli" in order to maximize their profits. For example, purveyors may play jazz in the background to increase consumers' acceptance of their chocolates. Along these lines, another study demonstrated that people rated the oyster eaten "more pleasant in the presence of the 'sound of the sea' than in the presence of 'farmyard noises.'"

You'd think chocolate would just sell itself, given that it's considered the most commonly craved food in the world. The same degree of interest doesn't seem to exist as to whether or not Brussels sprouts might provide similar cardiovascular protection. So, it's understandable to hope chocolate provides health benefits. Meanwhile, despite their known benefits, Brussels sprouts don't get the love they deserve.

One of the potential downsides of chocolate is weight gain, which is the subject of my Does Chocolate Cause Weight Gain? video. Though cocoa hardly has any calories, chocolate is one of the most calorie-dense foods. For example: A hundred calories of chocolate is less than a quarter of a bar, compared to a hundred calories of strawberries, which is more than two cups..

A few years ago, a study funded by the National Confectioners Association--an organization that, among other things, runs the website voteforcandy.com--reported that Americans who eat chocolate weigh, on average, four pounds less than those who don't. But maybe chocolate-eaters exercise more or eat more fruits and vegetables. The researchers didn't control for any of that.

The findings of a more recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine were less easy to dismiss and there were no apparent ties to Big Chocolate. The researchers reported that out of a thousand men and women they studied in San Diego, those who frequently consumed chocolate had a lower BMI--actually weighed less--than those who ate chocolate less often. And this was even after adjusting for physical activity and diet quality. But, it was a cross-sectional study, meaning a snapshot in time, so you can't prove cause and effect. Maybe not eating chocolate leads to being fatter, or maybe being fatter leads to not eating chocolate. Maybe people who are overweight are trying to cut down on sweets. What we need is a study in which people are followed over time.

There was no such prospective study, until now. More than 10,000 people were followed for six years, and a chocolate habit was associated with long-term weight gain in a dose-response manner. This means the greatest weight gain over time was seen in those with the highest frequency of chocolate intake. It appears the reason the cross-sectional studies found the opposite is that subjects diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses tended to reduce their intake of things like chocolate in an attempt to improve their prognosis. This explains why heavier people may, on average, eat less chocolate.

To bolster this finding came the strongest type of evidence--an interventional trial--in which you split people up into two groups and change half their diets. Indeed, adding four squares of chocolate to peoples' daily diets does appear to add a few pounds.

So, what do we tell our patients? In 2013, researchers wrote in the American Family Physician journal that "because many cocoa products are high in sugar and saturated fat, family physicians should refrain from recommending cocoa...." That's a little patronizing, though. You can get the benefits of chocolate without any sugar or fat by adding cocoa powder to a smoothie, for example. Too often, doctors think patients can't handle the truth. Case in point: If your patients inquire, one medical journal editorial suggest, ask them what type of chocolate they prefer. If they respond with milk chocolate, then it is best to answer that it is not good for them. If the answer is dark chocolate, then you can lay out the evidence.


Even better than dark chocolate would be cocoa powder, which contains the phytonutrients without the saturated fat. I've happily (and deliciously) created other videos on cocoa and chocolate, so check out Update on Chocolate, Healthiest Chocolate Fix, A Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Dark Chocolate and Artery Function.

Whether with Big Candy, Big Chocolate, or some other player, you always have to be careful about conflict of interest. For more information, watch my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video.

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:

Original Link

Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

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:

Original Link

Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

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:

Original Link

Fish Consumption and Suicide

Sept 12 Fish Consumption copy.jpeg

Depression is a serious and common mental disorder responsible for the majority of suicides. As I've covered in Antioxidants & Depression, intake of fruits, vegetables, and naturally occurring antioxidants have been found to be protectively associated with depression. Therefore, researchers have considered that "it may be possible to prevent depression or to lessen its negative effects through dietary intervention."

But not so fast. Cross-sectional studies are snapshots in time, so we don't know "whether a poor dietary pattern precedes the development of depression or if depression causes poor dietary intake." Depression and even treatments for depression can affect appetite and dietary intake. Maybe people who feel crappier just eat crappier, instead of the other way around.

What we need is a prospective study (a study performed over time) where we start out with people who are not depressed and follow them for several years. In 2012, we got just such a study, which ran over six years. As you'll see in my video Fish Consumption and Suicide, those with higher carotenoid levels in their bloodstream, which is considered a good indicator of fruit and vegetable intake, had a 28% lower risk of becoming depressed within that time. The researchers conclude that having low blood levels of those healthy phytonutrients may predict the development of new depressive symptoms. What about suicide?

Worldwide, a million people kill themselves every year. Of all European countries, Greece appears to have the lowest rates of suicide. It may be the balmy weather, but it may also have something to do with their diet. Ten thousand people were followed for years, and those following a more Mediterranean diet pattern were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. What was it about the diet that was protective? It wasn't the red wine or fish; it was the fruit, nuts, beans, and effectively higher plant to animal fat ratio that appeared protective. Conversely, significant adverse trends were observed for dairy and meat consumption.

A similar protective dietary pattern was found in Japan. A high intake of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and soy products was associated with a decreased prevalence of depressive symptoms. The healthy dietary pattern was not characterized by a high intake of seafood. Similar results were found in a study of 100,000 Japanese men and women followed for up to 10 years. There was no evidence of a protective role of higher fish consumption or the long-chain omega 3s EPA and DHA against suicide. In fact, they found a significantly increased risk of suicide among male nondrinkers with high seafood omega 3 intake. This may have been by chance, but a similar result was found in the Mediterranean. High baseline fish consumption with an increase in consumption were associated with an increased risk of mental disorders.

One possible explanation could be the mercury content of fish. Could an accumulation of mercury compounds in the body increase the risk of depression? We know that mercury in fish can cause neurological damage, associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, and autism, but also depression. Therefore, "the increased risk of suicide among persons with a high fish intake might also be attributable to the harmful effects of mercury in fish."

Large Harvard University cohort studies found similar results. Hundreds of thousands were followed for up to 20 years, and no evidence was found that taking fish oil or eating fish lowered risk of suicide. There was even a trend towards higher suicide mortality.

What about fish consumption for the treatment of depression? When we put together all the trials done to date, neither the EPA nor DHA long-chain omega-3s appears more effective than sugar pills. We used to think omega-3 supplementation was useful, but several recent studies have tipped the balance the other way. It seems that "[n]early all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias," meaning the trials that showed no benefit tended not to get published at all. So, all doctors saw were a bunch of positive studies, but only because a bunch of the negative ones were buried.

This reminds me of my Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? video. Just like we thought omega-3 supplementation could help with mood, we also thought it could help with heart health, but the balance of evidence has decidedly shifted. I still recommend the consumption of pollutant-free sources of preformed long-chain omega 3s for cognitive health and explain my rationale in Should We Take DHA Supplements to Boost Brain Function? and Should Vegans Take DHA to Preserve Brain Function?


For more on the neurotoxic nature of mercury-contaminated seafood, see:

What can we do to help our mood? See:

What about antidepressant drugs? Sometimes they can be absolutely life-saving, but other times they may actually do more harm than good. See my controversial video Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work?.

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:

Original Link

Organic versus Conventional: Which has More Nutrients?

Organic versus Conventional - Which has More Nutrients?.jpeg

Are organic foods safer and healthier than conventional alternatives? Those are two separate questions. Some consumers are interested in getting more nutrients; others are more concerned about getting fewer pesticides. Let's do nutrition first.

As seen in my video, Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?, hundreds of studies have been reviewed and researchers didn't find significant differences for most of the traditional nutrients like vitamins and minerals. They concluded that despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious, they didn't find robust evidence to support that perception. They did, however, find higher levels of phenolic phytonutrients in organic.

These so-called "secondary metabolites" of plants are thought to be behind many of the benefits ascribed to eating fruits and vegetables. Organic fruits and vegetables had between 19 and 69% more of a variety of these antioxidant compounds. The theory was that these phytonutrients are created by the plant for its own protection. For example, broccoli releases the bitter compounds like sulforaphane when the plant is chewed to ward off those who might eat it. Bugs take one bite and say, "Ew, this tastes like broccoli!" But pesticide-laden plants are bitten less by bugs and so may be churning out fewer of these compounds. Plants raised organically, on the other hand, are in a fight for their lives and may necessarily have to produce more protection. That was the theory anyway, but we don't have good evidence to back it up. The more likely reason has to do with the fertilizer; plants given high dose synthetic nitrogen fertilizers may divert more resources to growth rather than defense.

These antioxidants may protect the plant, but what about us? More antioxidant phytonutrients are found in organic vegetables and so yes, they displayed more antioxidant activity, but also more antimutagenic activity. Researchers exposed bacteria to a variety of mutagenic chemicals like benzopyrene, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon found in barbecued meat, or IQ, the heterocyclic amine found in grilled/broiled/fried meats (as well as cigarette smoke), and there were fewer DNA mutations in the petri dishes where they added organic vegetables compared to the petri dishes where they added conventional vegetables.

Preventing DNA damage in bacteria is one thing, but what about effects on actual human cells? Organic strawberries may taste better, and have higher antioxidant activity and more phenolic phytonutrients, but what happens when you stack them up head-to-head against human cancer cells? Extracts from organically grown strawberries suppressed the growth of colon cancer cells and breast cancer cells significantly better than extracts from conventional strawberries. Now this was dripping strawberries onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, but as I showed in Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer, there are real life circumstances in which strawberries come into direct contact with cancerous and precancerous lesions, and so presumably organic strawberries would work even better, but they haven't yet been tested in clinical trials.

Although in vitro studies show higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, clinical studies on the impact of eating organic on human disease simply haven't been done. Based on antioxidant phytonutrient levels, organic produce may be considered 20 to 40% healthier, the equivalent of adding one or two serving's worth to a five-a-day regimen. But organic produce may be 40% more expensive, so for the same money you could just buy the extra servings worth of conventional produce. From a purely nutrients-per-dollar standpoint, it's not clear that organic foods are any better. But people often buy organic foods to avoid chemicals, not because they are more nutritious. For more on the best available science comparing the nutritional content, pesticide risk, heavy metal toxicity, and food poisoning risk of organic versus conventionally raised foods )including practical tips for making your own DIY fruit and veggie wash), see:

I imagine that the reaction to this series will be similar to that for the one I did on GMO foods, riling up critics on both sides of the debate:

More on the nutritional implications of stressed-out plants here:

Production method aside, in vitro, Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better?

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

Organic versus Conventional: Which has More Nutrients?

Organic versus Conventional - Which has More Nutrients?.jpeg

Are organic foods safer and healthier than conventional alternatives? Those are two separate questions. Some consumers are interested in getting more nutrients; others are more concerned about getting fewer pesticides. Let's do nutrition first.

As seen in my video, Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?, hundreds of studies have been reviewed and researchers didn't find significant differences for most of the traditional nutrients like vitamins and minerals. They concluded that despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious, they didn't find robust evidence to support that perception. They did, however, find higher levels of phenolic phytonutrients in organic.

These so-called "secondary metabolites" of plants are thought to be behind many of the benefits ascribed to eating fruits and vegetables. Organic fruits and vegetables had between 19 and 69% more of a variety of these antioxidant compounds. The theory was that these phytonutrients are created by the plant for its own protection. For example, broccoli releases the bitter compounds like sulforaphane when the plant is chewed to ward off those who might eat it. Bugs take one bite and say, "Ew, this tastes like broccoli!" But pesticide-laden plants are bitten less by bugs and so may be churning out fewer of these compounds. Plants raised organically, on the other hand, are in a fight for their lives and may necessarily have to produce more protection. That was the theory anyway, but we don't have good evidence to back it up. The more likely reason has to do with the fertilizer; plants given high dose synthetic nitrogen fertilizers may divert more resources to growth rather than defense.

These antioxidants may protect the plant, but what about us? More antioxidant phytonutrients are found in organic vegetables and so yes, they displayed more antioxidant activity, but also more antimutagenic activity. Researchers exposed bacteria to a variety of mutagenic chemicals like benzopyrene, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon found in barbecued meat, or IQ, the heterocyclic amine found in grilled/broiled/fried meats (as well as cigarette smoke), and there were fewer DNA mutations in the petri dishes where they added organic vegetables compared to the petri dishes where they added conventional vegetables.

Preventing DNA damage in bacteria is one thing, but what about effects on actual human cells? Organic strawberries may taste better, and have higher antioxidant activity and more phenolic phytonutrients, but what happens when you stack them up head-to-head against human cancer cells? Extracts from organically grown strawberries suppressed the growth of colon cancer cells and breast cancer cells significantly better than extracts from conventional strawberries. Now this was dripping strawberries onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, but as I showed in Strawberries versus Esophageal Cancer, there are real life circumstances in which strawberries come into direct contact with cancerous and precancerous lesions, and so presumably organic strawberries would work even better, but they haven't yet been tested in clinical trials.

Although in vitro studies show higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, clinical studies on the impact of eating organic on human disease simply haven't been done. Based on antioxidant phytonutrient levels, organic produce may be considered 20 to 40% healthier, the equivalent of adding one or two serving's worth to a five-a-day regimen. But organic produce may be 40% more expensive, so for the same money you could just buy the extra servings worth of conventional produce. From a purely nutrients-per-dollar standpoint, it's not clear that organic foods are any better. But people often buy organic foods to avoid chemicals, not because they are more nutritious. For more on the best available science comparing the nutritional content, pesticide risk, heavy metal toxicity, and food poisoning risk of organic versus conventionally raised foods )including practical tips for making your own DIY fruit and veggie wash), see:

I imagine that the reaction to this series will be similar to that for the one I did on GMO foods, riling up critics on both sides of the debate:

More on the nutritional implications of stressed-out plants here:

Production method aside, in vitro, Which Fruit Fights Cancer Better?

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more mental health video, see:

Anything else we can do to enhance our sexual health and attractiveness? See:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression

Antioxidant- and Folate-Rich Foods for Depression.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more mental health video, see:

Anything else we can do to enhance our sexual health and attractiveness? See:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Does Oatmeal Lotion Work?

Does Oatmeal Lotion Work?.jpeg

A review in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology notes oatmeal has been used for centuries as a topical soothing agent on the skin to relieve itch and irritation in dermatology. Of course, that was coming from Johnson & Johnson, which sells a brand of oatmeal lotion. But if it helps with dry skin or a bug bite, I can imagine it having some soothing quality. One study out of Georgetown University, though, shocked me.

There's a class of chemo drugs, like Cetuximab, that can cause an awful rash. Various treatments have been tried and failed. There was no clear preventive or curative treatment for this eruption, until this remarkable study, which you can see in my Oatmeal Lotion for Chemotherapy-Induced Rash video.

The researchers had heard about a study where human skin fragments from plastic surgery were subjected to an inflammatory chemical, and adding an oatmeal extract appeared to help. Of the ten patients with chemo rashes who the researchers were able to get to try some oatmeal lotion, six had a complete response, and four a partial response, giving an overall oatmeal response rate of 100%.

Doctors wrote in from around the world. Significant improvement in all patients seemed too good to be true, but out of desperation they tried it and got the same astonishing results. Oatmeal--a simple topical agent producing such spectacular benefit where more complex therapies have failed. In an age when ever more expensive treatments are consistently being championed, it would be a great pity if this inexpensive, natural approach to relieving distressing symptoms were to be overlooked.

Ironically, two of the cancer cell lines found resistant in vitro to this type of chemotherapy were found to be sensitive to avenanthramides, which are unique phytonutrients found in oats, suggesting that people should be applying oatmeal to their insides as well.

Normally I wouldn't make a whole video for such a rare use, but I was so impressed with the results I figured that even if I could help one person in this situation it would be worth it. Reminds me of my videos Treating Gorlin Syndrome With Green Tea and Topical Application of Turmeric Curcumin for Cancer.

If oatmeal is so powerful that it can clear up some of the ravages of chemotherapy just applied to the skin, what might it do if we actually ate it? That's the subject of my video Can Oatmeal Help Fatty Liver Disease?.

Cetuximab is often given for metastatic colorectal cancer. Better to try to prevent the disease in the first place:

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