Foods to Eat to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 26 Foods to Eat copy.jpeg

Why is meat consumption a risk factor for diabetes? Why does there appear to be a stepwise reduction in diabetes rates as meat consumption drops? Instead of avoiding something in meat, it may be that people are getting something protective from plants. Free radicals may be an important trigger for insulin resistance, and antioxidants in plant foods may help. Put people on a plant-based diet, and their antioxidant enzymes shoot up. So not only do plants provide antioxidants, but may boost our own anti-endogenous antioxidant defenses, whereas, on the conventional diabetic diet, they get worse.

In my video, How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes, I discuss how there are phytonutrients in plant foods that may help lower chronic disease prevalence by acting as antioxidants and anti-cancer agents, and by lowering cholesterol and blood sugar. Some, we're now theorizing, may even be lipotropes, which have the capacity to hasten the removal of fat from our liver and other organs, counteracting the inflammatory cascade believed to be directly initiated by saturated-fat-containing foods. Fat in the bloodstream--from the fat on our bodies or the fat we eat--not only causes insulin resistance, but also produces a low-grade inflammation that can contribute to heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fiber may also decrease insulin resistance. One of the ways it may do so is by helping to rid the body of excess estrogen. There is strong evidence for a direct role of estrogens in the cause of diabetes, and it's been demonstrated that certain gut bacteria can produce estrogens in our colon. High-fat, low-fiber diets appear to stimulate the metabolic activity of these estrogen-producing intestinal bacteria. This is a problem for men, too. Obesity is associated with low testosterone levels and marked elevations of estrogens produced not only by fat cells but also by some of the bacteria in our gut. Our intestinal bacteria may produce these so-called diabetogens (diabetes-causing compounds) from the fats we eat. By eating lots of fiber, though, we can flush this excess estrogen out of our bodies.

Vegetarian women, for example, excrete two to three times more estrogens in their stools than omnivorous women, which may be why omnivorous women have 50% higher estrogen blood levels. These differences in estrogen metabolism may help explain the lower incidence of diabetes in those eating more plant-based diets, as well as the lower incidence of breast cancer in vegetarian women, who get rid of twice as much estrogen because they get rid of twice as much daily waste in general.

Either way, "[m]eat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk. Dietary habits are readily modifiable, but individuals and clinicians will consider dietary changes only if they are aware of the potential benefits of doing so." The identification of meat consumption as a risk factor for diabetes provides helpful guidance that sets the stage for beneficial behavioral changes. Meat consumption is something doctors can easily ask about, and, once identified, at-risk individuals can then be encouraged to familiarize themselves with meatless options.


Plant foods may also protect against diabetes by replacing animal foods. Learn more with my Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes? video.

What if your entire diet was filled with plants? See Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes. Find out which plants may be particularly protective with these videos: Amla Versus Diabetes, Flaxseed vs. Diabetes, and Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

Unfortunately, cinnamon has fallen out of favor. See my Update on Cinnamon for Blood Sugar Control.

I also have an ever-growing series on the science behind type 2 diabetes:

For more on the estrogen connection, see Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen and Breast Cancer and Constipation.

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

Foods to Eat to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 26 Foods to Eat copy.jpeg

Why is meat consumption a risk factor for diabetes? Why does there appear to be a stepwise reduction in diabetes rates as meat consumption drops? Instead of avoiding something in meat, it may be that people are getting something protective from plants. Free radicals may be an important trigger for insulin resistance, and antioxidants in plant foods may help. Put people on a plant-based diet, and their antioxidant enzymes shoot up. So not only do plants provide antioxidants, but may boost our own anti-endogenous antioxidant defenses, whereas, on the conventional diabetic diet, they get worse.

In my video, How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes, I discuss how there are phytonutrients in plant foods that may help lower chronic disease prevalence by acting as antioxidants and anti-cancer agents, and by lowering cholesterol and blood sugar. Some, we're now theorizing, may even be lipotropes, which have the capacity to hasten the removal of fat from our liver and other organs, counteracting the inflammatory cascade believed to be directly initiated by saturated-fat-containing foods. Fat in the bloodstream--from the fat on our bodies or the fat we eat--not only causes insulin resistance, but also produces a low-grade inflammation that can contribute to heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fiber may also decrease insulin resistance. One of the ways it may do so is by helping to rid the body of excess estrogen. There is strong evidence for a direct role of estrogens in the cause of diabetes, and it's been demonstrated that certain gut bacteria can produce estrogens in our colon. High-fat, low-fiber diets appear to stimulate the metabolic activity of these estrogen-producing intestinal bacteria. This is a problem for men, too. Obesity is associated with low testosterone levels and marked elevations of estrogens produced not only by fat cells but also by some of the bacteria in our gut. Our intestinal bacteria may produce these so-called diabetogens (diabetes-causing compounds) from the fats we eat. By eating lots of fiber, though, we can flush this excess estrogen out of our bodies.

Vegetarian women, for example, excrete two to three times more estrogens in their stools than omnivorous women, which may be why omnivorous women have 50% higher estrogen blood levels. These differences in estrogen metabolism may help explain the lower incidence of diabetes in those eating more plant-based diets, as well as the lower incidence of breast cancer in vegetarian women, who get rid of twice as much estrogen because they get rid of twice as much daily waste in general.

Either way, "[m]eat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk. Dietary habits are readily modifiable, but individuals and clinicians will consider dietary changes only if they are aware of the potential benefits of doing so." The identification of meat consumption as a risk factor for diabetes provides helpful guidance that sets the stage for beneficial behavioral changes. Meat consumption is something doctors can easily ask about, and, once identified, at-risk individuals can then be encouraged to familiarize themselves with meatless options.


Plant foods may also protect against diabetes by replacing animal foods. Learn more with my Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes? video.

What if your entire diet was filled with plants? See Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes. Find out which plants may be particularly protective with these videos: Amla Versus Diabetes, Flaxseed vs. Diabetes, and Diabetics Should Take Their Pulses.

Unfortunately, cinnamon has fallen out of favor. See my Update on Cinnamon for Blood Sugar Control.

I also have an ever-growing series on the science behind type 2 diabetes:

For more on the estrogen connection, see Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen and Breast Cancer and Constipation.

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

Foods to Avoid to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 24 Foods to Avoid copy.jpeg

We've known that being overweight and obese are important risk factors for type 2 diabetes, but, until recently, not much attention has been paid to the role of specific foods. I discuss this issue in my video, Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes?

A 2013 meta-analysis of all the cohorts looking at the connection between meat and diabetes found a significantly higher risk associated with total meat consumption--especially consumption of processed meat, particularly poultry. But why? There's a whole list of potential culprits in meat: saturated fat, animal fat, trans fats naturally found in meat, cholesterol, or animal protein. It could be the heme iron found in meat, which can lead to free radicals and iron-induced oxidative stress that may lead to chronic inflammation and type 2 diabetes, or advanced glycation end (AGE) products, which promote oxidative stress and inflammation. Food analyses show that the highest levels of these so-called glycotoxins are found in meat--particularly roasted, fried, or broiled meat, though any foods from animal sources (and even high fat and protein plant foods such as nuts) exposed to high dry temperatures can be potent sources of these pro-oxidant chemicals.

In another study, researchers fed diabetics glycotoxin-packed foods, like chicken, fish, and eggs, and their inflammatory markers--tumor necrosis factor, C-reactive protein, and vascular adhesion molecules--shot up. "Thus, in diabetes, environmental (dietary) AGEs promote inflammatory mediators, leading to tissue injury." The good news is that restriction of these kinds of foods may suppress these inflammatory effects. Appropriate measures to limit AGE intake, such as eliminating meat or using only steaming and boiling as methods for cooking it, "may greatly reduce the already heavy burden of these toxins in the diabetic patient." These glycotoxins may be the missing link between the increased consumption of animal fat and meats and the development of type 2 diabetes.

Since the 2013 meta-analysis was published, another study came out in which approximately 17,000 people were followed for about a dozen years. Researchers found an 8% increased risk for every 50 grams of daily meat consumption. Just one quarter of a chicken breast's worth of meat for the entire day may significantly increase the risk of diabetes. Yes, we know there are many possible culprits: the glycotoxins or trans fat in meat, saturated fat, or the heme iron (which could actually promote the formation of carcinogens called nitrosamines, though they could also just be produced in the cooking process itself). However, we did learn something new: There also appears to be a greater incidence of diabetes among those who handle meat for a living. Maybe there are some diabetes-causing zoonotic infectious agents--such as viruses--present in fresh cuts of meat, including poultry.

A "crucial factor underlying the diabetes epidemic" may be the overstimulation of the aging enzyme TOR pathway by excess food consumption--but not by the consumption of just any food: Animal proteins not only stimulate the cancer-promoting hormone insulin growth factor-1 but also provide high amounts of leucine, which stimulates TOR activation and appears to contribute to the burning out of the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas, contributing to type 2 diabetes. So, it's not just the high fat and added sugars that are implicated; critical attention must be paid to the daily intake of animal proteins as well.

According to a study, "[i]n general, lower leucine levels are only reached by restriction of animal proteins." To reach the leucine intake provided by dairy or meat, we'd have to eat 9 pounds of cabbage or 100 apples to take an extreme example. That just exemplifies the extreme differences in leucine amounts provided by a more standard diet in comparison with a more plant-based diet.

I reviewed the role endocrine-disrupting industrial pollutants in the food supply may play in a three-part video series: Fish and Diabetes, Diabetes and Dioxins, and Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat. Clearly, the standard America diet and lifestyle contribute to the epidemic of diabetes and obesity, but the contribution of these industrial pollutants can no longer be ignored. We now have experimental evidence that exposure to industrial toxins alone induces weight gain and insulin resistance, and, therefore, may be an underappreciated cause of obesity and diabetes. Consider what's happening to our infants: Obesity in a six-month-old is obviously not related to diet or lack of exercise. They're now exposed to hundreds of chemicals from their moms, straight through the umbilical cord, some of which may be obesogenic (that is, obesity-generating).

The millions of pounds of chemicals and heavy metals released every year into our environment should make us all stop and think about how we live and the choices we make every day in the foods we eat. A 2014 review of the evidence on pollutants and diabetes noted that we can be exposed through toxic spills, but "most of the human exposure nowadays is from the ingestion of contaminated food as a result of bioaccumulation up the food chain. The main source (around 95%) of [persistent pollutant] intake is through dietary intake of animal fats."


For more on the information mentioned here, see the following videos that take a closer look at these major topics:

AGEs: Glycotoxins, Avoiding a Sugary Grave, and Reducing Glycotoxin Intake to Prevent Alzheimer's.

TOR: Why Do We Age?, Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction, Prevent Cancer From Going on TOR, and Saving Lives By Treating Acne With Diet

Viruses: Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity

Poultry workers: Poultry Exposure and Neurological Disease, Poultry Exposure Tied to Liver and Pancreatic Cancer, and Eating Outside Our Kingdom

Industrial pollutants: Obesity-Causing Pollutants in Food, Fish and Diabetes, Diabetes and Dioxins, and Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat

The link between meat and diabetes may also be due to a lack of sufficient protective components of plants in the diet, which is discussed in my videos How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes?, Plant-Based Diets for Diabetes, Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes, and How Not to Die from Diabetes.

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

Foods to Avoid to Help Prevent Diabetes

Oct 24 Foods to Avoid copy.jpeg

We've known that being overweight and obese are important risk factors for type 2 diabetes, but, until recently, not much attention has been paid to the role of specific foods. I discuss this issue in my video, Why Is Meat a Risk Factor for Diabetes?

A 2013 meta-analysis of all the cohorts looking at the connection between meat and diabetes found a significantly higher risk associated with total meat consumption--especially consumption of processed meat, particularly poultry. But why? There's a whole list of potential culprits in meat: saturated fat, animal fat, trans fats naturally found in meat, cholesterol, or animal protein. It could be the heme iron found in meat, which can lead to free radicals and iron-induced oxidative stress that may lead to chronic inflammation and type 2 diabetes, or advanced glycation end (AGE) products, which promote oxidative stress and inflammation. Food analyses show that the highest levels of these so-called glycotoxins are found in meat--particularly roasted, fried, or broiled meat, though any foods from animal sources (and even high fat and protein plant foods such as nuts) exposed to high dry temperatures can be potent sources of these pro-oxidant chemicals.

In another study, researchers fed diabetics glycotoxin-packed foods, like chicken, fish, and eggs, and their inflammatory markers--tumor necrosis factor, C-reactive protein, and vascular adhesion molecules--shot up. "Thus, in diabetes, environmental (dietary) AGEs promote inflammatory mediators, leading to tissue injury." The good news is that restriction of these kinds of foods may suppress these inflammatory effects. Appropriate measures to limit AGE intake, such as eliminating meat or using only steaming and boiling as methods for cooking it, "may greatly reduce the already heavy burden of these toxins in the diabetic patient." These glycotoxins may be the missing link between the increased consumption of animal fat and meats and the development of type 2 diabetes.

Since the 2013 meta-analysis was published, another study came out in which approximately 17,000 people were followed for about a dozen years. Researchers found an 8% increased risk for every 50 grams of daily meat consumption. Just one quarter of a chicken breast's worth of meat for the entire day may significantly increase the risk of diabetes. Yes, we know there are many possible culprits: the glycotoxins or trans fat in meat, saturated fat, or the heme iron (which could actually promote the formation of carcinogens called nitrosamines, though they could also just be produced in the cooking process itself). However, we did learn something new: There also appears to be a greater incidence of diabetes among those who handle meat for a living. Maybe there are some diabetes-causing zoonotic infectious agents--such as viruses--present in fresh cuts of meat, including poultry.

A "crucial factor underlying the diabetes epidemic" may be the overstimulation of the aging enzyme TOR pathway by excess food consumption--but not by the consumption of just any food: Animal proteins not only stimulate the cancer-promoting hormone insulin growth factor-1 but also provide high amounts of leucine, which stimulates TOR activation and appears to contribute to the burning out of the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas, contributing to type 2 diabetes. So, it's not just the high fat and added sugars that are implicated; critical attention must be paid to the daily intake of animal proteins as well.

According to a study, "[i]n general, lower leucine levels are only reached by restriction of animal proteins." To reach the leucine intake provided by dairy or meat, we'd have to eat 9 pounds of cabbage or 100 apples to take an extreme example. That just exemplifies the extreme differences in leucine amounts provided by a more standard diet in comparison with a more plant-based diet.

I reviewed the role endocrine-disrupting industrial pollutants in the food supply may play in a three-part video series: Fish and Diabetes, Diabetes and Dioxins, and Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat. Clearly, the standard America diet and lifestyle contribute to the epidemic of diabetes and obesity, but the contribution of these industrial pollutants can no longer be ignored. We now have experimental evidence that exposure to industrial toxins alone induces weight gain and insulin resistance, and, therefore, may be an underappreciated cause of obesity and diabetes. Consider what's happening to our infants: Obesity in a six-month-old is obviously not related to diet or lack of exercise. They're now exposed to hundreds of chemicals from their moms, straight through the umbilical cord, some of which may be obesogenic (that is, obesity-generating).

The millions of pounds of chemicals and heavy metals released every year into our environment should make us all stop and think about how we live and the choices we make every day in the foods we eat. A 2014 review of the evidence on pollutants and diabetes noted that we can be exposed through toxic spills, but "most of the human exposure nowadays is from the ingestion of contaminated food as a result of bioaccumulation up the food chain. The main source (around 95%) of [persistent pollutant] intake is through dietary intake of animal fats."


For more on the information mentioned here, see the following videos that take a closer look at these major topics:

AGEs: Glycotoxins, Avoiding a Sugary Grave, and Reducing Glycotoxin Intake to Prevent Alzheimer's.

TOR: Why Do We Age?, Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction, Prevent Cancer From Going on TOR, and Saving Lives By Treating Acne With Diet

Viruses: Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity

Poultry workers: Poultry Exposure and Neurological Disease, Poultry Exposure Tied to Liver and Pancreatic Cancer, and Eating Outside Our Kingdom

Industrial pollutants: Obesity-Causing Pollutants in Food, Fish and Diabetes, Diabetes and Dioxins, and Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat

The link between meat and diabetes may also be due to a lack of sufficient protective components of plants in the diet, which is discussed in my videos How May Plants Protect Against Diabetes?, Plant-Based Diets for Diabetes, Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes, and How Not to Die from Diabetes.

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

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