Reversing Diabetic Blindness with Diet

Reversing Diabetic Blindness with Diet.jpeg

Though many reported feeling better on Dr. Walter Kempner's rice and fruit diet, he refused to accept such anecdotal evidence as proof of success. He wanted objective measurements. The most famous were his "eyegrounds photographs," taken with a special camera that allowed one to visualize the back of the eye. In doing so, he proved diet can arrest the bleeding, oozing, and swelling you see in the back of the eye in people with severe kidney, hypertensive, or heart disease. Even more than that, he proved that diet could actually reverse it, something never thought possible.

In my video, Can Diabetic Retinopathy Be Reversed?, you can see before and after images of the back of patients' eyes. He found reversal to such a degree that even those who could no longer distinguish large objects were able to once again read fine print. Dr. Kempner had shown a reversal of blindness with diet.

The results were so dramatic that the head of the department of ophthalmology at Duke, where Kempner worked, was questioned as to whether they were somehow faked. He assured them they were not. In fact, he wrote in one person's chart, "This patient's eyegrounds are improved to an unbelievable degree." Not only had he never seen anything like it, he couldn't remember ever seeing a patient with such advanced disease even being alive 15 months later.

The magnitude of the improvements Kempner got--reversal of end-stage heart and kidney failure--was surprising, simply beyond belief. But as Kempner said as his closing sentence of a presentation before the American College of Physicians, "The important result is not that the change in the course of the disease has been achieved by the rice diet but that the course of the disease can be changed."

Now that we have high blood pressure drugs, we see less hypertensive retinopathy, but we still see a lot of diabetic retinopathy, now the leading cause of blindness in American adults. Even with intensive diabetes treatment--at least three insulin injections a day with the best modern technology has to offer--the best we can offer is usually just a slowing of the progression of the disease.

So, in the 21st century, we slow down your blindness. Yet a half century ago, Kempner proved we could reverse it. Kempner started out using his plant-based rice diet ultra-low in sodium, fat, cholesterol, and protein to reverse kidney and heart failure; he actually assumed the diet would make diabetes worse. He expected a 90% carbohydrate diet would increase insulin requirements, however, the opposite proved to be true. He took the next 100 patients with diabetes who walked through his door who went on the rice diet for at least three months and found their fasting blood sugars dropped despite a drop in the insulin they were taking. What really blew people away was this: Forty-four of the patients had diabetic retinopathy, and, in 30% of the cases, their eyes improved. That's not supposed to happen; diabetic retinopathy had been considered "a sign of irreversible destruction." What does this change mean in real life? Patients went from unable to even read headlines to normal vision.

The remarkable success Dr. Kempner had reversing some of the most dreaded complications of diabetes with his rice and fruit diet was not because of weight loss. The improvements occurred even in those patients who did not lose significant weight, so it must have been something specific about the diet. Maybe it was his total elimination of animal protein, animal fat, and cholesterol? Or perhaps it was his radical reduction in sodium, fat, and protein in general? We don't know.

How do we treat diabetic retinopathy these days? With steroids and other drugs injected straight into the eyeball. If that doesn't work, there's always pan-retinal laser photocoagulation, in which laser burns are etched over nearly the entire retina. Surgeons literally burn out the back of your eye. Why would they do that? The theory is that by killing off most of the retina, the little pieces you leave behind may get more blood flow.

When I see that, along with Kempner's work, I can't help but feel like history has been reversed. It seems as though it should have gone like, "Can you believe 50 years ago the best we had was this barbaric, burn-out-your-socket surgery? Thank goodness we've since learned that through dietary means alone, we can reverse the blindness." But instead of learning, medicine seems to have forgotten.

I documented the extraordinary Kempner story previously in Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape and Drugs and the Demise of the Rice Diet. The reason I keep coming back to this is not to suggest people should go on such a diet (it is too extreme and potentially dangerous to do without strict medical supervision), but to show the power of dietary change to yield tremendous healing effects.

The best way to prevent diabetic blindness is to prevent or reverse diabetes in the first place. See, for example:

Why wouldn't a diet of white rice make diabetes worse? See If White Rice Is Linked to Diabetes, What About China?

For more on the nitty gritty on what is the actual cause of type 2 diabetes, 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: Community Eye Health / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Reversing Diabetic Blindness with Diet

Reversing Diabetic Blindness with Diet.jpeg

Though many reported feeling better on Dr. Walter Kempner's rice and fruit diet, he refused to accept such anecdotal evidence as proof of success. He wanted objective measurements. The most famous were his "eyegrounds photographs," taken with a special camera that allowed one to visualize the back of the eye. In doing so, he proved diet can arrest the bleeding, oozing, and swelling you see in the back of the eye in people with severe kidney, hypertensive, or heart disease. Even more than that, he proved that diet could actually reverse it, something never thought possible.

In my video, Can Diabetic Retinopathy Be Reversed?, you can see before and after images of the back of patients' eyes. He found reversal to such a degree that even those who could no longer distinguish large objects were able to once again read fine print. Dr. Kempner had shown a reversal of blindness with diet.

The results were so dramatic that the head of the department of ophthalmology at Duke, where Kempner worked, was questioned as to whether they were somehow faked. He assured them they were not. In fact, he wrote in one person's chart, "This patient's eyegrounds are improved to an unbelievable degree." Not only had he never seen anything like it, he couldn't remember ever seeing a patient with such advanced disease even being alive 15 months later.

The magnitude of the improvements Kempner got--reversal of end-stage heart and kidney failure--was surprising, simply beyond belief. But as Kempner said as his closing sentence of a presentation before the American College of Physicians, "The important result is not that the change in the course of the disease has been achieved by the rice diet but that the course of the disease can be changed."

Now that we have high blood pressure drugs, we see less hypertensive retinopathy, but we still see a lot of diabetic retinopathy, now the leading cause of blindness in American adults. Even with intensive diabetes treatment--at least three insulin injections a day with the best modern technology has to offer--the best we can offer is usually just a slowing of the progression of the disease.

So, in the 21st century, we slow down your blindness. Yet a half century ago, Kempner proved we could reverse it. Kempner started out using his plant-based rice diet ultra-low in sodium, fat, cholesterol, and protein to reverse kidney and heart failure; he actually assumed the diet would make diabetes worse. He expected a 90% carbohydrate diet would increase insulin requirements, however, the opposite proved to be true. He took the next 100 patients with diabetes who walked through his door who went on the rice diet for at least three months and found their fasting blood sugars dropped despite a drop in the insulin they were taking. What really blew people away was this: Forty-four of the patients had diabetic retinopathy, and, in 30% of the cases, their eyes improved. That's not supposed to happen; diabetic retinopathy had been considered "a sign of irreversible destruction." What does this change mean in real life? Patients went from unable to even read headlines to normal vision.

The remarkable success Dr. Kempner had reversing some of the most dreaded complications of diabetes with his rice and fruit diet was not because of weight loss. The improvements occurred even in those patients who did not lose significant weight, so it must have been something specific about the diet. Maybe it was his total elimination of animal protein, animal fat, and cholesterol? Or perhaps it was his radical reduction in sodium, fat, and protein in general? We don't know.

How do we treat diabetic retinopathy these days? With steroids and other drugs injected straight into the eyeball. If that doesn't work, there's always pan-retinal laser photocoagulation, in which laser burns are etched over nearly the entire retina. Surgeons literally burn out the back of your eye. Why would they do that? The theory is that by killing off most of the retina, the little pieces you leave behind may get more blood flow.

When I see that, along with Kempner's work, I can't help but feel like history has been reversed. It seems as though it should have gone like, "Can you believe 50 years ago the best we had was this barbaric, burn-out-your-socket surgery? Thank goodness we've since learned that through dietary means alone, we can reverse the blindness." But instead of learning, medicine seems to have forgotten.

I documented the extraordinary Kempner story previously in Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape and Drugs and the Demise of the Rice Diet. The reason I keep coming back to this is not to suggest people should go on such a diet (it is too extreme and potentially dangerous to do without strict medical supervision), but to show the power of dietary change to yield tremendous healing effects.

The best way to prevent diabetic blindness is to prevent or reverse diabetes in the first place. See, for example:

Why wouldn't a diet of white rice make diabetes worse? See If White Rice Is Linked to Diabetes, What About China?

For more on the nitty gritty on what is the actual cause of type 2 diabetes, 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: Community Eye Health / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Why Some Like Cilantro and Others Hate It

The Cilantro Gene.jpg

One sign of changing U.S. demographics is that salsa has replaced ketchup as America's #1 table condiment. One of the popular salsa ingredients is cilantro, described as one of the "most polarizing and divisive food ingredients known." Some people love it; some people hate it. What's interesting is that the lovers and the haters appear to experience the taste differently. Individuals who like cilantro may describe it as "fresh, fragrant or citrusy, whereas those who dislike cilantro report that it tastes like soap, mold, dirt, or bugs." I don't know how people know what bugs taste like, but rarely are polarizing opinions about flavors so extreme. Maybe it's genetic.

Different ethnic groups do seem to have different rates of cilantro dislike, with Ashkenazi Jews scoring highest on the cilantro hate-o-meter (see The Cilantro Gene). Another clue came from twin studies, that show that identical twins tend to share cilantro preferences, whereas regular fraternal twins do not have such a strong correlation. Our genetic code is so big, though, containing about three billion letters, that to find some cilantro gene you'd have to analyze the DNA of like 10,000 people, and obviously genetic researchers have better things to do...or maybe not.

Researchers performed a genome-wide association study among 14,000 participants who reported whether cilantro tasted soapy, with replication in a distinct set of 11,000 people who declared whether they liked cilantro or not. And lo and behold they found a spot on chromosome 11 that seemed to be a match. What's there? A gene called OR6A2 that enables us to smell certain chemicals like E-(2)-Decenal, a primary constituent of cilantro and also...the defensive secretions of stink bugs. So maybe cilantro does taste like bugs! But, cilantro lovers may be genetic mutants that have an inability to smell the unpleasant compound.

That may actually be an advantage, though, since cilantro is healthy stuff. In fact, that's the justification to do these kinds of studies: to see why some people don't like the taste of healthy foods.

Are the cilantro haters really missing out on much, though? Mother nature has been described as the "oldest and most comprehensive pharmacy of all time," and cilantro--called coriander around most of the world--is one of nature's oldest herbal prescriptions, credited with anti-microbial, anti-oxidant, anti-diabetic, anti-anxiety, and anti-epilepsy properties. However, these are all from preclinical studies, meaning studies done on cells in a test tube or lab animals. Studies like the "Anti-Despair Activity of Cilantro..." in which researchers placed animals in a "despair apparatus" (you don't want to know).

Finally, though, there was a human study, on the anti-arthritis potential of cilantro. There was an earlier study performed in Germany of a lotion made out of cilantro seeds showing it could decrease the redness of a sunburn, demonstrating it had some anti-inflammatory effects )though not as much as an over-the-counter steroid, hydrocortisone, or prescription strength steroid cream). If the cilantro plant is anti-inflammatory, why nto give it to people with osteoarthritis and see if it helps? Researchers gave about 20 sprigs of cilantro daily for two months, and reported a significant drop in ESR--a nonspecific indicator of inflammation--in the cilantro group. How did the patients do clinically, though? The study didn't say, but it did report a rather remarkable 50% drop in uric acid levels, suggesting that huge amounts of cilantro may be useful for those suffering from gout.


The cilantro lovers/haters factoid reminds me of the video Pretty in Pee-nk about the phenomenon of "beeturia," pink urine after beet consumption seen in some people.

For those that don't mind the taste of bugs, I have some nutritional info in Good Grub: The Healthiest Meat and Bug Appétit: Barriers to Entomophagy.

As an Ashkenazim myself, I'm excited to have narrowly escaped a cilantro-less existence!

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

Why Some Like Cilantro and Others Hate It

The Cilantro Gene.jpg

One sign of changing U.S. demographics is that salsa has replaced ketchup as America's #1 table condiment. One of the popular salsa ingredients is cilantro, described as one of the "most polarizing and divisive food ingredients known." Some people love it; some people hate it. What's interesting is that the lovers and the haters appear to experience the taste differently. Individuals who like cilantro may describe it as "fresh, fragrant or citrusy, whereas those who dislike cilantro report that it tastes like soap, mold, dirt, or bugs." I don't know how people know what bugs taste like, but rarely are polarizing opinions about flavors so extreme. Maybe it's genetic.

Different ethnic groups do seem to have different rates of cilantro dislike, with Ashkenazi Jews scoring highest on the cilantro hate-o-meter (see The Cilantro Gene). Another clue came from twin studies, that show that identical twins tend to share cilantro preferences, whereas regular fraternal twins do not have such a strong correlation. Our genetic code is so big, though, containing about three billion letters, that to find some cilantro gene you'd have to analyze the DNA of like 10,000 people, and obviously genetic researchers have better things to do...or maybe not.

Researchers performed a genome-wide association study among 14,000 participants who reported whether cilantro tasted soapy, with replication in a distinct set of 11,000 people who declared whether they liked cilantro or not. And lo and behold they found a spot on chromosome 11 that seemed to be a match. What's there? A gene called OR6A2 that enables us to smell certain chemicals like E-(2)-Decenal, a primary constituent of cilantro and also...the defensive secretions of stink bugs. So maybe cilantro does taste like bugs! But, cilantro lovers may be genetic mutants that have an inability to smell the unpleasant compound.

That may actually be an advantage, though, since cilantro is healthy stuff. In fact, that's the justification to do these kinds of studies: to see why some people don't like the taste of healthy foods.

Are the cilantro haters really missing out on much, though? Mother nature has been described as the "oldest and most comprehensive pharmacy of all time," and cilantro--called coriander around most of the world--is one of nature's oldest herbal prescriptions, credited with anti-microbial, anti-oxidant, anti-diabetic, anti-anxiety, and anti-epilepsy properties. However, these are all from preclinical studies, meaning studies done on cells in a test tube or lab animals. Studies like the "Anti-Despair Activity of Cilantro..." in which researchers placed animals in a "despair apparatus" (you don't want to know).

Finally, though, there was a human study, on the anti-arthritis potential of cilantro. There was an earlier study performed in Germany of a lotion made out of cilantro seeds showing it could decrease the redness of a sunburn, demonstrating it had some anti-inflammatory effects )though not as much as an over-the-counter steroid, hydrocortisone, or prescription strength steroid cream). If the cilantro plant is anti-inflammatory, why nto give it to people with osteoarthritis and see if it helps? Researchers gave about 20 sprigs of cilantro daily for two months, and reported a significant drop in ESR--a nonspecific indicator of inflammation--in the cilantro group. How did the patients do clinically, though? The study didn't say, but it did report a rather remarkable 50% drop in uric acid levels, suggesting that huge amounts of cilantro may be useful for those suffering from gout.


The cilantro lovers/haters factoid reminds me of the video Pretty in Pee-nk about the phenomenon of "beeturia," pink urine after beet consumption seen in some people.

For those that don't mind the taste of bugs, I have some nutritional info in Good Grub: The Healthiest Meat and Bug Appétit: Barriers to Entomophagy.

As an Ashkenazim myself, I'm excited to have narrowly escaped a cilantro-less existence!

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

Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs

Sept13.jpg

Estrogen hormones can be thousands of times more estrogenic than typical endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Dietary exposure to natural sex steroids (in meat, dairy, and eggs) is "therefore highly relevant in the discussion of the impact of estrogens on human development and health." And chicken estrogen is identical to human estrogen--they're identical molecules. So it doesn't matter if it ends up in our drinking supply from women taking birth control pills excreting it in their urine, or cows excreting it into their milk. The source doesn't matter; the quantity does.

If you check out my video Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs, you can see that a child's exposure to estrogens in drinking water is about 150 times lower than exposure from cow's milk, so our day-to-day estrogen exposure levels are more likely determined by whether or not we happen to eat dairy products that day.

Human urine is "often cited as the main source of natural and synthetic estrogens in the aquatic environment," but the level of estrogen even in the urine of heavy meat-eaters, who have significantly higher levels, pales in comparison to the estrogen excreted by the farm animals themselves. Pig, sheep, cattle, and chickens produce literally tons of estrogen every year.

Women may excrete 16 mg every day, but farm animals may release ten times more, or in the case of pregnant cows, thousands of times more. Animal waste may contribute an estimated 90% of total estrogens in the environment. Five gallons of runoff water contaminated with chicken manure may contain a birth control pill's worth of estrogen.

Estrogen levels in poultry litter are so high that when farmers feed chicken manure to their animals to save on feed costs, it may trigger premature development. Poultry manure has among the highest hormone content, quadruple the total estrogens, and nine times more 17-beta estradiol, the most potent estrogen and a "complete" carcinogen, as it exerts both tumor initiating and tumor promoting effects.

From a human health standpoint, do we really care about feminized fish, or the appearance of "intersex roaches"? The problem is that the hormones get into the food supply. Endogenous steroid hormones in food of animal origin are unavoidable as they occur naturally in these products. It's not a matter of injected hormones, which are banned in places like Europe in order to protect consumers' health. Sex steroid hormones are part of animal metabolism, and so all foodstuffs of animal origin contain these hormones, which have been connected with several human health problems. (See Why Do Vegan Women Have 5x Fewer Twins?)

What effects might these female hormones have on men? See Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility.

The implications of this relatively new practice of milking cows even when they're pregnant is further explored in:

More on xenoestrogens in:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: BruceBlaus

Image Credit: [Nakhorn Yuangkratoke] © 123RF.com

Original Link

Dr. Greger’s 2015 Live Year-in-Review Presentation

Food as Medicine

View my new live presentation here: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet

Every year I scour the world's scholarly literature on clinical nutrition, pulling together what I find to be the most interesting, practical, and groundbreaking science on how to best feed ourselves and our families. I start with the thousands of papers published annually on nutrition (27,000 this year--a new record!) and, thanks to a crack team of volunteers (and now staff!), I'm able to whittle those down (to a mere 8,000 this year). They are then downloaded, categorized, read, analyzed, and churned into the few hundred short videos. This allows me to post new videos and articles every day, year-round, to NutritionFacts.org. This certainly makes the site unique. There's no other science-based source for free daily updates on the latest discoveries in nutrition. The problem is that the amount of information can be overwhelming.

Currently I have more than a thousand videos covering 1,931 nutrition topics. Where do you even begin? Many have expressed their appreciation for the breadth of material, but asked that I try to distill it into a coherent summary of how best to use diet to prevent and treat chronic disease. I took this feedback to heart and in 2012 developed Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, which explored the role diet may play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing our top 15 killers. Not only did it rise to become one of the Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2012, it remains my single most viewed video to date, watched over a million times (NutritionFacts.org is now up to more than 1.5 million hits a month!).

In 2013 I developed the sequel, More Than an Apple a Day, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most common conditions. I presented it around the country and it ended up #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2013. Then in 2014 I premiered the sequel-sequel, From Table to Able, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most disabling diseases, landing #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2014.

Every year I wonder how I'm going to top the year before. Knowing how popular these live presentations can be and hearing all the stories from folks about what a powerful impact they can have on people's lives, I put my all into this new 2015 one. I spent more time putting together this presentation than any other in my life. It took me an entire month, and when you see it I think you'll appreciate why.

This year, I'm honored to bring you Food as Medicine, in which I go through our most dreaded diseases--but that's not even the best part! I'm really proud of what I put together for the ending. I spend the last 20 minutes or so (starting at 56:22) going through a thought experiment that I'm hoping everyone will find compelling. I think it may be my best presentation ever. You be the judge.

You can watch it at no cost online, but it is also available on DVD through my website or on Amazon. If you want to share copies with others, I have a five for $40 special (enter coupon code 5FOR40FAM). All proceeds from the sales of all my books, DVDs, downloads, and presentations go to the 501c3 nonprofit charity that keeps NutritionFacts.org free for all, for all time. If you want to support this initiative to educate millions about eradicating dietary diseases, please consider making a donation.

After you've watched the new presentation, make sure you're subscribed to get my video updates daily, weekly, or monthly to stay on top of all the latest.

-Michael Greger

Original Link

Using Diet to Treat Asthma and Eczema

NF-Jul9 Treating Asthma and Eczema with Plant Based Diets.jpg

I previously discussed the power of fruits and vegetables to help prevent and treat asthma and allergies. If adding a few more servings of fruits and vegetables may help asthma, what about a diet centered around plants? Twenty patients with allergic eczema were placed on a vegetarian diet. At the end of two months, their disease scores, which covered both subjective and objective signs and symptoms, were cut in half, similar to what we might see using one of our most powerful drugs. The drug works much quicker, within about two weeks, but since drugs can often include dangerous side effects the dietary option is more attractive. This was no ordinary vegetarian diet, however. This was an in-patient study using an extremely calorically-restricted diet--the subjects were practically half fasting. Therefore, we don't know which component was responsible for the therapeutic effect.

What about using a more conventional plant-based diet against a different allergic disease, asthma? In Sweden, there was an active health movement that claimed that a vegan diet could improve or cure asthma. This was a bold claim, so in order to test this, a group of orthopedic surgeons at Linköping University Hospital followed a series of patients who were treated with a vegan regimen for one year. (This study is highlighted in my video, Treating Asthma and Eczema with Plant-Based Diets.) Participants had to be willing to go completely plant-based, and they had to have physician-verified asthma of at least a year's duration that wasn't getting better or was getting worse despite the best medical therapies available.

The researchers found quite a sick group to follow. The thirty-five patients had long-established, hospital-verified bronchial asthma for an average duration of a dozen years. Of the 35 patients, 20 had been admitted to the hospital for acute asthmatic attacks during the last two years. Of these, one patient had received acute infusion therapy (emergency IV drugs) a total of 23 times during this period and another patient claimed he had been to the hospital 100 times during his disease and on every occasion had evidently required such treatments. One patient even had a cardiac arrest during an asthma attack and had been brought back to life on a ventilator. These were some pretty serious cases.

The patients were on up to eight different asthma medicines when they started, with an average of four and a half drugs, and were still not getting better. Twenty of the 35 were constantly using cortisone, which is a powerful steroid used in serious cases. These were all fairly advanced cases of the disease, more severe than the vegan practitioners were used to.

Eleven couldn't stick to the diet for a year, but of the 24 that did, 71% reported improvement at four months and 92% at one year. These were folks that had not improved at all over the previous year. Concurrently with this improvement, the patients greatly reduced their consumption of medicine. Four had completely given up their medication altogether, and only two weren't able to at least drop their dose. They went from an average of 4.5 drugs down to 1.2, and some were able to get off cortisone.

Some subjects said that their improvement was so considerable they felt like "they had a new life." One nurse had difficulty at work because most of her co-workers were smokers, but after the plant-based regimen she could withstand the secondhand smoke without getting an attack and could tolerate other asthma triggers. Others reported the same thing. Whereas previously they could only live in a clean environment and felt more or less isolated in their homes, they could now go out without getting asthmatic attacks.

The researchers didn't find only subjective improvements. They also found a significant improvement in a number of clinical variables, most importantly in measures of lung function, vital capacity, forced expiratory volume, and physical working capacity, as well as significant drops in sed rate (a marker of inflammation) and IgE (allergy associated antibodies).

The study started out with 35 patients who had suffered from serious asthma for an average of 12 years, all receiving long-term medication, with 20 using cortisone, who were "subjected to vegan food for a year," and, in almost all cases, medication was withdrawn or reduced, and asthma symptoms were significantly reduced.

Despite the improved lung function tests and lab values, the placebo effect can't be discounted since there was no blinded control group. However, the nice thing about a healthy diet is that there are only good side effects. The subjects' cholesterol significantly improved, their blood pressures got better, and they lost 18 pounds. From a medical standpoint, I say why not give it a try?

If you missed the first three videos of this 4-part series here are the links:

More on eczema and diet can be found in my videos:

There are a number of other conditions plant-based diets have been found to be effective in treating:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: KristyFaith / Flickr

Original Link

Organic Milk and Prostate Cancer

NF-Feb12 The Link Between Milk and Prostate Cancer.jpg

Researchers have expressed concern that since cow's milk contains estrogens, dairy could stimulate the growth of hormone-sensitive tumors. The thought is that the consumption of dairy products could both "promote the conversion of precancerous lesions or mutated cells to invasive cancer and enhance the progression of hormone-dependent tumors."

This was initially postulated based on suggestive population-scale data like a 25 fold increase in prostate cancer in Japan since World War II. What was happening to their diets during that period? A 5, 10, and 20 fold increase in eggs, meat, and dairy consumption, respectively, whereas the rest of their diet remained pretty stable.

But diet wasn't the only major change in Japanese lifestyles over the latter half century. Similarly, even though countries with higher milk consumption tend to have more prostate cancer deaths and countries with lower milk consumption fewer deaths, there could be hundreds of confounding variables. But it certainly does spur interest in studying the possibility.

A recent study from Clemson University represents the other extreme, controlling for as many factors as possible by isolating prostate cancer cells out of the body in a petri dish and dripping cow milk on them directly. The researchers chose organic cow's milk, because they wanted to exclude the effect of added hormones so that they could test the effect of all the growth hormones and sex steroids found naturally in milk.

They found that cow's milk stimulated the growth of human prostate cancer cells in each of 14 separate experiments, producing an average increase in cancer growth rate of over 30%. In contrast, almond milk suppressed the growth of these cancer cells by over 30%.

But just because something happens in a petri dish or a test tube doesn't mean the same thing happens in a person. It's just suggestive evidence that we can use in a grant application to get money to study actual people. This can be done with a retrospective (looking backward) study where we take prostate cancer patients and figure out what they ate in the past, or a prospective (looking forward) study where we look at people's diets first and follow them for a few years and see who gets cancer. The looking back kind are typically referred to as case-control studies, because researchers look at cases of cancer and compare their diets to controls. The looking forward kind are often called cohort studies because a cohort of people is followed forward. Then, if we want to get fancy, we can do a so-called meta-analysis, where you combine all the best studies done to date and see what the balance of available evidence shows.

The latest meta-analysis of all the best case control studies ever done on the matter concludes that milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer. And the latest meta-analysis of all the best cohort studies ever done also concludes that milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer. An even newer study profiled in my video, Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk, suggests that milk intake during adolescence may be particularly risky in terms of potentially setting one up for cancer later in life.

Despite hormone-related cancers being among our top killers, as pointed out in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "we simply do not know which hormones, and how much, are in the food that we ingest. More effort has been directed at the investigation of illicit use of designer steroids by Olympians and ballplayers than to the investigation of the effect of dietary hormones on cancer and other diseases that affect millions." A proposal is therefore made to monitor levels of steroid and other hormones and growth factors in all dairy and meat-containing foods, though to date this has not been done.

I touched previously on the prostate cancer data in one of my oldest videos, Slowing the Growth of Cancer. Other factors may play into the link between cancer and dairy consumption including industrial pollutants (Industrial Carcinogens in Animal Fat) and IGF-1 (How Plant-Based to Lower IGF-1?), but for more on the hormones in dairy see:

What about all the studies suggesting milk "does a body good"? See my video Food Industry "Funding Effect".

-Michael Greger, M.D

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

Image Credit: Tilemahos Efthimiadis / Flickr

Original Link

Male Fertility and Dietary Pollutants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male Fertility and Diet

Infertility affects 10–15 percent of couples attempting to conceive, and in about half the cases the problem is in the man. A recent Harvard study found that increasing saturated fat intake just 5 percent was associated with a 38 percent lower sperm count, but why? It may be because of endocrine-disrupting industrial pollutants that build up in animal fat, particularly fish, as I describe in my video Xenoestrogens & Sperm Counts, but male fertility is not just about the number of sperm, but also how well they work.

A recent study, featured in my 5-min video Male Fertility and Diet, found that successful pregnancy and fertilized egg implantation outcomes are decreased in patients reporting a more frequent intake of meat. The researchers blame industrial pollutants and steroids present in animal products. They conclude that couples having trouble conceiving must be advised about the dramatic effects diet may play on treatment success for both men and women, consistent with previous findings that “frequent intake of fat-laden foods like meat products or milk may negatively affect semen quality in humans, whereas some fruits or vegetables may maintain or improve semen quality.” Vegetable consumption was also found protective in this new study, which may be because of the antioxidant and nutrient content.

The reason why maternal beef consumption may alter a man’s testicular development and adversely affect his future reproductive capacity is thought to be due to the anabolic steroids implanted into the animals. However, as an accompanying editorial to a study exploring this phenomenon pointed out, the steroids could also be interacting with other xenobiotics—industrial chemicals present in meat—such as pesticides and dioxin-like pollutants, and even chemicals that may be present in the plastic wrap (see Dioxins in the Food Supply). For more on the hormones used in meat production, see my video Anabolic Steroids in Meat.

Heavy metals may also play a role. Lead and cadmium exposure, as measured by levels in the bloodstream, were associated with a significantly longer time to conceive. Where might exposure be coming from? Common types of seafood from fish markets and supermarkets were sampled. The highest cadmium levels were found in tuna; highest lead levels in scallops and shrimp. The greatest risk from different metals resided in different fish. Thus, the risk information given to the public (mainly about mercury) does not present a complete picture. There are other toxic metals in fish as well.

For more on heavy metal exposure (dietary as opposed to auditory), see:

The only beverage associated with infertility in women was soft drinks, though this may be from an indirect route, since soda is linked to obesity and obesity is then linked to reduced fertilization rates. However, Harvard researchers conducted a study on one really direct route: “The Effectiveness of Coca Cola As a Spermicidal Agent in Vaginal Douching.” Diet coke apparently had the strongest effect. What about Coke versus Pepsi? Tax-payer money hard at work for this head-to-head test. Neither of them really worked—Coke nor Pepsi—though they explain their methods for preparing the "sperm-cola mixtures" differed from the Harvard group. Bottom line: soda probably isn’t good for you going into any orifice.

For more on both male and female infertility, see my videos Soy Hormones & Male Infertility and Meat Hormones & Female Infertility.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image credit: Jug Jones/ Flickr

Original Link

Latest Science on Rooibos & Nettle Tea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rooibos, or red tea, is anecdotally reported to aid stress-related symptoms, but it has none of the mood-altering phytonutrients thought responsible for the increased calm and decreased stress after drinking green tea (see Dietary Brain Wave Alteration). So why do some people feel less stressed drinking red tea?

Researchers recently found that human adrenal gland cells in a petri dish produce about 4 times fewer steroid hormones in the presence of red tea. This could certainly result in lower stress hormone levels if it happened within the body, but the effect was so dramatic the researchers were concerned it might adversely effect the production of sex steroid hormones as well. Thankfully, that’s not what they found when they tested it in human subjects. The same, however, may not be true of nettle tea.

Nettle is used to relieve the symptoms of prostate enlargement by boosting estrogen levels, but case reports show men drinking too much may grow breasts and women may actually start lactating. Nettle tea is safe as long as you 1) don’t drink too much, 2) don’t mistake it for deadly nightshade if you forage it, and 3) don’t put the leaves in your mouth fresh. They don’t call them stinging nettles for nothing! In my 3-min video Herbal Tea Update: Rooibos & Nettle I show a close-up of the impalement of a nettle spicule in the skin.

My go-to herbal tea is hibiscus (see my last post Hibiscus Tea: The Best Beverage?). But nettle tea is touted for being packed with minerals. This always seemed a bit strange to me. Yes, if you boil dark green leafy vegetables long enough, you do lose minerals into the cooking water, but how many minerals could we be getting if you just steep some tea? We never knew because it hadn’t been tested, until now.

Researchers compared the mineral content of nettle tea to chamomile tea, mint tea, St. John’s Wort, and sage. Nettle tea didn’t seem to have much more than any of the others, but maybe they’re all really high?

One cup of nettle tea has the same amount of iron in a dried apricot, the zinc found in a single pumpkin seed, one-twentieth of a mushroom’s worth of copper, and 4 peanuts’ worth of magnesium and a fig’s worth of calcium. I agree with the researchers that a cup of herbal tea may not be an important source of minerals, but it’s not negligible. Greens are so packed with nutrition that we can benefit by just drinking some hot water they’ve been soaking in for a few minutes.

The fact that so much nutrition leaches into the water in nettle tea is a reason we don’t want to boil greens unless we’re making soup or otherwise consuming the cooking water. See Best Cooking Method for more tips on preserving nutrients.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image credit: chumsdock / Flickr

Original Link