Stomach Stapling Kids

Stomach Stapling Kids.jpeg

Weight loss surgery for children and adolescents is becoming widespread and is being performed in children as young as five years old. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most common type of procedure, in which surgeons cut out nearly the entire stomach, as you can see in my video, Stomach Stapling Kids. Bariatric surgery in pediatric patients does result in weight loss, but also has the potential for serious complications. These include pulmonary embolism, shock, intestinal obstruction, postoperative bleeding, leaking along the staple line, severe malnutrition, and even death at a rate of 0.5%. This means that 1 in 200 kids who go under the knife may die. Infection is identified as the leading cause of death and is most often associated with leaking of intestinal contents into the abdominal cavity.

Sometimes the surgery doesn't work, and you have to go in and do another procedure. If that doesn't work either, you can always try implanting electrodes into patients' brains, a "novel antiobesity strategy" reported in the Journal of Neurosurgery. The concept of deep brain stimulation "since its inception has been that placing an electrode somewhere in the brain could make people eat less." You drill two little holes in the patient's skull, snake in some electrodes a few inches, and then tunnel the wires under the scalp into a pulse generator implanted under the skin on the chest. You evidently can't crank it up past 5 volts because it induces anxiety and nausea. But even without the nausea, people with electrodes stuck in their brains lost an average of about 10 pounds a year.

The childhood obesity epidemic is so tragic. It pains me to see insult piled on injury. Too often, medical treatments can be worse than the disease. See my video, Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure.

Speaking of prevention, what might be the best diet for our young ones? See:

There are complications associated with gastric bypass in adults, too. See my video The Dangers of Broccoli?.

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: ReSurge International / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Stomach Stapling Kids

Stomach Stapling Kids.jpeg

Weight loss surgery for children and adolescents is becoming widespread and is being performed in children as young as five years old. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most common type of procedure, in which surgeons cut out nearly the entire stomach, as you can see in my video, Stomach Stapling Kids. Bariatric surgery in pediatric patients does result in weight loss, but also has the potential for serious complications. These include pulmonary embolism, shock, intestinal obstruction, postoperative bleeding, leaking along the staple line, severe malnutrition, and even death at a rate of 0.5%. This means that 1 in 200 kids who go under the knife may die. Infection is identified as the leading cause of death and is most often associated with leaking of intestinal contents into the abdominal cavity.

Sometimes the surgery doesn't work, and you have to go in and do another procedure. If that doesn't work either, you can always try implanting electrodes into patients' brains, a "novel antiobesity strategy" reported in the Journal of Neurosurgery. The concept of deep brain stimulation "since its inception has been that placing an electrode somewhere in the brain could make people eat less." You drill two little holes in the patient's skull, snake in some electrodes a few inches, and then tunnel the wires under the scalp into a pulse generator implanted under the skin on the chest. You evidently can't crank it up past 5 volts because it induces anxiety and nausea. But even without the nausea, people with electrodes stuck in their brains lost an average of about 10 pounds a year.

The childhood obesity epidemic is so tragic. It pains me to see insult piled on injury. Too often, medical treatments can be worse than the disease. See my video, Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure.

Speaking of prevention, what might be the best diet for our young ones? See:

There are complications associated with gastric bypass in adults, too. See my video The Dangers of Broccoli?.

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: ReSurge International / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Music as Medicine

Music as Medicine.jpeg

We've been playing music since the Paleolithic Era, 40,000 years ago. Music as therapy has been documented since at least biblical times. The first music therapy experiment was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1914. As to why he placed a phonograph in the operating room as his patients lay fully conscious and awake during surgery, the surgeon explained it was "a means of calming and distracting my patients from the horror of the situation."

Now that we have anesthesia, music is used to calm nerves before surgery. Normally we use Valium-type drugs like midazolam (sold as Versed), but they can have a variety of side effects, including sometimes even making people more agitated. A study from Sweden sought to determine if relaxing music has a greater anxiety-reducing effect than a standard dose of midazolam. Researchers whipped out some Kenny G, and the music worked significantly better than the drug. Those listening to Mr. G had lower anxiety scores, heart rates, and blood pressures. This is perhaps the first report of any anti-anxiety therapy working not only as good as, but even better than, benzodiazepine drugs. The difference in side effects of relaxing music compared to the drug is obvious: There were none. Soft jazz causes no post-operative hangover. The researchers suggest we should start using music instead of midazolam.

Music may also reduce anxiety and pain in children undergoing minor medical and dental procedures, helping with blood draws and shots. It may even reduce the pain of spinal taps. However, Mozart is evidently powerless against the pain of circumcision.

It doesn't take a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that listening to music can be relaxing. Tell me something I don't know. Well, if you take someone with a latex allergy and inject their skin with latex, they get a big, red, angry bump. But if you repeat the test after they've been listening to Mozart for 30 minutes, they develop a much smaller bump (as you can see in my video, Music as Medicine). That is, they have less of an allergic reaction. If you think that's wild, get ready for this: Beethoven didn't work. The subjects had the same reaction before and after listening to his music! Schubert, Hayden, and Brahms didn't work either, as all failed to reduce the allergic skin response. The reducing effect on allergic responses may be specific to Mozart.

So Mozart's looking pretty good, but what if he could be suppressing our immune systems in general? That would not be good. The same researchers also injected a chemical that causes reactions in everyone, not just in allergic people. Mozart had no effect. It seems Mozart suppresses only the pathological allergic reaction. If that isn't crazy enough for you, the researchers drew subjects' blood after the music, stuck their white blood cells in a petri dish with a little latex, and measured the allergic antibody response. The white blood cells from those exposed to Mozart had less of an allergic response even outside the body compared to cells taken from Beethoven blood. How cool is that?

Music may even impact our metabolism. This inquiry started with a 2012 study published in the journal Pediatrics, which found the resting energy expenditure (the number of calories burned when just lying around) was lower in preterm infants when researchers piped in Mozart. This may explain why infants exposed to music put on weight faster, so much so they are able to go home earlier.

Gaining weight faster is great for premature babies, but not necessarily for adults. Could listening to music slow our metabolism and contribute to weight gain? Well, one study found no effect on adults. But the researchers used Bach, not Mozart. Bach doesn't cause a drop in energy expenditure in babies either. These data suggest there may be "more a 'Mozart effect' than a universal 'music effect'."

What if we just listen to music of our choice? Does that affect our metabolism? We didn't know... until now. It turns out that listening to music appears to actually increase our metabolic rate, such that we burn an average of 27.6 more calories a day just lying in bed. That's only like six M&M's worth, though, so it's better to use music to get up and start dancing or exercising. Music can not only improve exercise enjoyment but also performance--a way to improve athletic performance that's legal.

Male bodybuilders may be less enthused music's effects. After listening to music for just 30 minutes, testosterone levels drop 14% in young men and go up 21% in young women. Do all kinds of music have this effect or just some types? Thirty minutes of silence had no effect on testosterone levels at all, while a half-hour of Mozart, jazz, pop, or Gregorian chants (no relation :) all suppressed testosterone. What about a half-hour of people's personal favorites? Testosterone levels were cut in half! Testosterone decreased in males under all music conditions, whereas testosterone increased in females. What is going on? Well, in men, testosterone is related to libido, dominance, and aggressiveness, whereas women get a bigger boost in testosterone from cuddling than from sex. So maybe we evolved using music as a way to ensure we all got along, like a melodious cold shower to keep everyone chill.

Is that crazy or what? I'm fascinated by the whole topic. For more, see Music for Anxiety: Mozart vs. Metal.

Sounds are the only sensory-stimulators that can have an effect on us--so can scents! See:

Exposure to industrial pollutants may also affect both allergic diseases and testosterone levels:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Music as Medicine

Music as Medicine.jpeg

We've been playing music since the Paleolithic Era, 40,000 years ago. Music as therapy has been documented since at least biblical times. The first music therapy experiment was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1914. As to why he placed a phonograph in the operating room as his patients lay fully conscious and awake during surgery, the surgeon explained it was "a means of calming and distracting my patients from the horror of the situation."

Now that we have anesthesia, music is used to calm nerves before surgery. Normally we use Valium-type drugs like midazolam (sold as Versed), but they can have a variety of side effects, including sometimes even making people more agitated. A study from Sweden sought to determine if relaxing music has a greater anxiety-reducing effect than a standard dose of midazolam. Researchers whipped out some Kenny G, and the music worked significantly better than the drug. Those listening to Mr. G had lower anxiety scores, heart rates, and blood pressures. This is perhaps the first report of any anti-anxiety therapy working not only as good as, but even better than, benzodiazepine drugs. The difference in side effects of relaxing music compared to the drug is obvious: There were none. Soft jazz causes no post-operative hangover. The researchers suggest we should start using music instead of midazolam.

Music may also reduce anxiety and pain in children undergoing minor medical and dental procedures, helping with blood draws and shots. It may even reduce the pain of spinal taps. However, Mozart is evidently powerless against the pain of circumcision.

It doesn't take a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that listening to music can be relaxing. Tell me something I don't know. Well, if you take someone with a latex allergy and inject their skin with latex, they get a big, red, angry bump. But if you repeat the test after they've been listening to Mozart for 30 minutes, they develop a much smaller bump (as you can see in my video, Music as Medicine). That is, they have less of an allergic reaction. If you think that's wild, get ready for this: Beethoven didn't work. The subjects had the same reaction before and after listening to his music! Schubert, Hayden, and Brahms didn't work either, as all failed to reduce the allergic skin response. The reducing effect on allergic responses may be specific to Mozart.

So Mozart's looking pretty good, but what if he could be suppressing our immune systems in general? That would not be good. The same researchers also injected a chemical that causes reactions in everyone, not just in allergic people. Mozart had no effect. It seems Mozart suppresses only the pathological allergic reaction. If that isn't crazy enough for you, the researchers drew subjects' blood after the music, stuck their white blood cells in a petri dish with a little latex, and measured the allergic antibody response. The white blood cells from those exposed to Mozart had less of an allergic response even outside the body compared to cells taken from Beethoven blood. How cool is that?

Music may even impact our metabolism. This inquiry started with a 2012 study published in the journal Pediatrics, which found the resting energy expenditure (the number of calories burned when just lying around) was lower in preterm infants when researchers piped in Mozart. This may explain why infants exposed to music put on weight faster, so much so they are able to go home earlier.

Gaining weight faster is great for premature babies, but not necessarily for adults. Could listening to music slow our metabolism and contribute to weight gain? Well, one study found no effect on adults. But the researchers used Bach, not Mozart. Bach doesn't cause a drop in energy expenditure in babies either. These data suggest there may be "more a 'Mozart effect' than a universal 'music effect'."

What if we just listen to music of our choice? Does that affect our metabolism? We didn't know... until now. It turns out that listening to music appears to actually increase our metabolic rate, such that we burn an average of 27.6 more calories a day just lying in bed. That's only like six M&M's worth, though, so it's better to use music to get up and start dancing or exercising. Music can not only improve exercise enjoyment but also performance--a way to improve athletic performance that's legal.

Male bodybuilders may be less enthused music's effects. After listening to music for just 30 minutes, testosterone levels drop 14% in young men and go up 21% in young women. Do all kinds of music have this effect or just some types? Thirty minutes of silence had no effect on testosterone levels at all, while a half-hour of Mozart, jazz, pop, or Gregorian chants (no relation :) all suppressed testosterone. What about a half-hour of people's personal favorites? Testosterone levels were cut in half! Testosterone decreased in males under all music conditions, whereas testosterone increased in females. What is going on? Well, in men, testosterone is related to libido, dominance, and aggressiveness, whereas women get a bigger boost in testosterone from cuddling than from sex. So maybe we evolved using music as a way to ensure we all got along, like a melodious cold shower to keep everyone chill.

Is that crazy or what? I'm fascinated by the whole topic. For more, see Music for Anxiety: Mozart vs. Metal.

Sounds are the only sensory-stimulators that can have an effect on us--so can scents! See:

Exposure to industrial pollutants may also affect both allergic diseases and testosterone levels:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get?

How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get?.jpeg

In the United States, most deaths are preventable and related to nutrition. Given that the number-one cause of death and the number-one cause of disability in this country is diet, surely nutrition is the number-one subject taught in medical school, right? Sadly, that is not the case.

As shown in my video, Physician's May Be Missing Their Most Important Tool, a group of prominent physicians wrote in 2014 that "nutrition receives little attention in medical practice" and "the reason stems, in large part, from the severe deficiency of nutrition education at all levels of medical training." They note this is particularly shocking since it has been proven that a whole foods, plant-based diet low in animal products and refined carbohydrates can reverse coronary heart disease--our number-one killer--and provide potent protection against other leading causes fof death such as cancer and type 2 diabetes.

So, how has medical education been affected by this knowledge? Medical students are still getting less than 20 hours of nutrition education over 4 years, and even most of that has limited clinical relevance. Thirty years ago, only 37 percent of medical schools had a single course in nutrition. According to the most recent national survey, that number has since dropped to 27 percent. And it gets even worse after students graduate.

According to the official list of all the requirements for those specializing in cardiology, Fellows must perform at least 50 stress tests, participate in at least 100 catheterizations, and so on. But nowhere in the 34-page list of requirements is there any mention of nutrition. Maybe they leave that to the primary care physicians? No. In the official 35-page list of requirements for internal medicine doctors, once again, nutrition doesn't get even a single mention.

There are no requirements for nutrition before medical school either. Instead, aspiring doctors need to take courses like calculus, organic chemistry, and physics. Most of these common pre-med requirements are irrelevant to the practice of medicine and are primarily used to "weed out" students. Shouldn't we be weeding out based on skills a physician actually uses? An important paper published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states: "The pernicious and myopic nature of this process of selection becomes evident when one realizes that those qualities that may lead to success in a premedical organic chemistry course...[like] a brutal competitiveness, an unquestioning, meticulous memorization, are not necessarily the same qualities that are present in a competent clinician."

How about requiring a course in nutrition instead of calculus, or ethics instead of physics?

Despite the neglect of nutrition in medical education, physicians are considered by the public to be among the most trusted sources for information related to nutrition. But if doctors don't know what they're talking about, they could actually be contributing to diet-related disease. If we're going to stop the prevailing trend of chronic illness in the United States, physicians need to become part of the solution.

There's still a lot to learn about the optimal diet, but we don't need a single additional study to take nutrition education seriously right now. It's health care's low-hanging fruit. While we've had the necessary knowledge for some time, what we've been lacking is the will to put that knowledge into practice. If we emphasized the powerful role of nutrition, we could dramatically reduce suffering and needless death.

Take, for example, the "Million Hearts" initiative. More than 2 million Americans have a heart attack or stroke each year. In 2011, U.S. federal, state, and local government agencies launched the Million Hearts initiative to prevent 1 million of the 10 million heart attacks and strokes that will occur in the next 5 years. "But why stop at a million?" a doctor asked in the American Journal of Cardiology. Already, we possess all the information needed to eradicate atherosclerotic disease, which is our number-one killer while being virtually nonexistent in populations who consume plant-based diets. Some of the world's most renowned cardiovascular pathologists have stated we just need to get our cholesterol low enough in order to not only prevent--but also reverse--the disease in more than 80% of patients. We can open up arteries without drugs and surgery, and stabilize or improve blood flow in 99% of those who choose to eat healthily and clean up their bad habits. We can essentially eliminate our risk of having a heart attack even in the most advanced cases of heart disease.

Despite this, medical students aren't even taught these concepts while they're in school. Instead, the focus is on cutting people open, which frequently provides only symptomatic relief because we're not treating the actual cause of the disease. Fixing medical education is the solution to this travesty. Knowledge of nutrition can help doctors eradicate the world's leading killer.

I've previously addressed how Doctors Tend to Know Less Than They Think About Nutrition, which is no surprise given most medical schools in the United States fail to provide even a bare minimum of nutrition training (see Medical School Nutrition Education), with mainstream medical associations even actively lobbying against additional nutrition training.

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

Original Link

How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get?

How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get?.jpeg

In the United States, most deaths are preventable and related to nutrition. Given that the number-one cause of death and the number-one cause of disability in this country is diet, surely nutrition is the number-one subject taught in medical school, right? Sadly, that is not the case.

As shown in my video, Physician's May Be Missing Their Most Important Tool, a group of prominent physicians wrote in 2014 that "nutrition receives little attention in medical practice" and "the reason stems, in large part, from the severe deficiency of nutrition education at all levels of medical training." They note this is particularly shocking since it has been proven that a whole foods, plant-based diet low in animal products and refined carbohydrates can reverse coronary heart disease--our number-one killer--and provide potent protection against other leading causes fof death such as cancer and type 2 diabetes.

So, how has medical education been affected by this knowledge? Medical students are still getting less than 20 hours of nutrition education over 4 years, and even most of that has limited clinical relevance. Thirty years ago, only 37 percent of medical schools had a single course in nutrition. According to the most recent national survey, that number has since dropped to 27 percent. And it gets even worse after students graduate.

According to the official list of all the requirements for those specializing in cardiology, Fellows must perform at least 50 stress tests, participate in at least 100 catheterizations, and so on. But nowhere in the 34-page list of requirements is there any mention of nutrition. Maybe they leave that to the primary care physicians? No. In the official 35-page list of requirements for internal medicine doctors, once again, nutrition doesn't get even a single mention.

There are no requirements for nutrition before medical school either. Instead, aspiring doctors need to take courses like calculus, organic chemistry, and physics. Most of these common pre-med requirements are irrelevant to the practice of medicine and are primarily used to "weed out" students. Shouldn't we be weeding out based on skills a physician actually uses? An important paper published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states: "The pernicious and myopic nature of this process of selection becomes evident when one realizes that those qualities that may lead to success in a premedical organic chemistry course...[like] a brutal competitiveness, an unquestioning, meticulous memorization, are not necessarily the same qualities that are present in a competent clinician."

How about requiring a course in nutrition instead of calculus, or ethics instead of physics?

Despite the neglect of nutrition in medical education, physicians are considered by the public to be among the most trusted sources for information related to nutrition. But if doctors don't know what they're talking about, they could actually be contributing to diet-related disease. If we're going to stop the prevailing trend of chronic illness in the United States, physicians need to become part of the solution.

There's still a lot to learn about the optimal diet, but we don't need a single additional study to take nutrition education seriously right now. It's health care's low-hanging fruit. While we've had the necessary knowledge for some time, what we've been lacking is the will to put that knowledge into practice. If we emphasized the powerful role of nutrition, we could dramatically reduce suffering and needless death.

Take, for example, the "Million Hearts" initiative. More than 2 million Americans have a heart attack or stroke each year. In 2011, U.S. federal, state, and local government agencies launched the Million Hearts initiative to prevent 1 million of the 10 million heart attacks and strokes that will occur in the next 5 years. "But why stop at a million?" a doctor asked in the American Journal of Cardiology. Already, we possess all the information needed to eradicate atherosclerotic disease, which is our number-one killer while being virtually nonexistent in populations who consume plant-based diets. Some of the world's most renowned cardiovascular pathologists have stated we just need to get our cholesterol low enough in order to not only prevent--but also reverse--the disease in more than 80% of patients. We can open up arteries without drugs and surgery, and stabilize or improve blood flow in 99% of those who choose to eat healthily and clean up their bad habits. We can essentially eliminate our risk of having a heart attack even in the most advanced cases of heart disease.

Despite this, medical students aren't even taught these concepts while they're in school. Instead, the focus is on cutting people open, which frequently provides only symptomatic relief because we're not treating the actual cause of the disease. Fixing medical education is the solution to this travesty. Knowledge of nutrition can help doctors eradicate the world's leading killer.

I've previously addressed how Doctors Tend to Know Less Than They Think About Nutrition, which is no surprise given most medical schools in the United States fail to provide even a bare minimum of nutrition training (see Medical School Nutrition Education), with mainstream medical associations even actively lobbying against additional nutrition training.

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

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

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: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

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: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Deep Breathing Exercise for Nausea

Deep Breathing Exercise for Nausea.jpeg

One of the most common fears patients express when facing surgery is postoperative nausea, which can range from minor queasiness to protracted periods of vomiting. Feeling sick to one's stomach and throwing up after surgery is a common problem, affecting between a quarter and a half of those placed under general anesthesia, and more than half of those at high risk (women who don't smoke and have a history of motion sickness).

I've explored the science behind treating nausea with ginger (see Natural Nausea Remedy Recipe), but if you're too nauseous to eat, what do you do? Well, people are often sent home with anti-nausea rectal suppositories. Surveys, however, show that cultural and sexual attitudes may make a number of people sensitive to anything involving the rectum. Though the wording of the question researchers asked was, "are you happy to have a drug put in your back passage?" I can imagine many of the respondents thinking "well, maybe I wouldn't so much mind, but wouldn't exactly be happy about it," especially when you're feeling sick and throwing up.

For women who've had a C-section, they might not want to take drugs at all if they're breastfeeding, so researchers decided to put aromatherapy to the test. Research has shown that essential oils of both spearmint and peppermint are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy, but this was after swallowing them.

Would just the smell of peppermint help with nausea? I explore this in my video Peppermint Aromatherapy for Nausea. Researchers had women take deep whiffs of peppermint extract (like you'd buy at a store) and it seemed to work. Eighty percent of the mint-sniffers felt better within just a few minutes, compared to no improvement in the placebo group who sniffed water with green food coloring, or the control group who didn't sniff anything.

The study was criticized for being small and for not using pure peppermint oil. Peppermint extract is peppermint oil plus alcohol. Maybe it was the smell of alcohol that made people better? And that's actually not too much of a stretch. In 1997, researchers reported a simple, innocuous, and inexpensive treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting--the smell of isopropyl alcohol, which is what is found in those alcohol wipes, the little prep pads that nurses swab you with before shots. They found that they could just effectively tear one open and wave it under someone's nose and relieve nausea and vomiting in more than 80% of folks after surgery. It has been since shown to work as well as a leading anti-nausea drug, and may even work faster, cutting nausea in half within 10 to 15 minutes, rather than 20 or 25.

So was it the alcohol, the peppermint, or both? Researchers decided to put it to the test. They instructed patients to take three slow, deep breaths, smelling alcohol, peppermint, or nothing. The smell of peppermint cut nausea in half within five minutes, and so did the alcohol. But so did smelling nothing! So maybe it had nothing to do with the scent; maybe it was just the instruction to take slow, deep breaths. That would make it a really cost-effective intervention. Maybe it shouldn't be so surprising, given the proximity of the vomiting and breathing centers within the brain.

And indeed, controlled breathing was found effective with or without any scent. So next time you feel nauseous, inhale deeply through your nose to the count of three, hold your breath to the count of three, and exhale out the mouth to the count of three. Do that three times.

Ironically, the researchers continued to advocate using those nasty smelling alcohol pads even though they themselves showed they weren't any more effective than breathing alone. Why? Since isopropyl alcohol has a readily detectable odor, patients are more likely to think that their post-operation nausea and vomiting is being actively treated when they inhale alcohol vapors rather than just engaging in breathing exercises.


What do you think of still using the alcohol pads even though they were shown to offer no additional benefit? I have a whole video on such questions: The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

For those who can swallow, I offer more about powdered ginger in my video Dangerous Advice From Health Food Store Employees.

There's more on aromatherapy here:

What about actually eating the peppermint?

Of course, the best way to avoid postsurgical nausea is to try to avoid surgery in the first place. Those that eat healthy may be less likely to go under the knife. See Say No to Drugs by Saying Yes to More Plants.

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

Deep Breathing Exercise for Nausea

Deep Breathing Exercise for Nausea.jpeg

One of the most common fears patients express when facing surgery is postoperative nausea, which can range from minor queasiness to protracted periods of vomiting. Feeling sick to one's stomach and throwing up after surgery is a common problem, affecting between a quarter and a half of those placed under general anesthesia, and more than half of those at high risk (women who don't smoke and have a history of motion sickness).

I've explored the science behind treating nausea with ginger (see Natural Nausea Remedy Recipe), but if you're too nauseous to eat, what do you do? Well, people are often sent home with anti-nausea rectal suppositories. Surveys, however, show that cultural and sexual attitudes may make a number of people sensitive to anything involving the rectum. Though the wording of the question researchers asked was, "are you happy to have a drug put in your back passage?" I can imagine many of the respondents thinking "well, maybe I wouldn't so much mind, but wouldn't exactly be happy about it," especially when you're feeling sick and throwing up.

For women who've had a C-section, they might not want to take drugs at all if they're breastfeeding, so researchers decided to put aromatherapy to the test. Research has shown that essential oils of both spearmint and peppermint are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy, but this was after swallowing them.

Would just the smell of peppermint help with nausea? I explore this in my video Peppermint Aromatherapy for Nausea. Researchers had women take deep whiffs of peppermint extract (like you'd buy at a store) and it seemed to work. Eighty percent of the mint-sniffers felt better within just a few minutes, compared to no improvement in the placebo group who sniffed water with green food coloring, or the control group who didn't sniff anything.

The study was criticized for being small and for not using pure peppermint oil. Peppermint extract is peppermint oil plus alcohol. Maybe it was the smell of alcohol that made people better? And that's actually not too much of a stretch. In 1997, researchers reported a simple, innocuous, and inexpensive treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting--the smell of isopropyl alcohol, which is what is found in those alcohol wipes, the little prep pads that nurses swab you with before shots. They found that they could just effectively tear one open and wave it under someone's nose and relieve nausea and vomiting in more than 80% of folks after surgery. It has been since shown to work as well as a leading anti-nausea drug, and may even work faster, cutting nausea in half within 10 to 15 minutes, rather than 20 or 25.

So was it the alcohol, the peppermint, or both? Researchers decided to put it to the test. They instructed patients to take three slow, deep breaths, smelling alcohol, peppermint, or nothing. The smell of peppermint cut nausea in half within five minutes, and so did the alcohol. But so did smelling nothing! So maybe it had nothing to do with the scent; maybe it was just the instruction to take slow, deep breaths. That would make it a really cost-effective intervention. Maybe it shouldn't be so surprising, given the proximity of the vomiting and breathing centers within the brain.

And indeed, controlled breathing was found effective with or without any scent. So next time you feel nauseous, inhale deeply through your nose to the count of three, hold your breath to the count of three, and exhale out the mouth to the count of three. Do that three times.

Ironically, the researchers continued to advocate using those nasty smelling alcohol pads even though they themselves showed they weren't any more effective than breathing alone. Why? Since isopropyl alcohol has a readily detectable odor, patients are more likely to think that their post-operation nausea and vomiting is being actively treated when they inhale alcohol vapors rather than just engaging in breathing exercises.


What do you think of still using the alcohol pads even though they were shown to offer no additional benefit? I have a whole video on such questions: The Lie That Heals: Should Doctors Give Placebos?

For those who can swallow, I offer more about powdered ginger in my video Dangerous Advice From Health Food Store Employees.

There's more on aromatherapy here:

What about actually eating the peppermint?

Of course, the best way to avoid postsurgical nausea is to try to avoid surgery in the first place. Those that eat healthy may be less likely to go under the knife. See Say No to Drugs by Saying Yes to More Plants.

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