Improving Employee Diets Could Save Companies Millions

Plant-Based Workplace Intervention.jpg

The food, alcohol, and tobacco industries have been blamed for "manufacturing epidemics" of chronic disease, but they're just trying to sell more product like everyone else. And so if that means distorting science, creating front groups, compromising scientists, blocking public health policies... they're just trying to protect their business.

It's not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. How else could we have tobacco companies, for example, "continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?"

Civil society organizations concerned with public health have earned a reputation for being "anti-industry," but the issue is not industry, but that sector of industry whose products are harmful to public health. We like the broccoli industry. In fact, the corporate world might end up leading the lifestyle medicine revolution.

As shown in my video, Plant-Based Workplace Intervention, the annual cost attributable to obesity alone among full-time employees is estimated at 70 billion dollars, primarily because obese employees are not as productive on the job. Having healthy employees is good for the bottom-line. Every dollar spent on wellness programs may offer a $3 return on investment. And if you track the market performance of companies that strive to nurture a culture of health, they appear to outperform their competition.

That's why companies like GEICO are exploring workplace dietary interventions (see my video, Slimming the Gecko). The remarkable success at GEICO headquarters led to an expansion of the program at corporate offices across the country, with test sites from San Diego to Macon, Georgia. Given that previous workplace studies have found that workers who ate a lot of animal protein had nearly five times the odds of obesity, whereas those that ate mostly plant protein appeared protected, obese and diabetic employees were asked to follow a plant-based diet of whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruit while avoiding meat, dairy, and eggs. Compliance wasn't great. Fewer than half really got their animal product consumption down, but there were definitely improvements such as significant reductions in saturated fat, an increase in protective nutrients, and even noted weight loss, lower blood cholesterol levers, and better blood sugar control in diabetics.

And this was with no calorie counting, no portion control, and no exercise component. The weight reduction appears to result from feeling fuller earlier, due to higher dietary fiber intake. The difference in weight loss could also be the result of an increase in the thermic effect of food, allowing a small extra edge for weight loss in the vegan group. Those eating plant-based diets tend to burn off more calories in heat.

Eating plants appears to boost metabolism. This may be due to increased insulin sensitivity in cells, allowing cells to metabolize carbohydrates more quickly rather than storing them as body fat. "As a result, vegan diets have been shown to increase postprandial calorie burn by about 16%, up to three hours after consuming a meal."

Imagine how much money companies that self-insure their employees could save! See, for example:

Find out more on some of the potential downsides of corporate influence in videos like

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: Ryan McGuire / Pixabay. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Improving Employee Diets Could Save Companies Millions

Plant-Based Workplace Intervention.jpg

The food, alcohol, and tobacco industries have been blamed for "manufacturing epidemics" of chronic disease, but they're just trying to sell more product like everyone else. And so if that means distorting science, creating front groups, compromising scientists, blocking public health policies... they're just trying to protect their business.

It's not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. How else could we have tobacco companies, for example, "continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?"

Civil society organizations concerned with public health have earned a reputation for being "anti-industry," but the issue is not industry, but that sector of industry whose products are harmful to public health. We like the broccoli industry. In fact, the corporate world might end up leading the lifestyle medicine revolution.

As shown in my video, Plant-Based Workplace Intervention, the annual cost attributable to obesity alone among full-time employees is estimated at 70 billion dollars, primarily because obese employees are not as productive on the job. Having healthy employees is good for the bottom-line. Every dollar spent on wellness programs may offer a $3 return on investment. And if you track the market performance of companies that strive to nurture a culture of health, they appear to outperform their competition.

That's why companies like GEICO are exploring workplace dietary interventions (see my video, Slimming the Gecko). The remarkable success at GEICO headquarters led to an expansion of the program at corporate offices across the country, with test sites from San Diego to Macon, Georgia. Given that previous workplace studies have found that workers who ate a lot of animal protein had nearly five times the odds of obesity, whereas those that ate mostly plant protein appeared protected, obese and diabetic employees were asked to follow a plant-based diet of whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruit while avoiding meat, dairy, and eggs. Compliance wasn't great. Fewer than half really got their animal product consumption down, but there were definitely improvements such as significant reductions in saturated fat, an increase in protective nutrients, and even noted weight loss, lower blood cholesterol levers, and better blood sugar control in diabetics.

And this was with no calorie counting, no portion control, and no exercise component. The weight reduction appears to result from feeling fuller earlier, due to higher dietary fiber intake. The difference in weight loss could also be the result of an increase in the thermic effect of food, allowing a small extra edge for weight loss in the vegan group. Those eating plant-based diets tend to burn off more calories in heat.

Eating plants appears to boost metabolism. This may be due to increased insulin sensitivity in cells, allowing cells to metabolize carbohydrates more quickly rather than storing them as body fat. "As a result, vegan diets have been shown to increase postprandial calorie burn by about 16%, up to three hours after consuming a meal."

Imagine how much money companies that self-insure their employees could save! See, for example:

Find out more on some of the potential downsides of corporate influence in videos like

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: Ryan McGuire / Pixabay. This image has been modified.

Original Link

How to Design Saturated Fat Studies to Hide the Truth

NF-Oct4 Saturated Fat Studies Set up to Fail.jpeg

Where do the international consensus guidelines to dramatically lower saturated fat consumption come from? (I show the list in my video, The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public). They came from literally hundreds of metabolic ward experiments, which means you don't just ask people to change their diets, you essentially lock them in a room--for weeks if necessary--and have total control over their diet. You can then experimentally change the level of saturated fat consumed by subjects however you want to, and see the corresponding change in their cholesterol levels. And the results are so consistent that you can create an equation, the famous Hegsted Equation, where you can predict how much their cholesterol will go up based on how much saturated fat you give them. So if you want your LDL cholesterol to go up 50 points, all you have to do is eat something like 30% of your calories in saturated fat. When you plug the numbers in, the change in cholesterol shoots up as predicted. The experiments match the predictions. You can do it at home with one of those home cholesterol testing kits, eat a stick of butter every day, and watch your cholesterol climb.

These ward experiments were done in 1965; meaning we've known for 50 years that even if you keep calorie intake the same, increases in saturated fat intake are associated with highly significant increases in LDL bad cholesterol. Your good cholesterol goes up a bit too, but that increase is smaller than the increase in bad, which would translate into increased heart disease risk.

So if you feed vegetarians meat even just once a day, their cholesterol jumps nearly 20% within a month. To prevent heart disease, we need a total cholesterol under 150, which these vegetarians were, but then even just eating meat once a day, and their cholesterol shot up 19%. The good news is that within just two weeks of returning to their meat-free diet, their cholesterol dropped back down into the safe range. Note that their HDL good cholesterol hardly moved at all, so their ratio went from low risk of heart attack to high risk in a matter of weeks with just one meat-containing meal a day. And indeed randomized clinical trials show that dietary saturated fat reduction doesn't just appear to reduce cholesterol levels, but also reduces the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events like heart attacks.

So we have randomized clinical trials, controlled interventional experiments--our most robust forms of evidence--no wonder there's a scientific consensus to decrease saturated fat intake! You'll note, though, that the Y-axis in these studies seen in my video The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail is not cholesterol, but change in cholesterol. That's because everyone's set-point is different. Two people eating the same diet with the same amount of saturated fat can have very different cholesterol levels. One person can eat ten chicken nuggets a day and have an LDL cholesterol of 90; another person eating ten a day could start out with an LDL of 120. It depends on your genes. But while our genetics may be different, our biology is the same, meaning the rise and drop in cholesterol is the same for everyone. So if both folks cut out the nuggets, the 90 might drop to 85, whereas the 120 would drop to 115. Wherever we start, we can lower our cholesterol by eating less saturated fat, but if I just know your saturated fat intake--how many nuggets you eat, I can't tell you what your starting cholesterol is. All I can say with certainty is that if you eat less, your cholesterol will likely improve.

But because of this extreme "interindividual variation"--this wide variability in baseline cholesterol levels for any given saturated fat intake--if you take a cross-section of the population, you can find no statistical correlation between saturated fat intake and cholesterol levels, because it's not like everyone who eats a certain set amount of saturated fat is going to have over a certain cholesterol. So there are three ways you could study diet and cholesterol levels: controlled feeding experiments, free-living dietary change experiments, or cross-sectional observations of large populations. As we know, there is a clear and strong relationship between change in diet and change in serum cholesterol in the interventional designs, but because of that individual variability, in cross-sectional designs, you can get zero correlation. In fact, if you do the math, that's what you'd expect you'd get. In statistical parlance, one would say that a cross-sectional study doesn't have the power for detecting such a relationship. Thus because of that variability, these kinds of observational studies would seem an inappropriate method to study this particular relationship. So since diet and serum cholesterol have a zero correlation cross-sectionally, an observational study of the relationship between diet and coronary heart disease incidence will suffer from the same difficulties. So again, if you do the math, observational studies would unavoidably show nearly no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. These prospective studies can be valuable for other diseases, but the appropriate design demonstrating or refuting the role of diet and coronary heart disease is a dietary change experiment.

And those dietary change experiments have been done; they implicate saturated fat, hence the lower saturated guidelines from basically every major medical authority. In fact, if we lower saturated fat enough, we may be able to reverse heart disease, opening up arteries without drugs or surgery. So with this knowledge, how would the meat and dairy industry prove otherwise? They use the observational studies that mathematically would be unable to show any correlation.

All they need now is a friendly researcher, such as Ronald M. Krauss, who has been funded by the National Dairy Council since 1989, also the National Cattleman's Beef Association, as well as the Atkins Foundation. Then they just combine all the observational studies that don't have the power to provide significant evidence, and not surprisingly, as published in their 2010 meta-analysis, no significant evidence was found.

The 2010 meta-analysis was basically just repackaged for 2014, using the same and similar studies. As the Chair of Harvard's nutrition department put it, their conclusions regarding the type of fat being unimportant are seriously misleading and should be disregarded, going as far as suggesting the paper be retracted, even after the authors corrected a half dozen different errors.

It's not as though they falsified or fabricated data--they didn't have to. They knew beforehand the limitations of observational studies, they knew they'd get the "right" result and so they published it, helping to "neutralize the negative impact of milk and meat fat by regulators and medical professionals." And it's working, according to the dairy industry, as perceptions about saturated fat in the scientific community are changing. They even go so far to say this is a welcome message to consumers, who may be tired of hearing what they shouldn't eat. They don't need to convince consumers, just confuse them. Confusion can easily be misused by the food industry to promote their interests.

It's like that infamous tobacco industry memo that read, "Doubt is our product since it's the best means of competing with the body of fact that exist in the mind of the general public." They don't have to convince the public that smoking is healthy to get people to keep consuming their products. They just need to establish a controversy. Conflicting messages in nutrition cause people to become so frustrated and confused they may just throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever is put in front of them, which is exactly what saturated fat suppliers want, but at what cost to the public's health?


If that "Doubt is our product" memo sounded familiar, I also featured it in my Food Industry Funded Research Bias video. More on how industries can design deceptive studies in BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol? and How the Egg Board Designs Misleading Studies.

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: Taryn / Flickr

Original Link

Which Dietary Factors Affect Breast Cancer Most?

Sept27.jpg

One of my favorite cancer-specific charities, the American Institute for Cancer Research, lauds the China Study and the documentary Forks Over Knives, with which they share the same bottom-line message: The healthiest diets are those that revolve around whole plant foods.

They then translate that advice into their Ten Recommendations for Cancer Prevention, featured in my video Which Dietary Factors Affect Breast Cancer Most? We now have evidence that those who follow such advice are actually protected against cancer. Breast cancer risk was reduced by 60% in women who met at least five recommendations compared with those who met none. The most important dietary advice was to be as lean as possible within the normal range of body weight, eat mostly foods of plant origin, and limit alcoholic drinks.

What about other cancers? Greater adherence to the AICR dietary guidelines was also associated with significantly less endometrial, colorectal, lung, kidney, stomach, oral, liver, and esophageal cancer. In other words, adherence to dietary recommendations for cancer prevention may lower the risk of developing most types of cancer. The drop in bladder cancer did not reach statistical significance, but a larger follow-up study following 469,000 people for 11 years (the largest to date) found that just a 3% increase in the consumption of animal protein calories was associated with a 15% higher risk of bladder cancer, whereas just a 2% increase in plant protein was associated with a 23% lower risk.

AICR recommendation number ten is that cancer survivors should follow the recommendations for cancer prevention. The same diet that can help prevent cancer in the first place can be used to help save our life after diagnosis. Adherence to the guidelines for cancer prevention was found to be associated with lower mortality among older female cancer survivors, or breast cancer and other cancers in general.

A cancer diagnosis is considered a teachable moment to get people eating and living healthier. Oncologists revel at the growth in the number of cancer survivors in this country, now ten million strong and growing. It's great that those with cancer are living longer, but even better to prevent it in the first place so we can all live longer. Not only does adherence to the guidelines lower cancer risk, but extends our lifespan because the guidelines are also significantly associated with a lower hazard of dying from heart disease and respiratory disease, suggesting that following the recommendations could "significantly increase longevity."

Just like eating to prevent cancer helps to prevent heart disease, eating to protect our heart helps prevent cancer. It sounds self-evident, but adherence to a healthy lifestyle is therefore associated with a lower risk of mortality overall. And the more healthy behaviors we have, the longer we get to live. Such factors included not smoking, walking every day, or eating green leafy vegetables almost daily.

To help differentiate the effects of diet from other lifestyle behaviors like smoking and drinking on cancer incidence, Adventists were recently compared to Baptists. Both discourage alcohol and tobacco, but the Adventists go further, encouraging a reduction of meat. In general, the Adventists had lower cancer hazard rates than the Baptists, and within Adventist populations, the vegetarians did even better, and those eating the most plants, did the best.

Why do plant-based diets appear to lower the risk of cancer? A number of fascinating mechanisms:

Specific to breast cancer:

Though plant-based beverages may be harmful: Breast Cancer and Alcohol: How Much Is Safe?

In terms of foods associated with breast cancer survival, 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--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: MesserWoland

Image Credit: [Lev Kropotov] © 123RF.com

Original Link

What to Eat to Protect Against Kidney Cancer

NF-Sept8 Can Diet Protect Against Kidney Cancer_.jpeg

58,000 Americans are diagnosed with kidney cancer every year, and 13,000 die. And the numbers have been going up. Approximately 4 percent of cases are hereditary, but what about the other 96 percent? The only accepted risk factor has been tobacco use, but cigarette smoking has been declining.

Nitrosamines are one of the most potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke. One hot dog has as many nitrosamines and nitrosamides as five cigarettes. And these carcinogens are also found in fresh meat as well: beef, chicken and pork. So even though smoking rates have dropped, perhaps the rise in kidney cancer over the last few decades may have something to do with meat consumption. But would kidney cancer just be related to the processed meats like bacon, sausage, hot dogs and cold cuts that have nitrate and nitrite additives, or fresh meat as well?

The NIH-AARP study featured in my video Can Diet Protect Against Kidney Cancer? is the largest prospective study on diet and health ever performed--about 500,000 followed for nine years. In addition to examining nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meat, they also looked at intake from other sources such as fresh meat, eggs and dairy. Nitrite from animal sources, not just processed meats, was associated with an increased risk of kidney cancer, and total intake of nitrate and nitrite from processed meat sources was also associated with kidney cancer risk. The researchers found no associations with nitrate or nitrite intake from plant sources, but nitrates from processed meat was associated with cancer.

When meat producers advertise their bacon or lunch meat as "uncured," this means no nitrites or nitrates added. But if you look at the small print you'll see something like, "except for celery juice." That's just a sneaky way to add nitrites. Processed meat producers ferment the nitrates in celery to create nitrites, then add it to the meat; a practice even the industry admits "may be viewed as incorrect at best or deceptive at worst."

But that same fermentation of nitrates to nitrites can happen thanks to bacteria on our tongue when we eat vegetables. So why are nitrates and nitrites from vegetables on our tongue harmless, but nitrates and nitrites from vegetables in meat linked to cancer? The actual carcinogens are not nitrites, but nitrosamines and nitrosamides. In our stomach, to turn nitrites into nitros-amines, and nitros-amides we need amines and amides, which are concentrated in animal products. And vitamin C and other antioxidants in plant foods block the formation of these carcinogens in our stomach. That's why we can safely benefit from the nitrates in vegetables without the cancer risk. In fact some of the highest nitrate vegetables like arugula, kale, and collards are associated with decreased risk of kidney cancer. The more plants, it appears, the better.

Plant-based diets and fiber-rich diets are recommended to prevent cancer directly, as well as chronic conditions associated with kidney cancer, such as obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. It's similar to sodium intake and kidney cancer. Sodium intake increases kidney disease risk, but that's not just because sodium intake increases blood pressure. It appears the salt is associated with increased cancer risk even independently of hypertension. What about plant-based diets? Turns out the protective association remains even in people who are not obese and have normal blood pressure. So overall, plant-based and fiber-rich diets appear to do both: decrease cancer risk directly and indirectly.

I briefly address kidney health in Preventing Kidney Failure Through Diet and Treating Kidney Failure Through Diet, but have a whole series of more in-depth videos dealing with various kidney issues.

More on the fascinating nitrate/nitrite story in my 17-part series about improving athletic performance with nitrate-rich vegetables such as beets and arugula. Here are a few short highlights:

More on carcinogens caused by cooking meat in videos like:

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: RDSVS / Flickr

Original Link

How Big Food Twists the Science

Aug18.jpg

Just like mosquitos are the vectors of spread for malaria, a landmark article published last year in one of the most prestigious medical journals, Lancet, described large food corporations as the vectors of spread for chronic disease. Unlike "infectious disease epidemics, however, these corporate disease vectors implement sophisticated campaigns to undermine public health interventions." Most mosquitoes don't have as good PR firms.

A key message was that "alcohol and ultra-processed food and drink industries use similar strategies as the tobacco industry to undermine effective public health policies and programs." What they mean by ultra-processed is things like burgers, frozen meals, chicken nuggets, fish sticks, potato chips, doughnuts and soda pop.

But how is the food industry like the tobacco industry? The "first strategy is to bias research findings." For example, Philip Morris implemented the Whitecoat project to hire doctors to publish ghost-written studies purporting to negate links between secondhand smoke and harm, publishing biased cherry-picked scientific reports to deny harm and suppress health information. In my video Food Industry-Funded Research Bias, you can see the actual industry memo describing the Whitecoat Project, designed to reverse the scientific "misconception" that secondhand smoke is harmful.

Similarly, funding from these large food corporations biases research. Studies show systematic bias from industry funding, so we get the same kind of tactics--supplying misinformation, use of supposedly conflicting evidence and hiding negative data.

The same scientists-for-hire that downplayed the risks of secondhand smoke are the same hired by the likes of the National Confectioner's Association to say candy cigarettes are A-OK as well. Of course, they declared "no conflict of interest."

The similarities between strategies used by the tobacco, alcohol, and food and drink corporations are unsurprising in view of the flow of people, funds and activities across these industries, which also have histories of joint ownership--like Philip Morris owned both Kraft and Miller Brewing.

So what's their strategy? As a former FDA commissioner described:

"The tobacco industry's strategy was embodied in a script written by the lawyers. Every tobacco company executive in the public eye was told to learn the script backwards and forwards, no deviation was allowed. The basic premise was simple-- smoking had not been proven to cause cancer. Not proven, not proven, not proven--this would be stated insistently and repeatedly. Inject a thin wedge of doubt, create controversy, never deviate from the prepared line. It was a simple plan and it worked."

Internal industry memos make this explicit, stating "doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public." The internal industry memos list objective number one as "to set aside in the minds of millions the false conviction that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases; a conviction based on fanatical assumptions, fallacious rumors, unsupported claims and the unscientific statements and conjectures of publicity-seeking opportunists... [We need] to lift the cigarette from the cancer identification as quickly as possible, and to establish--once and for all--that no scientific evidence has ever been produced, presented or submitted to prove conclusively that cigarette smoking causes cancer," similar to what's now coming out from the food industry, from the same folks that brought us smoke and candy.

This is part of a series of "political" blogs which includes my video, Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease. Why don't I just "stick to the science"? When there are billions of dollars at stake, the body of evidence can be skewed and manipulated. Funders can determine which studies are performed, how they're performed and whether or not they get published at all. That's why I think it's important to take a broader view to account for the ways the scientific method can be perverted for profit.

Here are some examples:

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.

Original Link

Caloric Restriction vs. Plant-Based Diets

July14.jpg

Hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States every year are attributed to obesity, now overtaking smoking as perhaps the main preventable cause of illness and premature death. In particular, excess body fatness is an important cause of most cancers, according to a meta-analysis of studies done to date. For some cancers, about half of the cases may be attributable to just being overweight or obese.

What's the connection, though? Why do individuals who are obese have increased cancer risk? To answer this question we must consider the biochemical consequences of obesity, like IGF-1; insulin like growth factor one is a cancer-promoting growth hormone associated with a variety of common cancers in adults, as well as children. Kids who got cancer had about four times the levels of IGF-1 circulating in their bloodstream, whereas people growing up with abnormally low levels of IGF-1 don't seem to get cancer at all.

I've talked about this cancer-proofing mutation (See Cancer-Proofing Mutation), the role animal protein intake plays in boosting IGF-1 production from our liver (Protein Intake & IGF-1 Production), which may explain plant-based protection from cancer (The Answer to the Pritikin Puzzle), and how plant-based one has to eat (How Plant-Based to Lower IGF-1?), but our liver is not the only tissue that produced IGF-1, fat cells produce IGF-1 too. That may help explain this "twenty-first century cancer epidemic caused by obesity."

So of course drug companies have come up with a variety of IGF-1 blocking chemo agents, with cute names like figitumamab, but with not-so-cute side effects "such as early fatal toxicities." So perhaps better to lower IGF-1 the natural way, by eating a plant-based diet, as vegan women and men have lower IGF-1 levels. Maybe, though, it's just because they're so skinny. The only dietary group that comes close to the recommended BMI of 21 to 23 were those eating strictly plant-based diets, so maybe it's the weight loss that did it. Maybe we can eat whatever we want as long as we're skinny.

To put that to the test, we'd have to find a group of people that eat meat, but are still as slim as vegans. And that's what researchers did - long-distance endurance runners, running an average of 48 miles a week for 21 years were as slim as vegans. If we run 50,000 miles we too can maintain a BMI of even a raw vegan. So what did they find?

If we look at blood concentrations of cancer risk factors among the groups of study subjects, we see that only the vegans had significantly lower levels of IGF-1. That makes sense given the role animal protein plays in boosting IGF-1 levels.

But the vegan group didn't just eat less animal protein, they ate fewer calories. And in rodents at least, caloric restriction alone reduces IGF-1 levels. So maybe low IGF-1 among vegans isn't due to their slim figures, but maybe the drop in IGF-1 in vegans is effectively due to their unintentional calorie restriction. So we have to compare vegans to people practicing severe calorie restriction.

To do this, the researchers recruited vegans from the St. Louis Vegetarian Society, and went to the Calorie Restriction Society to find folks practicing severe caloric restriction. What did they find?

Only the vegan group got a significant drop in IGF-1. These findings demonstrate that, unlike in rodents, long-term severe caloric restriction in humans does not reduce the level of this cancer-promoting hormone. It's not how many calories we eat, but the protein intake that may be the key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans, and so reduced protein intake may become an important component of anti-cancer and anti-aging dietary interventions.

That same data set that compared plant eaters to marathon runners was also featured in Hibiscus Tea vs. Plant-Based Diets for Hypertension and Arteries of Vegans vs. Runners.

These studies are highlighted in my video Caloric Restriction vs. Plant-based Diets.

More on the caloric consumption and longevity:

What exactly is IGF-1 and what is the relationship to animal protein consumption?:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Heather Hammond / Flickr

Original Link

Fast Food Restaurants in Children’s Hospitals

NF-June21.jpeg

The food industry spends billions on advertising. Promotion costs for individual candy bars can run in the tens of millions. McDonald's alone spends a billion dollars on advertising every year. Such figures dwarf the National Cancer Institute's million dollar annual investment promoting fruit and vegetable consumption or the 1.5 million spent on cholesterol education. That McBillion goes a long way.

Children's food preferences are being molded by McDonald's even before they learn to tie their shoelaces. By the early age of three to five years, preschoolers preferred the taste of foods and drinks if they thought they were from McDonald's. This was true even for carrots--baby carrots placed in a bag with McDonald's logo reportedly tasted better. And if they get sick, children can continue to eat McDonald's in the hospital.

Nearly 1 in 3 children's hospitals have a fast food restaurant inside, leading parents to have more positive perceptions of the healthiness of McDonald's food (See Hospitals Selling Sickness). They can also just buy the naming rights altogether: The Ronald McDonald Children's Hospital, for example. In teaching hospitals, though, Krispy Kreme tops the list. Hospitals may wish to revisit the idea of serving high-calorie fast food in the very place where they also care for the most seriously ill.

This is reminiscent of the fight against tobacco back in the 1980's when public health advocates made radical suggestions, such as not selling cigarettes in hospitals. By working to make our hospitals ultimately smoke-free, we become part of a global campaign to completely eliminate the tobacco scourge. The task is difficult, but so was eradicating smallpox. Maybe it's time to stop selling sickness in hospitals.

For more on health entities appeasing the junk food industry, see my video Collaboration With the New Vectors of Disease. Even the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the registered dietitian organization, has quite the shady history which I document near the end of my 2014 annual review presentation From Table to Able.

Even cynical me was surprised by my profession's hostility towards nutrition. 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 Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: davef3138 / Flickr

Original Link

Virus in Chicken Could Be Linked to Obesity

NF-May31 Infectobesity Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity.jpeg

Recently, there has been research examining the connection between poultry consumption and weight gain. One study out of the Netherlands examining about 4,000 people, correlated chicken consumption with weight gain. Another study followed 89,000 people in four other countries and found that animal protein intake was associated with long-term weight gain, and poultry was the worst, with 40 percent more weight gain than red meat or processed meat.

What makes poultry so bad? Yes, chickens are fatty these days because of the way we've genetically manipulated them--up to ten times more fat and calories than they used to have--but one bizarre theory postulated that it might be due to an obesity-causing chicken virus. In one study, one in five obese humans tested positive to the chicken virus SMAM-1, with those exposed to the chicken virus averaging 33 pounds heavier than those testing negative.

SMAM-1 was the first chicken virus to be associated with human obesity, but not the last. The original obesity-causing chicken virus SMAM-1 was able to effectively transmit obesity from one chicken to another when caged together, similar to a human adenovirus Ad-36, a human obesity-associated virus first associated with obesity in chickens and mice. Ad-36 spreads quickly from one chicken to another via nasal, oral or fecal excretion and contamination, causing obesity in each chicken. This of course raises serious concerns about Ad-36-induced adiposity in humans.

The easiest way to test this hypothesis is to experimentally infect humans with the virus. However, ethical reasons preclude experimental infection of humans, and so the evidence will have to remain indirect. In the absence of direct experimental data, we must rely on population studies, similar to how researchers nailed smoking and lung cancer. About 15 percent of Americans are already infected with Ad-36, so we can follow them and see what happens. That's exactly what a research team out of Taiwan did (highlighted in my video Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity). They followed 1,400 Hispanic men and women for a decade and found that not only were those exposed to the virus fatter than those who were not, but also over the ten years, those with a history of infection had a greater percentage of body fat over time.

Most studies done to date on adults have found a connection between exposure to Ad-36 and obesity, and all studies done so far on childhood obesity show an increase in prevalence of infection in obese children compared to non-obese children. We're now up to more than a thousand children studied with similar findings. Obese children who tested positive for the virus weighed 35 pounds more than children who tested negative.

The virus appears to both increase the number of fat cells by mobilizing precursor stem cells and increase the accumulation of fat within the cells. If we take liposuction samples of fat from people, the fat cell precursors turn into fat cells at about five times the rate in people who came to the liposuction clinic already infected. Fat taken from non-infected people that was then exposed to the virus start sucking up fat at a faster rate, potentially inducing obesity without increasing food intake.

Just as Ad-36 can be transmitted horizontally from one infected chicken to another in the same cage, subsequently causing obesity in each chicken, this same virus is also easily transmitted among humans, raising the question as to whether at least some cases of childhood obesity can be considered an infectious disease. Researchers publishing in the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity speculate that this animal adenovirus may have mutated to become a human adenovirus capable of infecting humans and causing obesity.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Glasseyes view / Flickr

Original Link

When Charities Collaborate With the Food Industry

NF-Mar29 Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease.jpeg

When the history of the world's attempt to address obesity is written, one researcher writes, "the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry." For instance, Yum! Brands, who owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, linked up with a leading U.S. breast cancer charity, to sell pink buckets of fried chicken.

Save the Children, an organization aiming to positively change the lives of children, was initially a staunch supporter of soda taxes. Recently, however, the organization withdrew its support, saying that support of the soda taxes did not fit the way Save the Children works. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that it was seeking a grant from Coca-Cola and had accepted a $5 million grant from Pepsi.

Through these partnerships, the food industry seeks to emphasize that inactivity -- not the promotion and consumption of its calorie-rich products -- is the prime cause of obesity. But studies showing that obesity is rising even in areas where people are exercising more are most likely explained by the fact that the rate of physical activity levels are being outstripped by our eating activity levels. We can outrun our mouths.

As stated by researcher, Bruce Neal, from the University of Sydney (highlighted in my video, Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease), "The message is plain - the primary driver of the obesity epidemic in the United States is now the food supply, and interventions targeting physical activity are not going to resolve it. So, while physical activity is good regardless, it will not address most of the burden of ill health caused by obesity. That is going to require a new focus on the root cause of the problem--the American diet."

This researcher adds, "At the heart of the 'energy in' side of the obesity problem is the food and beverage industry. Put simply, the enormous commercial success enjoyed by the food industry is now causing what promises to be one of the greatest public health disasters of our time. As fast as we rid the world of the microbial causes of pestilence and famine, they are replaced by new vectors of disease in the form of trans-national food corporations that market salt, fat, sugar, and calories in unprecedented quantities. So policy makers should work on pricing strategies that subsidize the cost of healthier foods."

First, we need to shift relative prices to make it more expensive to consume animal products compared to fruit, vegetables and beans. Second, we need to increase demand for plant foods, which is not as easy given the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies - our tax payer dollars going to make animal products artificially cheap.

Dr. Bruce Neal then concludes, "The food industry will rail against the 'nanny state' and fight tooth and nail for its right to market a range of options to responsible individuals able to make choices for themselves-it's the American way. For context though, these arguments are no different to those used by the tobacco industry, which also markets habituating unhealthy products in pursuit of profit. In the case of tobacco, the American people have agreed that controls must be applied to limit the harms caused. Poor diet is now responsible for an even greater burden of disease than tobacco, and food companies must be controlled in the same way if the harms are to be reduced. As unpalatable as this may be, the food industry would do well to strengthen their public health conscience, given that consumers are always going to need their goods, something that cannot be said for the tobacco industry." You hear that a lot in public health circles, how we have to work with the companies, because unlike tobacco, we have to eat. But just like yes, we need to breath, but we don't need to breathe smoke, yes we need to eat, but we don't need to eat junk.

Is it our physical activity or eating activity? See Diet vs. Exercise for Weight Loss and How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss?

I touched on the pink buckets of KFC in my video Breast Cancer Survival, Butterfat, and Chicken.

For more on the idea of subsidizing healthy foods or at least stopping tax money to supporting junk, check out my video Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods.

It's sad when non-profits collaborate with companies that contribute to suffering, but seems particularly egregious when the Registered Dietitian group does it. See Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Conflicts of Interest.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Rafael Edwards / Flickr

Original Link