Treating Kidney Stones with Diet

Treating Kidney Stones with Diet.jpeg

Studies suggest that excessive consumption of animal protein poses a risk of kidney stone formation, likely due to the acid load contributed by the high content of sulfur-containing amino acids in animal protein, a topic I explore in my video, Preventing Kidney Stones with Diet. What about treating kidney stones, though? I discuss that in How to Treat Kidney Stones with Diet. Most stones are calcium oxalate, formed like rock candy when the urine becomes supersaturated. Doctors just assumed that if stones are made out of calcium, we simply have to tell people to reduce their calcium intake. That was the dietary gospel for kidney stone sufferers until a 2002 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine pitted two diets against one another--a low-calcium diet versus a diet low in animal protein and salt. The restriction of animal protein and salt provided greater protection, cutting the risk of having another kidney stone within five years in half.

What about cutting down on oxalates, which are concentrated in certain vegetables? A recent study found there was no increased risk of stone formation with higher vegetable intake. In fact, greater dietary intake of whole plant foods, fruits, and vegetables were each associated with reduced risk independent of other known risk factors for kidney stones. This means we may get additional benefits bulking up on plant foods in addition to just restricting animal foods.

A reduction in animal protein not only reduces the production of acids within the body, but should also limit the excretion of urate, uric acid crystals that can act as seeds to form calcium stones or create entire stones themselves. (Uric acid stones are the second most common kidney stones after calcium.)

There are two ways to reduce uric acid levels in the urine: a reduction of animal protein ingestion, or a variety of drugs. Removing all meat--that is, switching from the standard Western diet to a vegetarian diet--can remove 93% of uric acid crystallization risk within days.

To minimize uric acid crystallization, the goal is to get our urine pH up to ideally as high as 6.8. A number of alkalinizing chemicals have been developed for just this purpose, but we can naturally alkalize our urine up to the recommended 6.8 using purely dietary means. Namely, by removing all meat, someone eating the standard Western diet can go from a pH of 5.95 to the goal target of 6.8--simply by eating plant-based. As I describe in my video, Testing Your Diet with Pee & Purple Cabbage, we can inexpensively test our own diets with a little bathroom chemistry, for not all plant foods are alkalinizing and not all animal foods are equally acidifying.

A Load of Acid to Kidney Evaluation (LAKE) score has been developed to take into account both the acid load of foods and their typical serving sizes. It can be used to help people modify their diet for the prevention of both uric acid and calcium kidney stones, as well as other diseases. What did researchers find? The single most acid-producing food is fish, like tuna. Then, in descending order, are pork, then poultry, cheese (though milk and other dairy are much less acidifying), and beef followed by eggs. (Eggs are actually more acidic than beef, but people tend to eat fewer eggs in one sitting.) Some grains, like bread and rice, can be a little acid-forming, but pasta is not. Beans are significantly alkaline-forming, but not as much as fruits or even better, vegetables, which are the most alkaline-forming of all.

Through dietary changes alone, we may be able to dissolve uric acid stones completely and cure patients without drugs or surgery.

To summarize, the most important things we can do diet-wise is to drink 10 to 12 cups of water a day, reduce animal protein, reduce salt, and eat more vegetables and more vegetarian.

Want to try to calculate their LAKE score for the day? Just multiply the number of servings you have of each of the food groups listed in the graph in the video times the score.

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

Treating Kidney Stones with Diet

Treating Kidney Stones with Diet.jpeg

Studies suggest that excessive consumption of animal protein poses a risk of kidney stone formation, likely due to the acid load contributed by the high content of sulfur-containing amino acids in animal protein, a topic I explore in my video, Preventing Kidney Stones with Diet. What about treating kidney stones, though? I discuss that in How to Treat Kidney Stones with Diet. Most stones are calcium oxalate, formed like rock candy when the urine becomes supersaturated. Doctors just assumed that if stones are made out of calcium, we simply have to tell people to reduce their calcium intake. That was the dietary gospel for kidney stone sufferers until a 2002 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine pitted two diets against one another--a low-calcium diet versus a diet low in animal protein and salt. The restriction of animal protein and salt provided greater protection, cutting the risk of having another kidney stone within five years in half.

What about cutting down on oxalates, which are concentrated in certain vegetables? A recent study found there was no increased risk of stone formation with higher vegetable intake. In fact, greater dietary intake of whole plant foods, fruits, and vegetables were each associated with reduced risk independent of other known risk factors for kidney stones. This means we may get additional benefits bulking up on plant foods in addition to just restricting animal foods.

A reduction in animal protein not only reduces the production of acids within the body, but should also limit the excretion of urate, uric acid crystals that can act as seeds to form calcium stones or create entire stones themselves. (Uric acid stones are the second most common kidney stones after calcium.)

There are two ways to reduce uric acid levels in the urine: a reduction of animal protein ingestion, or a variety of drugs. Removing all meat--that is, switching from the standard Western diet to a vegetarian diet--can remove 93% of uric acid crystallization risk within days.

To minimize uric acid crystallization, the goal is to get our urine pH up to ideally as high as 6.8. A number of alkalinizing chemicals have been developed for just this purpose, but we can naturally alkalize our urine up to the recommended 6.8 using purely dietary means. Namely, by removing all meat, someone eating the standard Western diet can go from a pH of 5.95 to the goal target of 6.8--simply by eating plant-based. As I describe in my video, Testing Your Diet with Pee & Purple Cabbage, we can inexpensively test our own diets with a little bathroom chemistry, for not all plant foods are alkalinizing and not all animal foods are equally acidifying.

A Load of Acid to Kidney Evaluation (LAKE) score has been developed to take into account both the acid load of foods and their typical serving sizes. It can be used to help people modify their diet for the prevention of both uric acid and calcium kidney stones, as well as other diseases. What did researchers find? The single most acid-producing food is fish, like tuna. Then, in descending order, are pork, then poultry, cheese (though milk and other dairy are much less acidifying), and beef followed by eggs. (Eggs are actually more acidic than beef, but people tend to eat fewer eggs in one sitting.) Some grains, like bread and rice, can be a little acid-forming, but pasta is not. Beans are significantly alkaline-forming, but not as much as fruits or even better, vegetables, which are the most alkaline-forming of all.

Through dietary changes alone, we may be able to dissolve uric acid stones completely and cure patients without drugs or surgery.

To summarize, the most important things we can do diet-wise is to drink 10 to 12 cups of water a day, reduce animal protein, reduce salt, and eat more vegetables and more vegetarian.

Want to try to calculate their LAKE score for the day? Just multiply the number of servings you have of each of the food groups listed in the graph in the video times the score.

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

The Best Diet to Prevent Kidney Stones

The Best Diet to Prevent Kidney Stones.jpeg

In my video How to Prevent Kidney Stones With Diet you can see what the jagged surface of a kidney stone looks like under a microscope. Imagine one of those scraping down your urinary canal! Kidney stones affect approximately 1 in 11 people in the United States. Twenty years ago it was only 1 in 20, representing a dramatic increase in the prevalence of the disease that started rising after World War II. Our first clue as to why was a study published in the 70's, which found a striking relationship between stone incidence and the consumption of animal protein. This was a population study, though, so it couldn't prove cause and effect.

That study inspired researchers in Britain to do an interventional study, adding animal protein to subjects' diets, such as an extra can of tuna fish a day, and measuring stone-forming risk factors in their urine. Participants' overall probability of forming stones increased 250% during those days they were eating that extra fish. And the so-called "high animal protein diet" was just enough to bring intake up to that of the average American. So Americans' intake of meat appears to markedly increase the risk of kidney stones.

What about consuming no meat at all? By the late 70's we knew that the only dietary factor consistently associated with kidney stones was animal protein. The higher the intake of animal protein, the more likely the individual was to not only get their first kidney stone, but to then suffer from subsequent multiple stones. This effect was not found for high protein intake in general, but specifically high animal protein intake. Conversely, a diet low in animal protein may dramatically reduce the overall probability of forming stones. This may explain the apparently low incidence of stones in vegetarian societies, so researchers advocated "a more vegetarian form of diet" as a means of reducing the risk.

It wasn't until 2014 that vegetarian kidney stone risk was studied in detail, though. Using hospital admissions data, researchers found that vegetarians were indeed at a lower risk of being hospitalized for kidney stones. It's not all or nothing, though. Among meat-eaters, increasing meat intake is associated with a higher risk of developing kidney stones, whereas a high intake of fresh fruit, fiber, and magnesium may reduce the risk.

Which animal protein is the worst? People who form kidney stones are commonly advised to restrict the intake of red meat to decrease stone risk, but what about chicken and fish? Despite compelling evidence that excessive animal protein consumption enhances the risk of stone formation, the effect of different sources of animal protein had not been explored until another study in 2014. Researchers compared the effects of salmon and cod, chicken breast meat, and burger and steak. In terms of uric acid production, they found that gram for gram fish may actually be worse. However, the overall effects were complex. Basically, stone formers should be counseled to limit the intake of all animal proteins, and not by just a little bit. Only those who markedly decrease their animal protein intake may expect to benefit.

Making our urine more alkaline can also help prevent the formation of kidney stones (and even dissolve and cure uric acid stones). How can you tell the pH of your urine? See my video Testing Your Diet with Pee & Purple Cabbage.

For more on kidney stones, see How to Treat Kidney Stones with Diet and Do Vitamin C Supplements Prevent Colds but Cause Kidney Stones?. And check out my overview of kidney health in How Not to Die from Kidney Disease.

Uric acid can also crystallize in our joints, but the good news is that there are natural treatments. See Gout Treatment with a Cherry on Top and Treating Gout with Cherry Juice.

Kidney stones are just one more reason that Plant Protein is Preferable.

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

The Best Diet to Prevent Kidney Stones

The Best Diet to Prevent Kidney Stones.jpeg

In my video How to Prevent Kidney Stones With Diet you can see what the jagged surface of a kidney stone looks like under a microscope. Imagine one of those scraping down your urinary canal! Kidney stones affect approximately 1 in 11 people in the United States. Twenty years ago it was only 1 in 20, representing a dramatic increase in the prevalence of the disease that started rising after World War II. Our first clue as to why was a study published in the 70's, which found a striking relationship between stone incidence and the consumption of animal protein. This was a population study, though, so it couldn't prove cause and effect.

That study inspired researchers in Britain to do an interventional study, adding animal protein to subjects' diets, such as an extra can of tuna fish a day, and measuring stone-forming risk factors in their urine. Participants' overall probability of forming stones increased 250% during those days they were eating that extra fish. And the so-called "high animal protein diet" was just enough to bring intake up to that of the average American. So Americans' intake of meat appears to markedly increase the risk of kidney stones.

What about consuming no meat at all? By the late 70's we knew that the only dietary factor consistently associated with kidney stones was animal protein. The higher the intake of animal protein, the more likely the individual was to not only get their first kidney stone, but to then suffer from subsequent multiple stones. This effect was not found for high protein intake in general, but specifically high animal protein intake. Conversely, a diet low in animal protein may dramatically reduce the overall probability of forming stones. This may explain the apparently low incidence of stones in vegetarian societies, so researchers advocated "a more vegetarian form of diet" as a means of reducing the risk.

It wasn't until 2014 that vegetarian kidney stone risk was studied in detail, though. Using hospital admissions data, researchers found that vegetarians were indeed at a lower risk of being hospitalized for kidney stones. It's not all or nothing, though. Among meat-eaters, increasing meat intake is associated with a higher risk of developing kidney stones, whereas a high intake of fresh fruit, fiber, and magnesium may reduce the risk.

Which animal protein is the worst? People who form kidney stones are commonly advised to restrict the intake of red meat to decrease stone risk, but what about chicken and fish? Despite compelling evidence that excessive animal protein consumption enhances the risk of stone formation, the effect of different sources of animal protein had not been explored until another study in 2014. Researchers compared the effects of salmon and cod, chicken breast meat, and burger and steak. In terms of uric acid production, they found that gram for gram fish may actually be worse. However, the overall effects were complex. Basically, stone formers should be counseled to limit the intake of all animal proteins, and not by just a little bit. Only those who markedly decrease their animal protein intake may expect to benefit.

Making our urine more alkaline can also help prevent the formation of kidney stones (and even dissolve and cure uric acid stones). How can you tell the pH of your urine? See my video Testing Your Diet with Pee & Purple Cabbage.

For more on kidney stones, see How to Treat Kidney Stones with Diet and Do Vitamin C Supplements Prevent Colds but Cause Kidney Stones?. And check out my overview of kidney health in How Not to Die from Kidney Disease.

Uric acid can also crystallize in our joints, but the good news is that there are natural treatments. See Gout Treatment with a Cherry on Top and Treating Gout with Cherry Juice.

Kidney stones are just one more reason that Plant Protein is Preferable.

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

What Not to Add to White Rice, Potatoes, or Pasta

What Not to Add to White Rice, Potatoes, or Pasta.jpeg

Rice currently feeds almost half the human population, making it the single most important staple food in the world, but a meta-analysis of seven cohort studies following 350,000 people for up to 20 years found that higher consumption of white rice was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes, especially in Asian populations. They estimated each serving per day of white rice was associated with an 11% increase in risk of diabetes. This could explain why China has almost the same diabetes rates as we do.

Diabetes rates in China are at about 10%; we're at about 11%, despite seven times less obesity in China. Japan has eight times less obesity than we do, yet may have a higher incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes cases than we do--nine per a thousand compared to our eight. They're skinnier and still may have more diabetes. Maybe it's because of all the white rice they eat.

Eating whole fruit is associated with lower risk of diabetes, whereas eating fruit processed into juice may not just be neutral, but actually increases diabetes risk. In the same way, eating whole grains, like whole wheat bread or brown rice is associated with lower risk of diabetes, whereas eating white rice, a processed grain, may not just be neutral, but actually increase diabetes risk.

White rice consumption does not appear to be associated with increased risk of heart attack or stroke, though, which is a relief after an earlier study in China suggested a connection with stroke. But do we want to eat a food that's just neutral regarding some of our leading causes of death, when we can eat whole foods that are associated with lower risk of diabetes, heart attack, stroke, and weight gain?

If the modern diabetes epidemic in China and Japan has been linked to white rice consumption, how can we reconcile that with low diabetes rates just a few decades ago when they ate even more rice? If you look at the Cornell-Oxford-China Project, rural plant-based diets centered around rice were associated with relatively low risk of the so-called diseases of affluence, which includes diabetes. Maybe Asians just genetically don't get the same blood sugar spike when they eat white rice? This is not the case; if anything people of Chinese ethnicity get higher blood sugar spikes.

The rise in these diseases of affluence in China over the last half century has been blamed in part on the tripling of the consumption of animal source foods. The upsurge in diabetes has been most dramatic, and it's mostly just happened over the last decade. That crazy 9.7% diabetes prevalence figure that rivals ours is new--they appeared to have one of the lowest diabetes rates in the world in the year 2000.

So what happened to their diets in the last 20 years or so? Oil consumption went up 20%, pork consumption went up 40%, and rice consumption dropped about 30%. As diabetes rates were skyrocketing, rice consumption was going down, so maybe it's the animal products and junk food that are the problem. Yes, brown rice is better than white rice, but to stop the mounting Asian epidemic, maybe we should focus on removing the cause--the toxic Western diet. That would be consistent with data showing animal protein and fat consumption associated with increased diabetes risk.

But that doesn't explain why the biggest recent studies in Japan and China associate white rice intake with diabetes. One possibility is that animal protein is making the rice worse. If you feed people mashed white potatoes, a high glycemic food like white rice, you can see in my video If White Rice is Linked to Diabetes, What About China? the level of insulin your pancreas has to pump out to keep your blood sugars in check. But what if you added some tuna fish? Tuna doesn't have any carbs, sugar, or starch so it shouldn't make a difference. Or maybe it would even lower the mashed potato spike by lowering the glycemic load of the whole meal? Instead you get twice the insulin spike. This also happens with white flour spaghetti versus white flour spaghetti with meat. The addition of animal protein makes the pancreas work twice as hard.

You can do it with straight sugar water too. If you do a glucose challenge test to test for diabetes, where you drink a certain amount of sugar and add some meat, you get a much bigger spike than without meat. And the more meat you add, the worse it gets. Just adding a little meat to carbs doesn't seem to do much, but once you get up to around a third of a chicken breast's worth, you can elicit a significantly increased surge of insulin. This may help explain why those eating plant-based have such low diabetes rates, because animal protein can markedly potentiate the insulin secretion triggered by carbohydrate ingestion.

The protein exacerbation of the effect of refined carbs could help explain the remarkable results achieved by Dr. Kempner with a don't-try-this-at-home diet composed of mostly white rice and sugar. See my video, Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape.

Refined grains may also not be good for our blood pressure (see Whole Grains May Work As Well As Drugs).

What should we be eating to best decrease our risk of diabetes? See:

And check out my summary video, How Not to Die from Diabetes.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

What Not to Add to White Rice, Potatoes, or Pasta

What Not to Add to White Rice, Potatoes, or Pasta.jpeg

Rice currently feeds almost half the human population, making it the single most important staple food in the world, but a meta-analysis of seven cohort studies following 350,000 people for up to 20 years found that higher consumption of white rice was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes, especially in Asian populations. They estimated each serving per day of white rice was associated with an 11% increase in risk of diabetes. This could explain why China has almost the same diabetes rates as we do.

Diabetes rates in China are at about 10%; we're at about 11%, despite seven times less obesity in China. Japan has eight times less obesity than we do, yet may have a higher incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes cases than we do--nine per a thousand compared to our eight. They're skinnier and still may have more diabetes. Maybe it's because of all the white rice they eat.

Eating whole fruit is associated with lower risk of diabetes, whereas eating fruit processed into juice may not just be neutral, but actually increases diabetes risk. In the same way, eating whole grains, like whole wheat bread or brown rice is associated with lower risk of diabetes, whereas eating white rice, a processed grain, may not just be neutral, but actually increase diabetes risk.

White rice consumption does not appear to be associated with increased risk of heart attack or stroke, though, which is a relief after an earlier study in China suggested a connection with stroke. But do we want to eat a food that's just neutral regarding some of our leading causes of death, when we can eat whole foods that are associated with lower risk of diabetes, heart attack, stroke, and weight gain?

If the modern diabetes epidemic in China and Japan has been linked to white rice consumption, how can we reconcile that with low diabetes rates just a few decades ago when they ate even more rice? If you look at the Cornell-Oxford-China Project, rural plant-based diets centered around rice were associated with relatively low risk of the so-called diseases of affluence, which includes diabetes. Maybe Asians just genetically don't get the same blood sugar spike when they eat white rice? This is not the case; if anything people of Chinese ethnicity get higher blood sugar spikes.

The rise in these diseases of affluence in China over the last half century has been blamed in part on the tripling of the consumption of animal source foods. The upsurge in diabetes has been most dramatic, and it's mostly just happened over the last decade. That crazy 9.7% diabetes prevalence figure that rivals ours is new--they appeared to have one of the lowest diabetes rates in the world in the year 2000.

So what happened to their diets in the last 20 years or so? Oil consumption went up 20%, pork consumption went up 40%, and rice consumption dropped about 30%. As diabetes rates were skyrocketing, rice consumption was going down, so maybe it's the animal products and junk food that are the problem. Yes, brown rice is better than white rice, but to stop the mounting Asian epidemic, maybe we should focus on removing the cause--the toxic Western diet. That would be consistent with data showing animal protein and fat consumption associated with increased diabetes risk.

But that doesn't explain why the biggest recent studies in Japan and China associate white rice intake with diabetes. One possibility is that animal protein is making the rice worse. If you feed people mashed white potatoes, a high glycemic food like white rice, you can see in my video If White Rice is Linked to Diabetes, What About China? the level of insulin your pancreas has to pump out to keep your blood sugars in check. But what if you added some tuna fish? Tuna doesn't have any carbs, sugar, or starch so it shouldn't make a difference. Or maybe it would even lower the mashed potato spike by lowering the glycemic load of the whole meal? Instead you get twice the insulin spike. This also happens with white flour spaghetti versus white flour spaghetti with meat. The addition of animal protein makes the pancreas work twice as hard.

You can do it with straight sugar water too. If you do a glucose challenge test to test for diabetes, where you drink a certain amount of sugar and add some meat, you get a much bigger spike than without meat. And the more meat you add, the worse it gets. Just adding a little meat to carbs doesn't seem to do much, but once you get up to around a third of a chicken breast's worth, you can elicit a significantly increased surge of insulin. This may help explain why those eating plant-based have such low diabetes rates, because animal protein can markedly potentiate the insulin secretion triggered by carbohydrate ingestion.

The protein exacerbation of the effect of refined carbs could help explain the remarkable results achieved by Dr. Kempner with a don't-try-this-at-home diet composed of mostly white rice and sugar. See my video, Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape.

Refined grains may also not be good for our blood pressure (see Whole Grains May Work As Well As Drugs).

What should we be eating to best decrease our risk of diabetes? See:

And check out my summary video, How Not to Die from Diabetes.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Children’s Supplements Found Contaminated With Pollutants

NF-May19 PCBs in Children's Fish Oil Supplements.jpeg

A number of case-control studies have found that giving kids cod liver oil supplements may increase their risk of asthma later in life. Case-control studies are done by asking about past behavior in cases (those with asthma) versus controls (those without asthma) to see if certain past behaviors are more likely among the disease group. The problem is that asking people to remember what they were doing years ago, when most people can't remember what they had for breakfast last week, is unreliable. When interpreting the results from case-control studies, we also can't rule out something called reverse causation. Maybe cod liver oil doesn't lead to asthma, but asthma led to the use of cod liver oil.

It would therefore be nice to see a cohort study. In a cohort study, researchers would take people without asthma and follow them over time to see if those taking cod liver oil are more likely to develop it. Because people without the disease and their diets are followed over time, cohort studies bypass the problems of recall bias and reverse causation.

In 2013, we finally got one such study. 17,000 people free of asthma were followed over 11 years. Researchers knew who was taking cod liver oil and who wasn't, and then sat back and watched to see who got asthma over the subsequent 11 years. The researchers found that cod liver oil intake was indeed significantly associated with the development of asthma. They thought it might be the excessive vitamin A in the cod liver oil that was causing the problem, but there are also a number of substances in fish oil we may not want our children exposed to.

Researchers from Philadelphia University, highlighted in my video PCBs in Children's Fish Oil Supplements, recently looked at 13 over-the-counter children's dietary supplements containing fish oil to assess potential exposure to PCBs, toxic industrial pollutants that have contaminated our oceans. PCBs were detected in all products. Could we just stick to the supplements made from small, short-lived fish like anchovies instead of big predator fish like tuna to reduce the impact of biomagnification? Or use purified fish oils? No, the researchers found no significant difference in PCB levels whether the supplements were labeled as molecularly distilled or how high up the food chain the fish were.

The researchers concluded that while children's dietary supplements containing the long-chain omega-3's from fish oils may claim to benefit young consumers, "daily ingestion of these products may provide a vector for contaminant exposure that may off-set the positive health effects." What positive health benefits are they talking about?

Researchers publishing in the journal, Early Human Development, found that infants given DHA-fortified formula may have better development of their eyes and brains compared to infants getting non DHA-fortified formula. What was the source of the DHA? Not fish, but algae-derived DHA. In that way we can get the benefits of omega 3's without the contaminant risks. But of course, breast milk is the gold standard, significantly better than either of the formula fed infants. So the best source of omega-3's is mom.

It's bad enough when supplement manufacturers exploit adults when they're sick and vulnerable with pills that are often useless or worse, but taking advantage of our parental drive to do what's best for our children with contaminated products that may make them sick, makes me sick.

More on supplements in:

And speaking of which, Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil?

Also check out these videos on fish oil and DHA: Omega-3's and the Eskimo Fish Tale and Should We Take EPA and DHA Omega-3 For Our Heart?

What about omega 3's for our child's growing brain? See my video Mercury vs. Omega-3s for Brain Development

We can also be exposed to PCBs in food. See Food Sources of PCB Chemical Pollutants.

More on the polluted aquatic food chain in:

What can we do to lower the risk of childhood asthma and other allergic-type diseases? 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: Lars Plougmann / Flickr

Original Link

How Contaminated Are Our Children?

NF-June18 California Children are Contaminated.jpg

In a study highlighted in my video, California Childen Are Contaminated, researchers analyzed the diets of California children ages two through seven to determine the cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures. It turns out food may be the primary route of exposure to toxic heavy metals, persistent pollutants, and pesticides. "Though food-borne toxic contaminants are a concern for all ages, they are of greatest concern for children, who are disproportionately impacted because they're still developing and have greater intake of food and fluids relative to their weight. Pediatric problems that have been linked to preventable environmental toxin exposures include cancer, asthma, lead poisoning, neurobehavioral disorders, learning and developmental disabilities, and birth defects."

The good news is that changing one's diet can change one's exposure. Quoting from the study, "A diet high in fish and animal products, for example, results in greater exposure to persistent pollutants like DDT and dioxins and heavy metals than does a plant-based diet because these compounds bioaccumulate up the food chain." Plants are at the bottom of the food chain. The sample of California kids, however, was not eating a plant-based diet. Cancer benchmark levels were exceeded by all 364 children for arsenic, the banned pesticide dieldrin, a metabolite of DDT called DDE, and dioxins.

Children exceeded safety levels by a greater margin than adults. This is especially of concern for children because all of these compounds are suspected endocrine disruptors and thus may impact normal development. Cancer risk ratios were exceeded by over a factor of 100 for both arsenic and dioxins.

Which foods were the worse? For preschoolers, the number one food source of arsenic was poultry, though for their parents, it was tuna. The number one source of lead was dairy, and for mercury it was seafood. And the number one source of the banned pesticides and dioxins was dairy. (See Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet.)

The researchers also recommended children should eat lower quantities of chips, cereal, crackers, and other crispy carbs to reduce acrylamide intake.

The California study didn't split up the groups by gender, but a similar study in Europe found that men had higher levels of some of these pollutants than women. For example, levels of the banned pesticide chlordane were higher in men, but women who never breastfed were right up there alongside men, with the lowest levels found in women who breastfed over 12 months. Therefore, it is likely that the lactation-related reduction in blood pollutant levels partly explains the lower body burdens among women compared with men. So cows can lower their levels by giving some to us, then we can pass it along to our children.

What non-cancer effects might some of these pollutants have? They can affect our immune system. Studies clearly demonstrate the "ability of dioxins and related compounds to have a long-lasting and deleterious impact on immune function." This manifests as increased incidences of respiratory infections, ear infections, cough, and sore throat. At first, most of the data was for during infancy, but now we have follow-up studies showing that the immunosuppressive effects of these toxins may persist into early childhood, so we should try to reduce our exposure as much as possible. Because these pollutants accumulate in animal fat, consuming a plant-based diet-decreasing meat, dairy, and fish consumption-may reduce exposure for children and adults alike.

These findings should come as no surprise to those who saw my video Pollutants in California Breast Tissue. For an overview see CDC Report on Environmental Chemical Exposure and President's Cancer Panel Report on Environmental Risk.

Pollutant exposure may affect the ability to have children in the first place (Male Fertility and Diet and Meat Hormones & Female Infertility). Such a delay, though, may allow one an opportunity to reduce one's toxic burden through dietary change (Hair Testing for Mercury Before Considering Pregnancy and How Long to Detox From Fish Before Pregnancy?).

During pregnancy, pollutants can be transferred directly (DDT in Umbilical Cord Blood), and after pregnancy through breastfeeding (The Wrong Way to Detox). Once our kids are contaminated, How Fast Can Children Detoxify from PCBs? The chemicals have implications for older children too: Protein, Puberty, and Pollutants.

Seafood is not the only source of toxic heavy metals. See:

Videos on primary food sources of other industrial pollutants include:

There are some things we can eat, though, to counteract some of the toxins:

-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: Kevin Krejci / Flickr

Original Link

How Long to Avoid Fish Before Conception?

NF-Dec25 How Long to Detox from Fish Before Pregnancy?.jpg

Mothers' increased consumption of fish before and during pregnancy leads to increased exposure to both mercury and the long-chain omega 3 DHA. Mercury may negatively affect brain development in one's unborn baby, whereas DHA may stimulate brain development. However, the negative effect of mercury appears to outweigh the beneficial effect of DHA for most species of fish (see Mercury vs. Omega-3s for Brain Development).

Unfortunately, women of childbearing age appear less aware and knowledgeable about this problem than other women, despite FDA and EPA campaigns to inform every OB/GYN and pediatrician in the country about the potential risks of mercury in fish.

Since mercury sticks around in the body, women may want to avoid fish with high levels of mercury for a year before they get pregnant, not just during pregnancy. The rationale for avoiding fish for a year before pregnancy is because the half-life of mercury in the body is estimated to be about two months. In a study I profile in my video How Long to Detox from Fish Before Pregnancy a group of researchers fed subjects two servings a week of tuna and other high mercury fish to push their mercury levels up, and then stopped the fish. Slowly but surely their levels came back down (see the video for the graph). I know a lot of moms are concerned about exposing their children to mercury containing vaccines, but if they eat even just a serving a week of fish during pregnancy, the latest data shows that their infants end up with substantially more mercury in their bodies than if they were injected with up to six mercury-containing vaccines.

Given the two-month half-life of mercury, within a year of stopping fish consumption our bodies can detox nearly 99% of the mercury. Unfortunately the other industrial pollutants in fish can take longer for our body to get rid of. Certain dioxins, PCBs, and DDT metabolites found in fish have a half-life as long as ten years. So getting that same 99% drop could take 120 years, which is a long time to delay one's first child.

The fact that we can still find DDT in umbilical cord blood decades after the pesticide was banned speaks to the persistence of some pollutants. There's a shortcut for moms, but it's The Wrong Way to Detox.

What effects do these other pollutants have? Well, high concentrations of industrial contaminants are associated with 38 times the odds of diabetes--that's as strong as the relationship between smoking and lung cancer! Isn't diabetes mostly associated with obesity though? Well, these pollutants are fat-soluble, so "as people get fatter the retention and toxicity of persistent organic pollutants related to the risk of diabetes may increase." This suggests the shocking possibility that obesity "may only be a vehicle" for such chemicals.

Now the pollutants could just be a marker for animal product consumption, which may be why there's such higher diabetes risk, since more than 90% of the persistent organic pollutants comes from animal foods. And indeed, in the U.S. every additional serving of fish a week is associated with a 5% increased risk of diabetes, which makes fish consumption about 80% worse than red meat. PCBs are found most concentrated in fish and eggs (Food Sources of PCB Chemical Pollutants), which may be why there are lower levels of Industrial Pollutants in Vegans. This may also help explain the remarkable findings in Eggs and Diabetes.

More on the risks of mercury can be found in these videos:

-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: Tatiana Vdb / Flickr

Original Link

How Seafood Can Impact Brain Development

NF-Oct30 How Seafood Can Impact Brain Development.jpg

In my video Fish Intake Associated With Brain Shrinkage, I discussed evidence suggesting that mercury exposure through fish intake during pregnancy may decrease the size of the newborn's brain. However, just because fish-eating mothers may give birth to children with smaller brains doesn't necessarily mean their children will grow up with neurological defects. In the video, Mercury vs. Omega-3s for Brain Development, you can see real-time functional MRI scans of teens whose moms ate a lot of seafood when pregnant. Because these kinds of scans can measure brain activity, as opposed to just brain size, we can more accurately determine if exposure to mercury and PCBs affected these kids. You can see an MRI of what a normal brain looks like when you flash a light in someone's eyes, but the MRI is significantly different for the mercury and PCB exposed brains, suggesting toxicant related damage to the visual centers in brain. (For more on the effect of mercury on teens, see Nerves of Mercury). Fish consumption may also increase the risk of our children being born with epilepsy.

So does maternal fish consumption have an effect on how smart our kids turn out? The DHA in fish--a long chain omega 3 fatty acid--is good for brain development, but mercury is bad for brain development. So a group of researchers looked at 33 different fish species to see what the net effect of these compounds would have on children's IQ. For most fish species, they found that "the adverse effect of mercury on the IQ scores of children exceeded the beneficial effects of DHA." In fact, so much brainpower may be lost from fish consumption that the United States may actually lose $5 billion in economic productivity every year.

For example, if pregnant women ate tuna every day, the DHA would add a few IQ points. But the mercury in that very same tuna would cause so much brain damage that the overall effect of eating tuna while pregnant would be negative, wiping out an average of eight IQ points. The only two fish that were more brain-damaging than tuna were pike and swordfish.

At the other end of the spectrum, the brain boosting effect of DHA may trump the brain damaging effects of mercury in salmon by a little less than one IQ point. Unfortunately, IQ only takes into consideration the cognitive damage caused by mercury, not the adverse effects on motor function and attention and behavior deficits. We think that attention span may be particularly vulnerable to developmental mercury exposure, probably due to damage to the frontal lobes of the brain.

And the IQ study didn't take into account the relatively high levels of PCBs in salmon and the accompanying concerns about cancer risk. Sustainability concerns are another wrinkle, as farm-raised salmon are considered a "fish to avoid." While king mackerel is considered a best choice for sustainability, the mercury levels are so high as to warrant avoiding consumption--exceeding both the FDA and EPA action levels for mercury contamination. But why risk any loss in intelligence at all when pregnant women can get all the DHA they want from microalgae supplements without any of the contaminants? We can then get the brain boost without the brain damage.

More on PCBs in:

-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.

Images thanks to Dion van Huyssteen / Flickr

Original Link