Optimal Bowel Movement Frequency

Optimal Bowel Movement Frequency.jpeg

Lasting for 3,000 years, ancient Egypt was one of the greatest ancient civilizations--with a vastly underestimated knowledge of medicine. They even had medical subspecialties. The pharaohs, for example, had access to dedicated physicians to be "guardian[s] of the royal bowel movement," a title alternately translated from the hieroglyphics to mean "Shepherd of the Anus." How's that for a resume builder?

Today, the primacy of the bowel movement's importance continues. Some have called for bowel habits to be considered a vital sign on how the body is functioning, along with heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate. Medical professionals may not particularly relish hearing all about their patients' bowel movements, but it is a vital function that nurses and doctors need to assess.

Surprisingly, the colon has remained relatively unexplored territory, one of the body's final frontiers. For example, current concepts of what "normal" stools are emanated primarily from the records of 12 consecutive bowel movements in 27 healthy subjects from the United Kingdom, who boldly went where no one had gone before. Those must have been some really detailed records.

It's important to define what's normal. When it comes to frequency, for example, we can't define concepts like constipation or diarrhea unless we know what's normal. Standard physiology textbooks may not be helpful in this regard. One text implies that anything from one bowel movement every few weeks or months to 24 in just one day can be regarded as normal. Once every few months is normal?

Out of all of our bodily functions, we may know the least about defecation. Can't we just ask people? It turns out people tend to exaggerate. There's a discrepancy between what people report and what researchers find when they record bowel habits directly. It wasn't until 2010 when we got the first serious look. In my video, How Many Bowel Movement's Should You Have Everyday? you'll see the study that found that normal stool frequency was between three per week and three per day, based on the fact that that's where 98% of people tended to fall. But normal doesn't necessarily mean optimal.

Having a "normal" salt intake can lead to a "normal" blood pressure, which can help us to die from all the "normal" causes like heart attacks and strokes. Having a normal cholesterol level in a society where it's normal to drop dead of heart disease--our number-one killer--is not necessarily a good thing. Indeed, significant proportions of people with "normal bowel function" reported urgency, straining, and incomplete defecation, leading the researchers of the 2010 study to conclude that these kinds of things must be normal. Normal, maybe, if we're eating a fiber-deficient diet, but not normal for our species. Defecation should not be a painful exercise. This is readily demonstrable. For example, the majority of rural Africans eating their traditional fiber-rich, plant-based diets can usually pass without straining a stool specimen on demand. The rectum may need to accumulate 4 or 5 ounces of fecal matter before the defecation reflex is fully initiated, so if we don't even build up that much over the day, we'd have to strain to prime the rectal pump.

Hippocrates thought bowel movements should ideally be two or three times a day, which is what we see in populations on traditional plant-based diets. These traditional diets have the kind of fiber intakes we see in our fellow Great Apes and may be more representative of the type of diets we evolved eating for millions of years. It seems somewhat optimistic, though, to expect the average American to adopt a rural African diet. We can, however, eat more plant-based and bulk up enough to take the Hippocratic oath to go two or three times a day.

There's no need to obsess about it. In fact, there's actually a "bowel obsession syndrome" characterized in part by "ideational rambling over bowel habits." But three times a day makes sense. We have what's called a gastrocolic reflex, which consists of a prompt activation of muscular waves in our colon within 1 to 3 minutes of the ingestion of the first mouthfuls of food to make room for the meal. Even just talking about food can cause our brains to increase colon activity. This suggests the body figured that one meal should be about enough to fill us up down there. So maybe we should eat enough unprocessed plant foods to get up to three a day--a movement for every meal.

I know people are suckers for poop videos--I'm so excited to finally be getting these up! There actually is a recent one--Diet and Hiatal Hernia--that talks about the consequences of straining on stool. Hernias are better than Bed Pan Death Syndrome, though, which is what I talk about in in my video, Should You Sit, Squat, or Lean During a Bowel Movement?

Here are some older videos on bowel health:

For more on this concept of how having "normal" health parameters in a society where it's normal to drop dead of heart attacks and other such preventable fates, see my video When Low Risk Means High Risk.

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

Optimal Bowel Movement Frequency

Optimal Bowel Movement Frequency.jpeg

Lasting for 3,000 years, ancient Egypt was one of the greatest ancient civilizations--with a vastly underestimated knowledge of medicine. They even had medical subspecialties. The pharaohs, for example, had access to dedicated physicians to be "guardian[s] of the royal bowel movement," a title alternately translated from the hieroglyphics to mean "Shepherd of the Anus." How's that for a resume builder?

Today, the primacy of the bowel movement's importance continues. Some have called for bowel habits to be considered a vital sign on how the body is functioning, along with heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate. Medical professionals may not particularly relish hearing all about their patients' bowel movements, but it is a vital function that nurses and doctors need to assess.

Surprisingly, the colon has remained relatively unexplored territory, one of the body's final frontiers. For example, current concepts of what "normal" stools are emanated primarily from the records of 12 consecutive bowel movements in 27 healthy subjects from the United Kingdom, who boldly went where no one had gone before. Those must have been some really detailed records.

It's important to define what's normal. When it comes to frequency, for example, we can't define concepts like constipation or diarrhea unless we know what's normal. Standard physiology textbooks may not be helpful in this regard. One text implies that anything from one bowel movement every few weeks or months to 24 in just one day can be regarded as normal. Once every few months is normal?

Out of all of our bodily functions, we may know the least about defecation. Can't we just ask people? It turns out people tend to exaggerate. There's a discrepancy between what people report and what researchers find when they record bowel habits directly. It wasn't until 2010 when we got the first serious look. In my video, How Many Bowel Movement's Should You Have Everyday? you'll see the study that found that normal stool frequency was between three per week and three per day, based on the fact that that's where 98% of people tended to fall. But normal doesn't necessarily mean optimal.

Having a "normal" salt intake can lead to a "normal" blood pressure, which can help us to die from all the "normal" causes like heart attacks and strokes. Having a normal cholesterol level in a society where it's normal to drop dead of heart disease--our number-one killer--is not necessarily a good thing. Indeed, significant proportions of people with "normal bowel function" reported urgency, straining, and incomplete defecation, leading the researchers of the 2010 study to conclude that these kinds of things must be normal. Normal, maybe, if we're eating a fiber-deficient diet, but not normal for our species. Defecation should not be a painful exercise. This is readily demonstrable. For example, the majority of rural Africans eating their traditional fiber-rich, plant-based diets can usually pass without straining a stool specimen on demand. The rectum may need to accumulate 4 or 5 ounces of fecal matter before the defecation reflex is fully initiated, so if we don't even build up that much over the day, we'd have to strain to prime the rectal pump.

Hippocrates thought bowel movements should ideally be two or three times a day, which is what we see in populations on traditional plant-based diets. These traditional diets have the kind of fiber intakes we see in our fellow Great Apes and may be more representative of the type of diets we evolved eating for millions of years. It seems somewhat optimistic, though, to expect the average American to adopt a rural African diet. We can, however, eat more plant-based and bulk up enough to take the Hippocratic oath to go two or three times a day.

There's no need to obsess about it. In fact, there's actually a "bowel obsession syndrome" characterized in part by "ideational rambling over bowel habits." But three times a day makes sense. We have what's called a gastrocolic reflex, which consists of a prompt activation of muscular waves in our colon within 1 to 3 minutes of the ingestion of the first mouthfuls of food to make room for the meal. Even just talking about food can cause our brains to increase colon activity. This suggests the body figured that one meal should be about enough to fill us up down there. So maybe we should eat enough unprocessed plant foods to get up to three a day--a movement for every meal.

I know people are suckers for poop videos--I'm so excited to finally be getting these up! There actually is a recent one--Diet and Hiatal Hernia--that talks about the consequences of straining on stool. Hernias are better than Bed Pan Death Syndrome, though, which is what I talk about in in my video, Should You Sit, Squat, or Lean During a Bowel Movement?

Here are some older videos on bowel health:

For more on this concept of how having "normal" health parameters in a society where it's normal to drop dead of heart attacks and other such preventable fates, see my video When Low Risk Means High Risk.

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

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 Are the Benefits of Organic?

What Are the Benefits of Organic?.jpeg

The medical literature has been historically hostile to organic foods, blaming in part erroneous information supplied by the health food movement for our ignorance of nutrition. But until just a few generations ago, all food was organic. It's kind of ironic that what we now call conventional food really isn't very conventional for our species.

By eating organic we can reduce our exposure to pesticides, but it remains unclear whether such a reduction in exposure is clinically relevant. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, I talked about some of the test tube studies comparing health-related properties of organic versus conventional foods. Organic produce was found to have higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity combined with better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, but in terms of studies on actual people rather than petri dishes, there isn't much science either way.

Why can't you just compare the health of those who buy organic to those who don't? Organic consumers do report being significantly healthier than conventional consumers, but they also tend to eat more plant foods in general and less soda and alcohol, processed meat, or milk, and just eat healthier in general. No wonder they feel so much better!

Therefore, there is an urgent need for interventional trials, or studies following cohorts of people eating organic over time like the Million Women Study in the UK, which was the first to examine the association between the consumption of organic food and subsequent risk of cancer. The only significant risk reduction they found, though, was for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This is consistent with data showing a higher risk of developing lymphoma in those who have higher levels of pesticides stored in their butt fat, a study undertaken because farmworkers have been found to have higher rates of lymphoma.

Parental farmworker exposure is also associated with a birth defect of the penis called hypospadias, and so researchers decided to see if moms who failed to choose organic were at increased risk. Indeed they found that frequent consumption of conventional high-fat dairy products was associated with about double the odds of the birth defect. This could just be because those that choose organic have other related healthy behaviors, or it could be that high-fat foods like dairy products bioamplify the fat-soluble toxins in our environment.

In my video, Are Organic Foods Healthier?, you can see two other general population pesticide studies that have raised concerns. One study found about a 50 to 70% increase in the odds of ADHD among children with pesticide levels in their urine, and another that found triple the odds of testicular cancer among men with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their blood. 90% of such pollutants come from fish, meat, and dairy, which may help explain rising testicular cancer rates in many western countries since World War II.

What about interventional trials? All we have in the medical literature so far are studies showing organically grown food provides health benefits to fruit flies raised on diets of conventional versus organic produce when subjected to a variety of tests designed to assess overall fly health. And what do you know--flies raised on diets made from organically grown produce lived longer. Hmm, insects eating insecticides don't do as well. Not exactly much of a breakthrough!


For how to best get pesticides off of conventional produce, see my video How to Make Your Own Fruit and Vegetable Wash.

Pesticides are one thing, but Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?

Overall, Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?

For more on the impact of food contaminants during pregnancy, see:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

What Are the Benefits of Organic?

What Are the Benefits of Organic?.jpeg

The medical literature has been historically hostile to organic foods, blaming in part erroneous information supplied by the health food movement for our ignorance of nutrition. But until just a few generations ago, all food was organic. It's kind of ironic that what we now call conventional food really isn't very conventional for our species.

By eating organic we can reduce our exposure to pesticides, but it remains unclear whether such a reduction in exposure is clinically relevant. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, I talked about some of the test tube studies comparing health-related properties of organic versus conventional foods. Organic produce was found to have higher antioxidant and antimutagenic activity combined with better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, but in terms of studies on actual people rather than petri dishes, there isn't much science either way.

Why can't you just compare the health of those who buy organic to those who don't? Organic consumers do report being significantly healthier than conventional consumers, but they also tend to eat more plant foods in general and less soda and alcohol, processed meat, or milk, and just eat healthier in general. No wonder they feel so much better!

Therefore, there is an urgent need for interventional trials, or studies following cohorts of people eating organic over time like the Million Women Study in the UK, which was the first to examine the association between the consumption of organic food and subsequent risk of cancer. The only significant risk reduction they found, though, was for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This is consistent with data showing a higher risk of developing lymphoma in those who have higher levels of pesticides stored in their butt fat, a study undertaken because farmworkers have been found to have higher rates of lymphoma.

Parental farmworker exposure is also associated with a birth defect of the penis called hypospadias, and so researchers decided to see if moms who failed to choose organic were at increased risk. Indeed they found that frequent consumption of conventional high-fat dairy products was associated with about double the odds of the birth defect. This could just be because those that choose organic have other related healthy behaviors, or it could be that high-fat foods like dairy products bioamplify the fat-soluble toxins in our environment.

In my video, Are Organic Foods Healthier?, you can see two other general population pesticide studies that have raised concerns. One study found about a 50 to 70% increase in the odds of ADHD among children with pesticide levels in their urine, and another that found triple the odds of testicular cancer among men with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their blood. 90% of such pollutants come from fish, meat, and dairy, which may help explain rising testicular cancer rates in many western countries since World War II.

What about interventional trials? All we have in the medical literature so far are studies showing organically grown food provides health benefits to fruit flies raised on diets of conventional versus organic produce when subjected to a variety of tests designed to assess overall fly health. And what do you know--flies raised on diets made from organically grown produce lived longer. Hmm, insects eating insecticides don't do as well. Not exactly much of a breakthrough!


For how to best get pesticides off of conventional produce, see my video How to Make Your Own Fruit and Vegetable Wash.

Pesticides are one thing, but Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?

Overall, Are the Benefits of Organic Food Underrated or Overrated?

For more on the impact of food contaminants during pregnancy, see:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Gluten Sensitivity Put to the Test

NF-Feb18 Is Gluten Sensitivity Real?.jpeg

In 1980, researchers in England reported a series of women with no evidence of celiac disease (the autoimmune disorder associated with gluten intolerance), who nevertheless resolved their chronic diarrhea on a gluten-free diet. The medical profession was skeptical at the time that non-celiac gluten sensitivity existed, and even 30 years later, such patients were commonly referred to psychiatrists. Psychological testing of such patients, however, found no evidence that they were suffering from any kind of psychosomatic hysteria.

The medical profession has a history of dismissing diseases as all in people's heads--post-traumatic stress disorder, ulcerative colitis, migraines, ulcers, asthma, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. Despite resistance from the prevailing medical community at the time, these health problems have subsequently been confirmed to be credible physiologically-based disorders rather than psychologically-based confabulations.

On the flipside, the internet is rife with unsubstantiated claims about gluten free diets, which has spilled over into the popular press to make gluten the diet villain du jour, with claims like "17 million Americans are gluten sensitive." However, it must be remembered that the gluten-free food industry is a big business. When literally billions are at stake, it's hard to trust anybody. As always, it's best to stick to the science.

What sort of evidence do we have for the existence of a condition presumed to be so widespread? Not much. The evidence base for such claims has been unfortunately very thin because we haven't had randomized controlled trials demonstrating that the entity even exists. The gold-standard for confirming non-celiac gluten sensitivity requires a gluten-free diet, followed by a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled food challenge. For example, give people a muffin and don't tell them if it's gluten-free or gluten-filled--to control for placebo effects--and see what happens. The reason this is necessary is because when you actually do this, a number of quote-unquote "gluten-sensitive" patients don't react at all to disguised gluten and instead react to the gluten-free placebo.

We never had that level of evidence until 2011, when a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial was published, which tested to see if patients complaining of irritable bowel symptoms who claimed they felt better on a gluten free diet--despite not having celiac disease--actually could tell if they were given gluten containing bread and muffins or gluten-free bread and muffins.

Subjects started out gluten-free and symptom-free for two weeks and then were challenged with the bread and muffins. In my video, Is Gluten Sensitivity Real?, you can see what happened to the 15 patients who got the placebo, meaning they started out on a gluten-free diet and continued on a gluten-free diet. They got worse. Just the thought that they may be eating something that was bad for them made them feel crampy and bloated. This is what's called the nocebo effect. The placebo effect is when you give someone something useless and they feel better; the nocebo effect is when you give someone something harmless and they feel worse. On the other hand, the small group that got the actual gluten, felt even worse still. The researchers concluded that non-celiac gluten intolerance may therefore indeed exist.

It was a small study, though, and even though the researchers claimed the gluten-free bread and muffins were indistinguishable, maybe at some level the patients could tell which was which. So in 2012, researchers in Italy took 920 patients that had been diagnosed with non-celiac gluten sensitivity and put them to the test with a double-blinded wheat challenge by giving them capsules filled with wheat flour or filled with placebo powder. More than two-thirds failed the test, such as getting worse on the placebo or better on the wheat. But of those that passed, there was a clear benefit to staying on the wheat-free diet. The researchers concluded that their findings confirmed the existence of a non-celiac wheat sensitivity. Note I said "wheat sensitivity," not "gluten sensitivity."

Gluten itself may not be causing gut symptoms at all. Most people with wheat sensitivity have a variety of other food sensitivities. Two thirds are sensitive to cow's milk protein, and many are sensitive to eggs. If we put people on a diet low in common triggers of irritable bowel symptoms, and then challenge them with gluten, there's no effect. We find the same increase in symptoms with high gluten, low gluten, or no gluten diets, calling into question the very existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

Interestingly, despite being informed that avoiding gluten didn't seem to do a thing for their gut symptoms, many participants opted to continue following a gluten-free diet as they subjectively described "feeling better." So researchers wondered if avoiding gluten might improve the mood of those with wheat sensitivity. Indeed, short-term exposure to gluten appeared to induce feelings of depression in these patients. Whether non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a disease of the mind or the gut, it is no longer a condition that can be dismissed.


More than 10,000 articles have been published on gluten in medical journals--intimidating even for me! Combined with the multi-billion dollar financial interests on both sides, it makes for a difficult task. But I think I did it! This is the first of a 3-part series summarizing the best available science on gluten. Also check out: Gluten-Free Diets: Separating the Wheat from the Chat and How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance.

Why this apparent increase in food sensitivities in recent decades? It could be because of pollutant exposure (see Alkylphenol Endocrine Disruptors and Allergies and Dietary Sources of Alkylphenol Endocrine Disruptors).

What can we do about preventing so-called atopic diseases (like allergies, asthma, and eczema)? See my videos Preventing Allergies in Adulthood and Preventing Allergies in Childhood. The weirdest example of an emerging food sensitivity may be the tick-bite related meat allergy story I review in Alpha Gal and the Lone Star Tick and Tick Bites, Meat Allergies, and Chronic Urticaria.

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: Guillaume Paumier / Flickr

Original Link

How Learning to Cook Can Save Your Life

NF-Nov24 Cooking to Live Longer.jpg

The eating habits of modern Americans have been described as, "eating breakfast in their cars, lunch at their desks and chicken from a bucket." Within the last few decades, Americans are eating out more and more, and cooking fewer meals at home, which are typically healthier. Home-cooled meals tend to contain less saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and more fiber. Therefore, the benefits to preparing healthy food at home may include the prevention of chronic disease. Just because food is prepared at home doesn't mean it's healthy, though. Microwaving a frozen pizza isn't exactly home cooking.

One of the problems is many people no longer know how to cook. For example, one study reported that 25% of the men in the study had absolutely no cooking skills whatsoever. Another study in the UK compared the nutritional content of meals created by television chefs to TV dinners, and both were then compared to the nutritional guidelines published by the World Health Organization. The researchers looked at a hundred of each, and not a single one complied with the nutrition standards. And the TV chef recipes were even less healthy than the TV dinners!

Many people don't know how to make healthy food taste good. This is not a new problem; an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association bemoaned the same issue back in 1913. In the United States, "vegetables are frequently boiled in a way which deprives them of their characteristic odor and their toothsomeness. 'Villainous and idiotic' are the only adjectives that can describe our methods of cooking vegetables."

Researchers in Taiwan recently found that in a group of elderly Taiwanese people, those who cooked their own food were not only healthier, but also lived longer. In a ten year study, highlighted in my video, Cooking to Live Longer, those who cooked most frequently had only 59% of the mortality risk. This took into account the exercise people got grocery shopping, physical function, and chewing ability. So why did they live longer? Those that cooked typically ate a more nutritious diet with a higher consumption of vegetables.

The effect on mortality was much more evident in women than in men. It turns out that "men were, with doubtful justification, more positive about the nutritional value of convenience foods compared with women." Women who cooked made better food choices in general.

As one author noted in the book Something from the Oven, over the last century:

"we began the long process of turning over to the food industry many of the decisions about what we eat...Today our staggering rates of obesity and diabetes are testimony to the faith we put in corporations to feed us well. But the food industry is a business, not a parent; it doesn't care what we eat as long as we're willing to pay for it. Home cooking these days has far more than sentimental value; it's a survival skill."

With the onslaught of health information out there, access to simple, healthy recipes has never been easier. While cooking at home requires more effort, energy, and cleaning, the results, health aside, are often more rewarding. Learning to cook is a simple art, and with the right amount of patience and delicious ingredients, it can help us take back control of our own lives.

Check out your local public library for cookbooks--I've been amazed at the selection in all of the cities I've lived. Or for those for which books are just so 20th century, the online Rouxbe Cooking School holds healthy cooking classes.

More on fast food:

Some other unsavory bits about the food industry:

I think this is the only other mention of celebrity chefs I have:
Paula Deen: diabetes drug spokesperson

-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.

Picture by Moyan Brenn on Flickr

Original Link

Food Dyes and ADHD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Dyes and ADHD

There are currently thousands of additives in our food supply. Some are good—like supplementing foods with vitamin B12, for example (See Vitamin B12 Necessary for Arterial Health). Other additives involve weighing the risks and benefits. Take nitrites in processed meats. Yes, they may increase our risk of cancer but, as preservatives, they decrease our risk of dying from botulism (See When Nitrates Go Bad and Bacon and Botulism). Then there are additives used for purely cosmetic purposes, like food dyes, used to provide color to colorless and “fun” foods. According to the FDA, “Without color additives, colas wouldn’t be brown, margarine wouldn’t be yellow and mint ice cream wouldn’t be green.” Heavens forbid! Color additives are now recognized as an important part of practically all processed foods we eat.

Because we’re eating a lot more processed foods, we’re now getting five times more food dyes in our daily diet than we were 50 years ago. Fifteen million pounds of food dyes are used every year in foods, drugs, and cosmetics in the United States.

I always wondered why they called them, for example, Blue #1 instead of their actual chemical name in the list of ingredients. Then, after reading this report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, I realized why. Picture a box of Kraft mac and cheese. It has Yellow #5. Would people be as likely to buy this product if instead of Yellow #5 it listed Trisodium 1-(4-sulfonatophenyl)-4-(4-sulfonatophenylazo)-5-(pyrazolone-3-carboxylate) on the label?

The list of food dyes used to be longer (See Artificial Food Colors and ADHD), but different dyes kept getting banned—including Violet #1, which, ironically, was the color used in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s meat inspection stamp, so they may have been actually further cancer-ing up the meat.

Years ago I featured a landmark study in my video Are Artificial Colors Bad for You?, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. It showed that artificial colors increased "inattentiveness, impulsivity, and hyperactivity among young children." So what happened? Well, the British government said, OK, there’re no health benefits to these dyes, only health risks, so it’s a no-brainer. They mandated that food manufacturers remove most of the artificial food colors from products. In fact, the whole European Union said that if manufacturers want to keep using the dyes, then they have to put a warning label stating: “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Many international food companies have taken them out of their products in Europe, but continue to use them in the same products here in the U.S. where similar regulations are not currently in place. Why did the U.S. government take steps to get rid of them as well?

The FDA put together a committee that looked at the landmark study and conceded that the food additives may have resulted in changes in behavior, but the “type of treatment effects reported in the study, even though the investigators referred to increases in levels of ‘hyperactivity,’ were not the disruptive excessive hyperactivity behaviors of ADHD but more likely the type of over-activity exhibited occasionally by the general population of preschool and school age children.” A distinguished toxicologist basically responded, “look, low level lead exposure may only shave off a few IQ points off of kids, but just because they’d still fall within a normal range, doesn’t mean it’s OK to expose it to our kids.” And looking back now, the lead in leaded gas may have been causing brain cancer and possibly even urban violence—the aggravated assault rate in cities around the U.S. seemed to closely follow the lead levels in the air.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to call on the FDA to ban food dyes and for food companies to voluntarily stop using them. Good luck with that. In the meantime, some researchers recently suggested a way to see which food colors may be damaging our child’s brain, advising parents to test artificial colors by purchasing little bottles of food dyes at the grocery store. Then have their kid do some homework or something and then have them chug down an artificial color and see if it affects their handwriting/reading/math at 30 minutes, at 90 minutes, and 3 hours. They also see if they get irritable later, have problems sleeping, and so on. If that’s OK, they say you should try even more to see if more will mess with their mind. If I may offer an alternate suggestion, maybe we shouldn’t buy our kids processed junk in the first place.

This whole saga reminds me of the artificial flavor in my video Butter-Flavored Microwave Popcorn or Breathing. It’s amazing what the food industry is able to get away with. There’s even sometimes Artificial Coloring in Fish.

There is a campaign to get Kraft to remove yellow #5 from their mac & cheese, but even if the stuff didn’t glow in the dark it’s still just a blob of sodium (750 mg), saturated fat (4.5 g), and trans fat (2.8 g). The food movement might better spend its time encouraging healthier fare altogether.

How can we get our kids to eat less processed junk? I review some practical tips in my videos Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at School and Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at Home. 

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Asif Ali / Flickr

Original Link

Breast Cancer and Wine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NF-Mar20 Breast Cancer Risk - Red Wine vs. White Wine.jpg

After diagnosis, women with breast cancer may cut their risk of dying nearly in half by just instituting simple, modest lifestyle changes—5 or more servings of fruits and veggies a day and walking 30 minutes a day, 6 days a week. But what about preventing breast cancer in the first place?

If we follow the advice of the official dietary guidelines for cancer prevention, does it actually reduce our risk of cancer? If we manage our weight, eat more plant foods, less animal foods, less alcohol and breastfeed, based on the largest prospective study on diet and cancer in history, we may significantly lower our risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, kidney cancer, stomach cancer, oral cancer, liver cancer, esophageal cancer, and all cancers combined.

Of all the recommendations, the “eat mostly foods of plant origin” appeared the most powerful. For example, a study in the UK found that in just one year in Britain there were 14,902 excess cases of cancer caused by something participants were exposed to 10 years earlier. What was that something that ended up causing thousands of cancers?  

Deficient intake of fruit and vegetables.

If that was instead, some chemical spill causing 14,000 cancers, people would be up in arms to ban it—but instead when that killer carcinogen is not eating their “fruit and veg” (as the Brits would say), it hardly gets anyone’s attention.

What if we throw in smoking, too? Researchers created a healthy lifestyle index, defined by four things: 1) exercise;  2) a dietary shift away from the standard American diet high in meat, dairy, fat, and sugar towards a more prudent dietary pattern—for instance more green and yellow vegetables, beans, and fruits;  3) avoidance of tobacco; and 4) avoidance of alcohol. Young women scoring higher on those four things cut their odds of getting breast cancer in half, older women cut their odds of breast cancer by 80%!

We’ve covered how even light drinking can increase breast cancer risk (see my video Breast Cancer and Alcohol: How Much is Safe?), but for women who refuse to eliminate alcohol, which is less carcinogenic: red wine or white? Some studies, outlined in my four minute video, Breast Cancer Risk: Red Wine vs. White Wine, actually suggest less or even no risk from red wine, and we may have just figured out why. Remember how mushrooms were the vegetable best able to suppress the activity of aromatase, the enzyme used by breast tumors to produce its own estrogen? (from my video Vegetables Versus Breast Cancer). Well, if we run the same human placenta experiments with fruit, strawberries get the silver, but grapes get the gold.

For more on the aromatase story, see:

But what kind of grapes? The wimpy green grapes used to make white wine barely worked compared to those used for making red.  Bottom line: “red wine may serve as a nutritional aromatase inhibitor, which may ameliorate the elevated breast cancer risk associated with alcohol intake.” But why accept any elevated risk? Just eat whole grapes! And if you do, choose ones with seeds if you can, as they may work even better. More on grapes in Fat Burning Via Flavonoids and Best Fruit Juice.

Wasn’t there a study that found that fruits and vegetables weren’t protective against cancer, though? See my video on the EPIC Study.

What if you already have breast cancer? Well, Cancer Prevention and Treatment May Be the Same Thing, but I do have a few studies on breast cancer survival and diet:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image credit: TonalLuminosity / Flickr

Original Link