How Exactly Does Type 2 Diabetes Develop?

How Exactly Does Type 2 Diabetes Develop.jpeg

Insulin resistance is the cause of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. OkK, so what is the cause of insulin resistance? Insulin resistance is now accepted to be closely associated with the accumulation of fat within our muscle cells. This fat toxicity inside of our muscles is a major factor in the cause of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, as it interferes with the action of insulin. I've explored how fat makes our muscles insulin resistant (see What Causes Insulin Resistance?), how that fat can come from the fat we eat or the fat we wear (see The Spillover Effect Links Obesity to Diabetes), and how not all fats are the same (see Lipotoxicity: How Saturated Fat Raises Blood Sugar). It's the type of fat found predominantly in animal fats, relative to plant fats, that appears to be especially deleterious with respect to fat-induced insulin insensitivity. But this insulin resistance in our muscles starts years before diabetes is diagnosed.

In my video, Diabetes as a Disease of Fat Toxicity, you can see that insulin resistance starts over a decade before diabetes is actually diagnosed, as blood sugar levels slowly start creeping up. And then, all of the sudden, the pancreas conks out, and blood sugars skyrocket. What could underlie this relatively rapid failure of insulin secretion?

At first, the pancreas pumps out more and more insulin, trying to overcome the fat-induced insulin resistance in the muscles, and high insulin levels can lead to the accumulation of fat in the liver, called fatty liver disease. Before diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, there is a long silent scream from the liver. As fat builds up in our liver, it also becomes resistant to insulin.

Normally, the liver is constantly producing blood sugar to keep our brain alive between meals. As soon as we eat breakfast, though, the insulin released to deal with the meal normally turns off liver glucose production, which makes sense since we don't need it anymore. But when our liver is filled with fat, it becomes insulin resistant like our muscles, and doesn't respond to the breakfast signal; it keeps pumping out blood sugar all day long on top of whatever we eat. Then the pancreas pumps out even more insulin to deal with the high sugars, and our liver gets fatter and fatter. That's one of the twin vicious cycles of diabetes. Fatty muscles, in the context of too many calories, leads to a fatty liver, which leads to an even fattier liver. This is all still before we have diabetes.

Fatty liver can be deadly. The liver starts trying to offload the fat by dumping it back into the bloodstream in the form of something called VLDL, and that starts building up in the cells in the pancreas that produce the insulin in the first place. Now we know how diabetes develops: fatty muscles lead to a fatty liver, which leads to a fatty pancreas. It is now clear that type 2 diabetes is a condition of excess fat inside our organs, whether we're obese or not.

The only thing that was keeping us from diabetes-unchecked skyrocketing blood sugars-is that the pancreas was working overtime pumping out extra insulin to overcome insulin resistance. But as the so-called islet or Beta cells in the pancreas are killed off by the fatty buildup, insulin production starts to fail, and we're left with the worst of both worlds: insulin resistance combined with a failing pancreas. Unable to then overcome the resistance, blood sugar levels go up and up, and boom: type 2 diabetes.

This has implications for cancer as well. Obesity leads to insulin resistance and our blood sugars start to go up, so our pancreas starts pumping out more insulin to try to force more sugar into our muscles, and eventually the fat spills over into the pancreas, killing off the insulin-producing cells. Then we develop diabetes, in which case we may have to start injecting insulin at high levels to overcome the insulin-resistance, and these high insulin levels promote cancer. That's one of the reasons we think obese women get more breast cancer. It all traces back to fat getting into our muscle cells, causing insulin resistance: fat from our stomach (obesity) or fat going into our stomach (saturated fats in our diet).

Now it should make sense why the American Diabetes Association recommends reduced intake of dietary fat as a strategy for reducing the risk for developing diabetes.


The reason I'm going into all this detail is that I'm hoping to empower both those suffering from the disease and those treating sufferers so as to better understand dietary interventions to prevent and treat the epidemic.

Here are some videos on prevention:

And here are some on treatment:

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: Nephron. This image has been modified.

Original Link

How Exactly Does Type 2 Diabetes Develop?

How Exactly Does Type 2 Diabetes Develop.jpeg

Insulin resistance is the cause of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. OkK, so what is the cause of insulin resistance? Insulin resistance is now accepted to be closely associated with the accumulation of fat within our muscle cells. This fat toxicity inside of our muscles is a major factor in the cause of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, as it interferes with the action of insulin. I've explored how fat makes our muscles insulin resistant (see What Causes Insulin Resistance?), how that fat can come from the fat we eat or the fat we wear (see The Spillover Effect Links Obesity to Diabetes), and how not all fats are the same (see Lipotoxicity: How Saturated Fat Raises Blood Sugar). It's the type of fat found predominantly in animal fats, relative to plant fats, that appears to be especially deleterious with respect to fat-induced insulin insensitivity. But this insulin resistance in our muscles starts years before diabetes is diagnosed.

In my video, Diabetes as a Disease of Fat Toxicity, you can see that insulin resistance starts over a decade before diabetes is actually diagnosed, as blood sugar levels slowly start creeping up. And then, all of the sudden, the pancreas conks out, and blood sugars skyrocket. What could underlie this relatively rapid failure of insulin secretion?

At first, the pancreas pumps out more and more insulin, trying to overcome the fat-induced insulin resistance in the muscles, and high insulin levels can lead to the accumulation of fat in the liver, called fatty liver disease. Before diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, there is a long silent scream from the liver. As fat builds up in our liver, it also becomes resistant to insulin.

Normally, the liver is constantly producing blood sugar to keep our brain alive between meals. As soon as we eat breakfast, though, the insulin released to deal with the meal normally turns off liver glucose production, which makes sense since we don't need it anymore. But when our liver is filled with fat, it becomes insulin resistant like our muscles, and doesn't respond to the breakfast signal; it keeps pumping out blood sugar all day long on top of whatever we eat. Then the pancreas pumps out even more insulin to deal with the high sugars, and our liver gets fatter and fatter. That's one of the twin vicious cycles of diabetes. Fatty muscles, in the context of too many calories, leads to a fatty liver, which leads to an even fattier liver. This is all still before we have diabetes.

Fatty liver can be deadly. The liver starts trying to offload the fat by dumping it back into the bloodstream in the form of something called VLDL, and that starts building up in the cells in the pancreas that produce the insulin in the first place. Now we know how diabetes develops: fatty muscles lead to a fatty liver, which leads to a fatty pancreas. It is now clear that type 2 diabetes is a condition of excess fat inside our organs, whether we're obese or not.

The only thing that was keeping us from diabetes-unchecked skyrocketing blood sugars-is that the pancreas was working overtime pumping out extra insulin to overcome insulin resistance. But as the so-called islet or Beta cells in the pancreas are killed off by the fatty buildup, insulin production starts to fail, and we're left with the worst of both worlds: insulin resistance combined with a failing pancreas. Unable to then overcome the resistance, blood sugar levels go up and up, and boom: type 2 diabetes.

This has implications for cancer as well. Obesity leads to insulin resistance and our blood sugars start to go up, so our pancreas starts pumping out more insulin to try to force more sugar into our muscles, and eventually the fat spills over into the pancreas, killing off the insulin-producing cells. Then we develop diabetes, in which case we may have to start injecting insulin at high levels to overcome the insulin-resistance, and these high insulin levels promote cancer. That's one of the reasons we think obese women get more breast cancer. It all traces back to fat getting into our muscle cells, causing insulin resistance: fat from our stomach (obesity) or fat going into our stomach (saturated fats in our diet).

Now it should make sense why the American Diabetes Association recommends reduced intake of dietary fat as a strategy for reducing the risk for developing diabetes.


The reason I'm going into all this detail is that I'm hoping to empower both those suffering from the disease and those treating sufferers so as to better understand dietary interventions to prevent and treat the epidemic.

Here are some videos on prevention:

And here are some on treatment:

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: Nephron. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Why Is Milk Consumption Associated with More Bone Fractures?

Why Is Milk Consumption Associated with More Bone Fractures?.jpg

Milk is touted to build strong bones, but a compilation of all the best studies found no association between milk consumption and hip fracture risk, so drinking milk as an adult might not help bones, but what about in adolescence? Harvard researchers decided to put it to the test.

Studies have shown that greater milk consumption during childhood and adolescence contributes to peak bone mass, and is therefore expected to help avoid osteoporosis and bone fractures in later life. But that's not what researchers have found (as you can see in my video Is Milk Good for Our Bones?). Milk consumption during teenage years was not associated with a lower risk of hip fracture, and if anything, milk consumption was associated with a borderline increase in fracture risk in men.

It appears that the extra boost in total body bone mineral density from getting extra calcium is lost within a few years; even if you keep the calcium supplementation up. This suggests a partial explanation for the long-standing enigma that hip fracture rates are highest in populations with the greatest milk consumption. This may be an explanation for why they're not lower, but why would they be higher?

This enigma irked a Swedish research team, puzzled because studies again and again had shown a tendency of a higher risk of fracture with a higher intake of milk. Well, there is a rare birth defect called galactosemia, where babies are born without the enzymes needed to detoxify the galactose found in milk, so they end up with elevated levels of galactose in their blood, which can causes bone loss even as kids. So maybe, the Swedish researchers figured, even in normal people that can detoxify the stuff, it might not be good for the bones to be drinking it every day.

And galactose doesn't just hurt the bones. Galactose is what scientists use to cause premature aging in lab animals--it can shorten their lifespan, cause oxidative stress, inflammation, and brain degeneration--just with the equivalent of like one to two glasses of milk's worth of galactose a day. We're not rats, though. But given the high amount of galactose in milk, recommendations to increase milk intake for prevention of fractures could be a conceivable contradiction. So, the researchers decided to put it to the test, looking at milk intake and mortality as well as fracture risk to test their theory.

A hundred thousand men and women were followed for up to 20 years. Researchers found that milk-drinking women had higher rates of death, more heart disease, and significantly more cancer for each glass of milk. Three glasses a day was associated with nearly twice the risk of premature death, and they had significantly more bone and hip fractures. More milk, more fractures.

Men in a separate study also had a higher rate of death with higher milk consumption, but at least they didn't have higher fracture rates. So, the researchers found a dose dependent higher rate of both mortality and fracture in women, and a higher rate of mortality in men with milk intake, but the opposite for other dairy products like soured milk and yogurt, which would go along with the galactose theory, since bacteria can ferment away some of the lactose. To prove it though, we need a randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of milk intake on mortality and fractures. As the accompanying editorial pointed out, we better find this out soon since milk consumption is on the rise around the world.

What can we do for our bones, then? Weight-bearing exercise such as jumping, weight-lifting, and walking with a weighted vest or backpack may help, along with getting enough calcium (Alkaline Diets, Animal Protein, & Calcium Loss) and vitamin D (Resolving the Vitamin D-Bate). Eating beans (Phytates for the Prevention of Osteoporosis) and avoiding phosphate additives (Phosphate Additives in Meat Purge and Cola) may also help.

Maybe the galactose angle can help explain the findings on prostate cancer (Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk) and Parkinson's disease (Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet).

Galactose is a milk sugar. There's also concern about milk proteins (see my casomorphin series) and fats (The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy) as well as the hormones (Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility, Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs and Why Do Vegan Women Have 5x Fewer Twins?).

Milk might also play a role in diabetes (Does Casein in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes, Does Bovine Insulin in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes?) and breast cancer (Is Bovine Leukemia in Milk Infectious?, The Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer, and Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer).

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

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

Original Link

Why Is Milk Consumption Associated with More Bone Fractures?

Why Is Milk Consumption Associated with More Bone Fractures?.jpg

Milk is touted to build strong bones, but a compilation of all the best studies found no association between milk consumption and hip fracture risk, so drinking milk as an adult might not help bones, but what about in adolescence? Harvard researchers decided to put it to the test.

Studies have shown that greater milk consumption during childhood and adolescence contributes to peak bone mass, and is therefore expected to help avoid osteoporosis and bone fractures in later life. But that's not what researchers have found (as you can see in my video Is Milk Good for Our Bones?). Milk consumption during teenage years was not associated with a lower risk of hip fracture, and if anything, milk consumption was associated with a borderline increase in fracture risk in men.

It appears that the extra boost in total body bone mineral density from getting extra calcium is lost within a few years; even if you keep the calcium supplementation up. This suggests a partial explanation for the long-standing enigma that hip fracture rates are highest in populations with the greatest milk consumption. This may be an explanation for why they're not lower, but why would they be higher?

This enigma irked a Swedish research team, puzzled because studies again and again had shown a tendency of a higher risk of fracture with a higher intake of milk. Well, there is a rare birth defect called galactosemia, where babies are born without the enzymes needed to detoxify the galactose found in milk, so they end up with elevated levels of galactose in their blood, which can causes bone loss even as kids. So maybe, the Swedish researchers figured, even in normal people that can detoxify the stuff, it might not be good for the bones to be drinking it every day.

And galactose doesn't just hurt the bones. Galactose is what scientists use to cause premature aging in lab animals--it can shorten their lifespan, cause oxidative stress, inflammation, and brain degeneration--just with the equivalent of like one to two glasses of milk's worth of galactose a day. We're not rats, though. But given the high amount of galactose in milk, recommendations to increase milk intake for prevention of fractures could be a conceivable contradiction. So, the researchers decided to put it to the test, looking at milk intake and mortality as well as fracture risk to test their theory.

A hundred thousand men and women were followed for up to 20 years. Researchers found that milk-drinking women had higher rates of death, more heart disease, and significantly more cancer for each glass of milk. Three glasses a day was associated with nearly twice the risk of premature death, and they had significantly more bone and hip fractures. More milk, more fractures.

Men in a separate study also had a higher rate of death with higher milk consumption, but at least they didn't have higher fracture rates. So, the researchers found a dose dependent higher rate of both mortality and fracture in women, and a higher rate of mortality in men with milk intake, but the opposite for other dairy products like soured milk and yogurt, which would go along with the galactose theory, since bacteria can ferment away some of the lactose. To prove it though, we need a randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of milk intake on mortality and fractures. As the accompanying editorial pointed out, we better find this out soon since milk consumption is on the rise around the world.

What can we do for our bones, then? Weight-bearing exercise such as jumping, weight-lifting, and walking with a weighted vest or backpack may help, along with getting enough calcium (Alkaline Diets, Animal Protein, & Calcium Loss) and vitamin D (Resolving the Vitamin D-Bate). Eating beans (Phytates for the Prevention of Osteoporosis) and avoiding phosphate additives (Phosphate Additives in Meat Purge and Cola) may also help.

Maybe the galactose angle can help explain the findings on prostate cancer (Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk) and Parkinson's disease (Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet).

Galactose is a milk sugar. There's also concern about milk proteins (see my casomorphin series) and fats (The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy) as well as the hormones (Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility, Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs and Why Do Vegan Women Have 5x Fewer Twins?).

Milk might also play a role in diabetes (Does Casein in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes, Does Bovine Insulin in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes?) and breast cancer (Is Bovine Leukemia in Milk Infectious?, The Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer, and Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer).

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

Can Peppermint Improve Athletic Performance?

NF-Oct20 Enhancing Athletic Performance With Peppermint.jpeg

Ever since smoking was prohibited in night clubs, customers have increasingly noticed other unpleasant smells present in the club--like body odors. So, researchers in Europe thought they'd try to cover them up. The researchers measured the effects of peppermint, for example, on dancing activity and asked people to rate their energy level. They found that with peppermint scent, people felt more cheerful and danced more, and so, concluded the researchers, "environmental fragrancing may be expected to have a positive effects on club revenue." Innovative nightclubs are already inviting "aroma jockeys" to smell the places up.

The business community caught whiff of this and thought maybe peppermint smell would get their secretaries to type faster. And it worked! There was improved performance on clerical tasks associated with the administration of peppermint odor.

In an age where athletic competitions are frequently won or lost by mere hundredths of a second, athletes are continually looking for new ways to excel in their sport. Researchers threw some collegiate athletes onto a treadmill and piped different smell into their nostrils, and those on peppermint reported feeling less fatigued, more vigorous, less frustrated, and felt they performed better. But did they actually perform better? See my video, Enhancing Athletic Performance with Peppermint.

A different study published in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology measured actual performance, and participants were actually able to squeeze out one extra pushup before collapsing and cut almost two seconds off a quarter mile dash with an odorized adhesive strip stuck to their upper lip. Interestingly there was no significant difference in basketball free throws. The researchers think the reason is that free throws actually require some skill, and all the peppermint can do is really improve athlete's motivation.

Unfortunately follow-up studies were not able to replicate these results, showing no beneficial effect of smelling peppermint on athletic performance, so how about eating peppermint? Researchers measured the effects of peppermint on exercise performance before and after ten days of having subjects drink bottles of water with a single drop of peppermint essential oil in them. And all the subjects' performance parameters shot up, churning out 50 percent more work, 20 percent more power, and a 25 percent greater time to exhaustion. Improvements were found across the board in all those physiological parameters, indicating increased respiratory efficiency. They attribute these remarkable results to the peppermint opening up their airways, increasing ventilation and oxygen delivery.

Now, you can overdose on the stuff, but a few drops shouldn't be toxic. Why not get the best of both worls by blending fresh mint leaves in water rather than use the oil?

Sometimes aromatherapy alone may actually help, though:

Beet juice can also enhance athletic performance. See the dozen or so videos in the series starting with Doping With Beet Juice. Other ways healthy food can synergize with exercise:

I use peppermint in my Pink Juice with Green Foam recipe and talk about using the dried in Antioxidants in a Pinch. It can also help reduce IBS symptoms, as seen in Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Some other tea caveats, though:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: Cory Denton / Flickr

Original Link

Should Pregnant Women Drink Cow’s Milk?

NF-Sept15 Why Do Vegan Women Have 5x Fewer Twins_.jpeg

Foods of animal origin in general naturally contain hormones, but cow's milk may be of particular concern. The hormones naturally found even in organic cow's milk may have played a role in studies that found a relationship between dairy products and human illnesses, such as acne, certain cancers and male reproductive disorders. Milk consumption has also been associated with an increased risk of early puberty and endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women, but "hormonal levels in food could be particularly dangerous in the case of vulnerable populations, such as young children or pregnant women. To this critical population, even a small hormonal intake could lead to major changes in the metabolism."

If you check out my video Why Do Vegan Women Have 5x Fewer Twins, you can see that children are highly sensitive to sex steroids. Because their levels of sex steroids are very low, even a small variation would account for a major change in the total activity of the involved hormone. Because no lower threshold for estrogenic action has been established, caution should be taken to avoid unnecessary exposure of fetuses and children to exogenous sex steroids, even at very low levels.

In the AMA's Pediatrics Journal, the Chair of Boston Children's Hospital's Obesity Prevention Center along with the chair of Harvard's nutrition department questioned dairy industry recommendations that children should drink three glasses of milk a day. Dairy milk evolved to promote the growth of grazing animals at high risk for predation when small, so they needed to put on a few hundred pounds quickly in the first few months of life.

The consequences of lifetime human exposure to the growth factors in milk have not been well studied. "Milk consumption increases serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is linked to prostate and other cancers. In addition, modern industrial methods maintain dairy cows in active milk production throughout their pregnancies, resulting in a milk supply with high levels of reproductive hormones."

Pregnant cows excrete significantly higher levels of sex steroids into their milk than non-pregnant cows. The subsequent consumption of such dairy products from pregnancy results in additional consumer exposure. And it's not just dairy. Although dairy products are an important source of hormones, other products of animal origin must be considered as well. All edible tissues of animal origin contain estrogen. This may explain why, in a study of over a thousand women eating plant-based diets, vegan women have a twinning rate that is one fifth that of vegetarians and omnivores.

Twin pregnancies are risky pregnancies, with much higher complication rates. Many parents and physicians underestimate the negative consequences of multiple pregnancy, but "women with a multiple pregnancy face greater risks for themselves and their infants." Twin babies may be ten times more likely to die at birth. To avoid these complications, the research team writes, "women attempting conception should avoid milk and dairy products."

Minimizing dairy, our nation's #1 source of saturated fat may be a good idea for dads too: Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility.

What about the endocrine-disrupting xenoestrogens--how do they compare with the natural hormones in our food supply? That was the topic of my video Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs.

Then once they're born, best to stick to human milk:

Then as young children, dairy can sometimes cause another problem: Childhood Constipation and Cow's Milk

Here's a selection of other pregnancy-related videos:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: LivingLandscapeArchitecture / Flickr

Original Link

Estrogen in Meat, Dairy, and Eggs

Sept13.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on xenoestrogens in:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

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

Image Credit: BruceBlaus

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

Original Link

GMO Soy and Breast Cancer

July12.jpg

In response to concerns raised about the toxicity of Monsanto's roundup pesticide, which ends up in GMO foods (See Is Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Glyphosate Safe?), Monsanto's scientists countered that these in vitro experiments used physiological irrelevant concentrations, meaning dripping roundup on cells in a petri dish at levels far above what would be realistically found in the human body.

Sure, it's probably not a good idea to mix up your alcohol with your roundup and chug the stuff, or try to commit suicide by drinking or injecting it. And there are rare cases of Parkinson's reported after getting directly sprayed with it, or working for years in a pesticide production plant, but that's not your typical consumer exposure.

As shown in my video GMO Soy and Breast Cancer, some of the researchers responded to the accusation claiming they used the kinds of concentrations that are used out in the fields. Therefore every little droplet we spray worldwide is above the threshold concentration they found to cause adverse effects. Monsanto's folks responded saying, "Yes, that's the concentration we spray, but that's not the concentration that human cells are bathing in. Once it gets into drinking water or food, it's highly diluted." And, they're quick to point out, if we look at people with the greatest exposure--pesticide workers--the vast majority of studies show no link between the use of Roundup and cancer or non-cancer diseases. There are a few suggestive findings suggesting a link with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. One study of pesticide applicators suggested an association with multiple myeloma, and one study of the children of pesticide applicators found a tentative association with ADHD, but again these are folks experiencing a much greater exposure level than the general population that may just get a few parts per million in their food. But there had never been any studies done on the tiny levels found circulating in people's bodies, until now.

In a study out of Thailand, the maximum residue levels were set at parts per million (the concentrations found within human bodies is measured in parts per billion). The study found glyphosate can activate estrogen receptors at a few parts per trillion, increasing the growth of estrogen receptor positive human breast cancer cells in a petri dish. These results indicate "that truly relevant concentrations of the pesticide found on GMO soybeans possesses estrogenic activity."

But consumption of soy is associated with lower breast cancer risk (See BRCA Breast Cancer Genes and Soy), and improved breast cancer survival (See Breast Cancer Survival and Soy).

That may be because most GMO soy in the U.S. is fed to chickens, pigs, and cows as livestock feed, whereas most of the major soy food manufacturers use non-GMO soy. Or it could be because the benefits of eating any kind of soy may far outweigh the risks, but why accept any risk at all when we can choose organic soy products, which by law exclude GMOs.

The bottom-line is that there is no direct human data suggesting harm from eating GMOs, though in fairness such studies haven't been done, which is exactly the point that critics counter. This is why we need mandatory labeling on GMO products so that public health researchers can track whether GMOs are having any adverse effects.

It is important to put the GMO issue in perspective though. As I've shown (See Lifestyle Medicine: Treating the Causes of Disease), there are dietary and lifestyle changes we can make that could eliminate most heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and cancer. Millions of lives could be saved. A healthy enough diet can even reverse our number one killer, heart disease. So, I'm sympathetic to the biotech industry's exasperation about GMO concerns when we still have people dropping dead from everything else they're eating. As one review concluded "consumption of genetically modified food entails risk of undesirable effects... similar to the consumption of traditional food." In other words, buying the non-GMO Twinkie isn't doing our body much of a favor.

For more on the public health implications of genetically engineered crops in our food supply, check out the these videos:

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: Nesbitt_Photo / Flickr

Original Link

Is Monsanto’s Roundup Pesticide Glyphosate Safe?

July7.jpg

GMO soy has been found to be contaminated with pesticide residues (see Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Roundup Ready Soy), but are these levels anything to worry about? I explore this question in my video Is Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Glyphosate Safe?.

Researchers out of Norway described the amount of pesticide residues found in GMO soy as high compared to the maximum allowable residue levels. The legal limit for glyphosate in foods had been set at 0.1-0.2 mg/kg; so these exceed the legal limits by an average of about 2000%, whereas organic and conventional non-GMO soy both had none.

So what did Monsanto do? Did the industry ditch the whole GMO thing, go back to using less pesticides so that residue levels wouldn't be so high? Or, they could just change the definition of high. What if they could get authorities to raise the maximum residue level from 0.1 or 0.2 up to 20? Then the residue levels won't look so high anymore. And this is exactly what they did. The acceptance level of glyphosate in food and animal feed has been increased by authorities in countries that use Roundup-Ready GM crops. In Brazil, they went up to ten, and the U.S. and Europe now accept up to 20. In all of these cases, the maximum residue level values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new evidence indicating glyphosate toxicity was less than previously understood, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in GMO soybeans--otherwise it wouldn't be legal to sell the stuff.

What evidence do we have, though, that these kinds of residues are harmful? For 12 years we've heard that Roundup interferes with embryonic development, but that study was about sea urchin embryos. For 14 years we heard that Roundup may disrupt hormones, but that's in mouse testicles.

Blogs will dish about concerning new studies implicating Roundup in male fertility, but if we look at the study, it's about rat testicles. Some blogs cite studies with disturbing titles like "prepubertal exposure alters testosterone levels and testicular shape," but they're talking about puberty in rats, though that doesn't make as catchy a blog title.

Why not use human tissue? Women are having babies every day--why not just experiment on human placentas, which would otherwise just get thrown away? In 2005, researchers did just that. And despite all the negative effects in rodents, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup didn't seem to have much of a toxic effect on human cells even at high doses, or have much effect on a hormone regulating enzyme, leading Monsanto-funded reviewers to conclude that regardless of what hazards might be alleged based on animal studies, "glyphosate is not anticipated to produce adverse developmental and reproductive effects in humans."

But pure glyphosate isn't sprayed on crops, Roundup is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed when the study was repeated with what's actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1 or 2% concentration that's used out on the fields.

Similar results were found for other major pesticides. It took until 2014, but eight out of nine pesticide formulations tested were up to one thousand times more toxic than their so-called active ingredients, so when we just test the isolated chemicals, we may not get the whole story. Roundup was found to be 100 times more toxic than glyphosate itself. Moreover, Roundup turned out to be among the most toxic pesticides they tested. It's commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest, though, an idea spread by Monsanto, the manufacturer. However, this inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to the huge economic interests involved.

What is glyphosate? Check out: Are GMOs Safe? The Case of BT Corn.

It's the dose that makes the poison, though. Do we have evidence that the levels of Roundup chemicals not only found on crops, but also in our bodies after eating those crops actually have adverse effects? That's the subject of the video: GMO Soy and Breast Cancer.

Commercial interests can have a corrupting effect on the science of nutrition and hold sway over institutions that are supposed to operate in the public interest. See for example:

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: Mike Mozart / Flickr

Original Link

Is Insecticidal GMO Corn Safe?

NF-June28.jpeg

Recently the prominent science journal Nature editorialized that we are now swimming in information about genetically modified crops, but that much of the information is wrong--on both sides of the debate. "But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude," adding that with GMOs, "a good gauge of a statement's fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered."

To many in the scientific community, GMO concerns are dismissed as one big conspiracy theory. In fact, one item in a psychological test of belief in conspiracy theories asked people if they thought food companies would have the audacity to be dishonest about genetically modified food. The study concluded that many people were cynical and skeptical with regard to advertising tricks, as well as the tactics of organizations like banks and alcohol, drug, and tobacco companies. That doesn't sound like conspiracy theory to me; that sounds like business as usual.

We must remember there is a long legacy of scientific misconduct. Throw in a multi-billion dollar industry, and one can imagine how hard it is to get to the truth of the matter. There are social, environmental, economic, food security, and biodiversity arguments both pro and con about GMOs, but those are outside my area of expertise. I'm going to stick to food safety. And as a physician, I'm a very limited veterinarian--I only know one species (us!). So, I will skip the lab animal data and ask instead: What human data do we have about GMO safety?

One study "confirmed" that DNA from genetically modified crops can be transferred into humans who eat them, but that's not what the study found, just that plant DNA in general may be found in the human bloodstream, with no stipulations of harm (See Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn).

Another study, however, did find a GMO crop protein in people. The "toxin" was detected in 93 percent of blood samples of pregnant women, 80 percent of umbilical cord blood samples, and 69 percent of samples from non-pregnant women. The toxin they're talking about is an insecticidal protein produced by Bt bacteria whose gene was inserted into the corn's DNA to create so-called Bt-corn, which has been incorporated into animal feed. If it's mainly in animal feed, how did it get into the bodies of women? They suggest it may be through exposure to contaminated meat.

Of course, why get GMO's second-hand when you can get them directly? The next great frontier is transgenic farm animals. A genetically modified salmon was first to vie for a spot at the dinner table. And then in 2010, transgenic cows, sheep, goats and pigs were created, genetically modified for increased muscle mass, based on the so-called mighty mouse model. Frankenfurters!

But back to children of the corn and their mothers. When they say it's a toxin, it's a toxin to corn worms, not necessarily to people. In fact I couldn't find any data linking BT toxin to human harm, which is a good thing since it's considered one of the few pesticides considered so non-toxic that it's sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.

For more on on the public health implications of genetically modified crops, see:

I did a similar "controversial issue" video series on gluten. See:

For those interested in the genetic engineering of livestock, I published a few papers myself on the topic:

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: Jen Wilton / Flickr

Original Link