Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on

How much fiber is there in the different foods we eat? And how much should we eat? Recent posts (Where Do I Get That Beneficial Gut Bacteria? and A Special Gut Microbe) stressed the importance of eating dietary fiber for various health benefits and to feed the beneficial bacteria (such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii) in our gut. Are there different types of fiber and does it matter?

Currently the average American adult eats about 12 to 18 grams of dietary fiber daily. But the latest advice (from both National Academy of Sciences and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) is to eat over 20 grams of dietary fiber daily to about 35 grams daily, depending on weight. So a person eating a 2000 calorie daily diet should have about 25 grams of fiber daily. Their recommendation for children is that intake should equal age in years plus 5 g/day (e.g., a 4 year old should consume 9 g/day). 

Good fiber foods are: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), nuts, and seeds. But people eating a typical westernized diet are instead eating a high fat, high meat, highly processed food diet which neglects plant-based foods. Go look at the ingredient labels of favorite American foods and see that many don't have fiber or are low in dietary fiber (e.g., hot dogs, salami, candy, cookies, potato chips).

Dietary fiber or roughage is the indigestible portion of food derived from plants. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble, and both should be eaten for good health because they benefit health in a number of ways.

Insoluble fiber doesn't dissolve in water and passes through the intestines (it provides bulking), while soluble fiber dissolves in water, and becomes a gel. Plant foods contain both types of fiber in varying degrees, depending on the plant's characteristics. For example, plums and prunes have a thick skin covering a juicy pulp. The skin is a source of insoluble fiber, whereas soluble fiber is in the pulp.

One can also take fiber supplements, but actual real foods have many more health benefits to them, and also provide a variety of fiber sources. Eating a variety of whole plant-based foods is beneficial in many ways, including feeding the variety of bacteria species in your gut. Remember that different bacteria need different foods, and so eating a variety of foods is best.

To increase your daily dietary fiber intake, first take a look at the amount of fiber in different foods. And then eat lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), seeds, and nuts.

The following tables give approximate fiber amounts in some high fiber foods (NOTE: different sources give slightly different numbers):

Fresh & Dried Fruit  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Apples with skin  1 medium 5.0
 Apricot  3 medium 1.0
 Apricots, dried  4 pieces 2.9
 Banana  1 medium 3.9
 Blueberries  1 cup 4.2
 Cantaloupe, cubes  1 cup 1.3
 Figs, dried  2 medium 3.7
 Grapefruit  1/2 medium 3.1
 Orange, navel  1 medium 3.4
 Peach  1 medium 2.0
 Peaches, dried  3 pieces 3.2
 Pear  1 medium 5.1
 Plum  1 medium 1.1
 Raisins  1.5 oz box 1.6
 Raspberries  1 cup 8.0
 Strawberries  1 cup 4.4
Grains, Beans (Legumes), Nuts, Seeds  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Almonds  1 oz 4.2
 Black beans, cooked  1 cup 13.9
 Bran cereal  1 cup 19.9
 Bread, whole wheat  1 slice 2.0
 Brown rice, dry  1 cup 7.9
 Cashews  1 oz 1.0
 Flax seeds  3 Tbsp. 6.9
 Garbanzo beans, cooked  1 cup 5.8
 Kidney beans, cooked  1 cup 11.6
 Lentils, red cooked  1 cup 13.6
 Lima beans, cooked  1 cup 8.6
 Oats, rolled dry  1 cup 12.0
 Quinoa (seeds) dry  1/4 cup 6.2
 Quinoa, cooked  1 cup 8.4
 Pasta, whole wheat  1 cup 6.3
 Peanuts  1 oz 2.3
 Pistachio nuts  1 oz 3.1
 Pumpkin seeds  1/4 cup 4.1
 Soybeans, cooked  1 cup 8.6
 Sunflower seeds  1/4 cup 3.0
 Walnuts  1 cup 5.0
 Vegetables  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Avocado (fruit)  1 medium 11.8
 Beets, cooked  1 cup 2.8
 Beet greens  1 cup 4.2
 Bok choy, cooked  1 cup 2.8
 Broccoli, cooked  1 cup 4.5
 Brussels sprouts, cooked  1 cup 3.6
 Cabbage, cooked  1 cup 4.2
 Carrot  1 medium 2.6
 Carrot, cooked  1 cup 5.2
 Cauliflower, cooked  1 cup 3.4
 Cole slaw  1 cup 4.0
 Collard greens, cooked  1 cup 2.6
 Corn, sweet  1 cup 4.6
 Green beans  1 cup 4.0
 Celery  1 stalk 1.1
 Kale, cooked  1 cup 7.2
 Onions, raw  1 cup 2.9
 Peas, cooked  1 cup 8.8
 Peppers, sweet  1 cup 2.6
 Pop corn, air-popped  3 cups 3.6
 Potato, baked w/ skin  1 medium 4.8
 Spinach, cooked  1 cup 4.3
 Summer squash, cooked  1 cup 2.5
 Sweet potato, cooked  1 medium 4.9
 Swiss chard, cooked  1 cup 3.7
 Tomato  1 medium 1.5
 Winter squash, cooked  1 cup 6.2
 Zucchini, cooked  1 cup 2.6

The tables were from http://commonsensehealth.com/high-fiber-foods-list-for-a-high-fiber-diet/

Published on

My last post A Special Gut Microbe was on the very essential and beneficial microbe Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. It is one of the most abundant  bacteria in the gut of healthy individuals, but low or depleted levels are associated with inflammation and found in a number of diseases, including intestinal bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease. It is a butyrate producing bacteria (beneficial).

F. prausnitzii is viewed as so essential that it has been called a "keystone species" in the gut. A question I've been asked is: how can one increase the numbers of this bacteria in the gut and where can one buy some to take as a probiotic? (Probiotics are live bacteria that are beneficial to health when consumed.)

The typical bacteria added to yogurts or sold as supplements are able to survive when exposed to air (oxygen). However, F. prausnitzii are "oxygen sensitive" and they die within minutes upon exposure to air. Researchers view this beneficial bacteria as a "probiotic of the future" and currently there is research going on to figure out ways it can be easily stored and be exposed to air a few hours and not die. Currently there is NO way to take a probiotic F. prausnitzii supplement. So what else can one do?

After reviewing the scientific literature, it seems that the current ways to get F. prausnitzii into the gut or increase its numbers are: fecal microbiota transplant or FMT (currently only done with desperately ill individuals), drastically restricting calories for one week by obese individuals increases beneficial bacteria, and making changes to the diet. For example, a high animal meat, high animal fat, high sugar, highly processed foods, and low fiber diet (the typical westernized diet) lowers F. prausnitzii numbers, while a high-fiber, low meat diet increases F. prausnitzii numbers.

Repeat: the number one thing a person can do to increase numbers of F. prausnitzii is to increase fiber in the diet. By the way, increasing dietary fiber increases butyrate, and butyrate is involved with colon health, is anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer . See, it's all related.

High fiber is: whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, and legumes. Eat a varied plant-based diet, which means lots of plant based foods. It seems that Michael Pollan's emphasis on "Eat real foods. Mostly plants. Not too much." is just right. And variety seems important - with different types of fiber feeding different bacteria.

While F. prausnitzii may be an important beneficial bacteria in the gut, it is not the only beneficial one. So a food labeled "with added fiber" may not be the right fiber for bacteria, This is even true for enteral formula supplementation, for example, one formula containing fiber used pea fiber and this did not feed the F. prausnitzii.

In the first paragraph I mentioned that research has consistently shown F. prausnitzii depletion in adults sick with IBDs such as Crohn's disease. So it was interesting to find that one recent study found that even people sick with Crohn's disease showed significant improvement and remission (92% remission at 2 years) on a semi-vegetarian diet, namely a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet (daily 32.4 g of dietary fiber in 2000 calories). [High Amount of Dietary Fiber Not Harmful But Favorable for Crohn Disease ]This is totally opposite from the current prevailing medical view which currently encourages people with IBD to "rest the intestine" with a fiber-restricted diet.

Published on

In the past year I keep coming across one special gut microbe: Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. This bacteria is considered beneficial and is one of the most prevalent intestinal bacterial species in healthy adults. The reduction of this bacteria in the gut (as measured by analyzing bacteria in fecal samples) is seen in several diseases, including Intestinal Bowel Disease (IBD). This bacteria has also been found to be anti-inflammatory. In other words, you really, really want a healthy population in your gut.

But now the question is: how does the bacteria get there? And how can you increase it if you have a low population in your gut? It certainly isn't found in any probiotic supplement that I know of.  Part of the answer seems to be eating foods with fiber, lots of it, to feed the good microbes. Eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, legumes, and nuts.

The following lengthy article discusses the importance of keystone species (F. prausnitzii is one). From Scientific American:

Among Trillions of Microbes in the Gut, a Few Are Special

In the mid-2000s Harry Sokol, a gastroenterologist at Saint Antoine Hospital in Paris, was surprised by what he found when he ran some laboratory tests on tissue samples from his patients with Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gut.. But when Sokol did a comparative DNA analysis of diseased sections of intestine surgically removed from the patients, he observed a relative depletion of just one common bacterium, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Rather than “bad” microbes prompting disease, he wondered, could a single “good” microbe prevent disease?

Sokol transferred the bacterium to mice and found it protected them against experimentally induced intestinal inflammation. And when he subsequently mixed F. prausnitzii with human immune cells in a test tube, he noted a strong anti-inflammatory response. Sokol seemed to have identified a powerfully anti-inflammatory member of the human microbiota.

Each of us harbors a teeming ecosystem of microbes that outnumbers the total number of cells in the human body by a factor of 10 to one and whose collective genome is at least 150 times larger than our own... The microbiome varies dramatically from one individual to the next and can change quickly over time in a single individual. The great majority of the microbes live in the gut, particularly the large intestine, which serves as an anaerobic digestion chamber. 

Independent researchers around the world have identified a select group of microbes that seem important for gut health and a balanced immune system. They belong to several clustered branches of the clostridial group. Dubbed “clostridial clusters,” these microbes are distantly related to Clostridium difficile, a scourge of hospitals and an all too frequent cause of death by diarrhea. But where C. difficile prompts endless inflammation, bleeding and potentially catastrophic loss of fluids, the clostridial clusters do just the opposite—they keep the gut barrier tight and healthy, and they soothe the immune system. Scientists are now exploring whether these microbes can be used to treat a bevy of the autoimmune, allergic and inflammatory disorders that have increased in recent decades, including Crohn's and maybe even obesity.

F. prausnitzii was one of the first clostridial microbes to be identified. In Sokol's patients those with higher counts of F. prausnitzii consistently fared best six months after surgery. After he published his initial findings in 2008, scientists in India and Japan also found F. prausnitzii to be depleted in patients with inflammatory bowel disease... This suggested that whereas different genetic vulnerabilities might underlie the disorder, the path to disease was similar: a loss of anti-inflammatory microbes from the gut. And although Sokol suspects that other good bacteria besides F. prausnitzii exist, this similarity hinted at a potential one-size-fits-all remedy for Crohn's and possibly other inflammatory disorders: restoration of peacekeeping microbes.

One of the questions central to microbiome research is why people in modern society, who are relatively free of infectious diseases, a major cause of inflammation, are so prone to inflammatory, autoimmune and allergic diseases. Many now suspect that society-wide shifts in our microbial communities have contributed to our seemingly hyperreactive immune systems. Drivers of these changes might include antibiotics; sanitary practices that are aimed at limiting infectious disease but that also hinder the transmission of symbiotic microbes; and, of course, our high-sugar, high-fat modern diet. Our microbes eat what we eat, after all. Moreover, our particular surroundings may seed us with unique microbes, “localizing” our microbiota.

A number of studies have found a small but significant correlation between the early-life use of antibiotics and the later development of inflammatory disorders, including asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and, more recently, colorectal cancer and childhood obesity. One explanation for this association might be that sickly people take more antibiotics. Antibiotics are not the cause, in other words, but the result of preexisting ill health. Honda's studies suggest another explanation: antibiotics may deplete the very bacteria that favorably calibrate the immune system, leaving it prone to overreaction. 

A number of studies over the years have linked having fewer sanitary amenities in childhood with a lower risk of inflammatory bowel disease in adulthood. And a 2014 study from Aarhus University in Denmark found that among northern Europeans, growing up on a farm with livestock—another microbially enriched environment—halved the risk of being stricken with inflammatory bowel disease in adulthood.

These patterns suggest that perhaps by seeding the gut microbiota early in life or by direct modification of the immune system the environment can affect our risk of inflammatory bowel disease despite the genes we carry. And they raise the question of what proactive steps those of us who do not live on farms can take to increase our chances of harboring a healthy mix of microbes.

One of the more surprising discoveries in recent years is how much the gut microbiota of people living in North America differs from those of people living in rural conditions in Africa and South America. The microbial mix in North America is geared to digesting protein, simple sugars and fats, whereas the mix in rural African and Amazonian environments is far more diverse and geared to fermenting plant fiber. Some think that our hunter-gatherer ancestors harbored even greater microbial diversity in their guts.

What troubles Sonnenburg about this shift is that the bacteria that seem most anti-inflammatory—including the clostridial clusters—often specialize in fermenting soluble fiber...Some hunter-gatherers consumed up to 10 times as much soluble fiber as modern populations, and their bodies likely were flooded with far more fermentation by-products. Our fiber-poor modern diet may have weakened that signal, producing a state of “simmering hyperreactivity,” Sonnenburg says, and predisposing us to the “plagues” of civilization. He calls this problem “starving our microbial self.” We may not be adequately feeding some of the most important members of our microbiota.

Mouse experiments support the idea. Diets high in certain fats and sugars deplete anti-inflammatory bacteria, thin the mucous layer and foster systemic inflammation. ...In rodents, adding fermentable fiber to a diet otherwise high in fat keeps the “good” microbes happy, the mucous layer healthy and the gut barrier intact, and it prevents systemic inflammation. Taken together, these studies suggest that it is not only what is in your food that matters for your health but also what is missing.

The human studies are even more intriguing... Scientists at Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium recently showed that adding inulin, a fermentable fiber, to the diet of obese women increased counts of F. prausnitzii and other clostridial bacteria and reduced that dangerous systemic inflammation...Those without the bacteria did not benefit, which suggests that once species disappear from the “microbial organ,” the associated functions might also vanish. These individuals might not require ecosystem engineering so much as an ecosystem restoration.

Published on

The researchers were interested in lifestyle factors that are associated with lower rates of allergies.  Prior research has shown that such lifestyle factors are : living on a farm, introducing fish into the child’s diet at an early age, having pets early in life, parental cleaning of the child’s pacifier by sucking it, crowded living conditions, early daycare attendance, and having siblings. This study found that in households washing dishes by hand, rather than in a dishwasher, there are lower rates of allergies and eczema in children. In addition, the study found that consuming fermented or farm-bought food could decrease the likelihood of allergies further. It is thought that early exposure to microbes stimulates the immune system in beneficial ways. Dishwashers leave fewer bacteria behind on dishes than hand washing dishes. Living in a household that hand-washes means family members are eating off of plates and cutlery that have more bacteria, and therefore they are getting more microbial exposure. There could also be more bacteria in the air when dishes are hand washed or even some other lifestyle factor that these households have in common.From NPR:

Kids, Allergies And A Possible Downside To Squeaky Clean Dishes

Could using a dishwashing machine increase the chances your child will develop allergies? That's what some provocative new research suggests — but don't tear out your machine just yet.The study involved 1,029 Swedish children (ages 7 or 8) and found that those whose parents said they mostly wash the family's dishes by hand were significantly less likely to develop eczema, and somewhat less likely to develop allergic asthma and hay fever.

The findings are the latest to support the "hygiene hypothesis," a still-evolving proposition that's been gaining momentum in recent years. The hypothesis basically suggests that people in developed countries are growing up way too clean because of a variety of trends, including the use of hand sanitizers and detergents, and spending too little time around animals.As a result, children don't tend to be exposed to as many bacteria and other microorganisms, and maybe that deprives their immune system of the chance to be trained to recognize microbial friend from foe.That may make the immune system more likely to misfire and overreact in a way that leads to allergies, eczema and asthma, Hesselmar says.

"The hypothesis was that these different dishwashing methods ... are not equally good in reducing bacteria from eating utensils and so on," Hesselmar says. "So we thought that perhaps hand dishwashing was less effective, so that you are exposed to more bacteria" in a way that's helpful.

In a study released Monday in the online version of the journal Pediatrics, the researchers report what they found: In families who said they mostly wash dishes by hand, significantly fewer children had eczema, and somewhat fewer had either asthma or hay fever, compared to kids from families who let machines wash their dishes.

Still, there are other possible explanations, Hesselmar and Mahr both caution. Though the researchers took economic status into account in the study, it could be that people who don't have dishwashers are alike in some other way that reduces their tendency to get allergies. Interestingly, for example, certain other lifestyle characteristics — eating fermented foods regularly, and tending to buy some foods straight from the farm — seemed to strengthen the "protective" effect in families without dishwashers.

Published on

Healthy women were followed during their pregnancies and postpartum, and it was found that vaginal microbial communities change over the course of pregnancy, and then really change postpartum. They also found differences in the predominant Lactobacillus bacteria species between the women. In this study it was found that Lactobacillus bacteria were most dominant during pregnancy, especially L. gaserii, L. crispatus, L. iners, and L. jensenii, and there were ethnic differences in the species. And they found that the vaginal microbiome changes postpartum, with bacteria becoming more diverse and the numbers of Lactobacillus dropping. The message here is that what are "normal and healthy" microbial communities can vary between women (in this study which Lactobacillus species were "healthy and normal" varied among women). Remember: dysbiosis means that the normal microbial community is "out of whack". And sequenced the microbiomes means state of the art genetic analysis of the microbial communities From American Microbiome Institute:

The vaginal microbiome changes during and after pregnancy

The vaginal microbiome is critically important to a healthy pregnancy, and studies have shown that vaginal dysbiosis during pregnancy can lead to infection and preterm birth.  In order to help understand what the microbiome looks like throughout and just after pregnancy, researchers from England performed longitudinal studies on 42 pregnant women.  They published their results last week in Nature Scientific Reports.

The scientists sequenced the microbiomes of the 42 women throughout their pregnancies, and then for the 6 weeks afterwards for some of the women.  They discovered, in agreement with other literature on the subject, that the vaginal microbiome becomes dominated by Lactobacilli species during pregnancy.  The Lactobacilli are thought to prevent pathogens from colonizing the vagina because they produce lactic acid which decreases the overall pH of the vagina, and they secrete antibacterial toxins.  These Lactobacilli are also important as they are normally the first to colonize the new infants' guts after they pass through the birth canal. 

The researchers also learned that the microbiome shifts away from Lactobacilli and towards a more diverse microbiome in the period immediately following birth.  The new bacteria that colonize are often associated with vaginosis, and these can lead to inflammation and infection of the birth canal in some women.  The scientists suspect this shift occurs because there is a sudden drop in estrogen production upon removal of the placenta.  The increase in circulating estrogen is thought to be important for Lactobacilli colonization, so it makes sense that the rapid decrease in estrogen decreases Lactobacilli abundance.

Finally, this study showed that there were geographic and ethnic variations to the pregnant microbiome.  While each microbiome was associated with a healthy pregnancy, there were important differences, especially on the species level.  For example, Asian and Caucasian women’s pregnant microbiomes were dominated by Lactobacillus gasseri, while this species was absent in black women’s pregnant microbiomes.

Published on

This is the latest study raising health concerns about energy drinks, which include popular brands Red Bull and Monster. (See review article Energy Beverages: Content and Safety and from Time What’s In Your Energy Drink? ). And remember, they are not a "real food" when you look at the ingredients (e.g., caffeine, taurine and glucuronolactone, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, colors). From Live Science:

Energy Drinks Raise Blood Pressure, Study Finds

Energy drinks might give you some pep — but they might also be priming you for heart problems, a new study finds. Researchers found that energy drinks can raise blood pressure to potentially unhealthy levels. The effect was far more prominent in young adults who did not consume caffeine regularly, according to the study, presented March 14 at an American College of Cardiology meeting in San Diego.

In this study, the research team — led by Dr. Anna Svatikova, a cardiovascular-diseases fellow at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota — gave a can of a commercially available energy drink to 25 healthy volunteers, whose ages ranged from 19 to 40. On a different day, the participants drank the same amount of a placebo drink. The researchers measured the participants' heart rate and blood pressure before and after the drinks.

The participants experienced a more marked rise in blood pressure after consuming the energy drink than after drinking the placebo, according to the findings. The participants' average systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) increased by 3 percent more after they drank an energy drink, compared with after they drank the placebo drink. [5 Health Problems Linked to Energy Drinks]

The effect was most dramatic in people who did not typically consume more than a small cup of coffee or other caffeinated drink daily. In this so-called "caffeine-naive" group, the blood pressure increase was twice as high as the increase seen in the people who drank at least the equivalent of a cup of coffee on a daily basis, the researchers said in a statement...Scientists do not know whether it is the caffeine, taurine or other ingredients found in energy drinks — or a combination of ingredients — that can adversely affect the heart.

In a separate study, presented last year at an American Heart Association meeting by Maj. Emily Fletcher of the David Grant Air Force Medical Center, healthy volunteers experienced a greater increase in blood pressure after they consumed an energy drink compared to after they drank a coffee drink that had an equal amount of caffeine. This result, Fletcher said, suggests that ingredients in the energy drink other than caffeine were conspiring to raise blood pressure.

Published on

There are a number of very good health reasons to cut back or totally eliminate soda from your diet. The following articles and earlier posts discuss some of the ways both diet and regular soda are linked to health problems. Note in the second article that there's currently no federal limit for a byproduct of some types of caramel color called 4-MEI (a carcinogen) in food or beverages. California's Proposition 65 Law (aimed at reducing consumers' exposure to toxic chemicals) requires a  health-warning label on sodas with too high levels of 4-MEI resulted in manufacturers producing soda with lower levels of that chemical in the state. But sodas out of California may have higher levels! From Science Daily:

Diet soda linked to increases in belly fat in older adults

Increasing diet soda intake is directly linked to greater abdominal obesity in adults 65 years of age and older. Findings raise concerns about the safety of chronic diet soda consumption, which may increase belly fat and contribute to greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Metabolic syndrome--a combination of risk factors that may lead to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--is one of the results of the obesity epidemic.

The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA) enrolled 749 Mexican- and European-Americans who were aged 65 and older at the start of the study (1992-96). Diet soda intake, waist circumference, height, and weight were measured at study onset, and at three follow-ups in 2000-01, 2001-03, and 2003-04, for a total of 9.4 follow-up years. At the first follow-up there were 474 (79.1%) surviving participants; there were 413 (73.4%) at the second follow-up and 375 (71.0%) at the third follow-up.

Findings indicate that the increase in waist circumference among diet soda drinkers, per follow-up interval, was almost triple that among non-users: 2.11 cm versus 0.77 cm, respectively. After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, interval waist circumference increases were 0.77 cm for non-users, 1.76 cm for occasional users, and 3.04 cm for daily users. This translates to waist circumference increases of 0.80 inches for non-users, 1.83 inches for occasional users, and 3.16 inches for daily users over the total 9.4-year SALSA follow-up period.

From Medical Xpress:

Popular soda ingredient poses cancer risk to consumers, new study suggests

Public health researchers have analyzed soda consumption data in order to characterize people's exposure to a potentially carcinogenic byproduct of some types of caramel color. Caramel color is a common ingredient in colas and other dark soft drinks. The results show that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of six typically have at least one can of soda per day, possibly more, potentially exposing them to 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a possible human carcinogen formed during the manufacture of some kinds of caramel color.

"Soft drink consumers are being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk from an ingredient that is being added to these beverages simply for aesthetic purposes," says Keeve Nachman, PhD, senior author of the study and director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the CLF and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. ."

In 2013 and early 2014, Consumer Reports partnered with the CLF to analyze 4-MEI concentrations of 110 soft drink samples purchased from retail stores in California and the New York metropolitan area...While the 2014 study of the 110 samples of soda brands was not large enough to recommend one brand over another or draw conclusions about specific brands, results indicated that levels of 4-MEI could vary substantially across samples, even for the same type of beverage. 

Researchers also found sharply contrasting levels of 4-MEI in some soft drinks purchased in the New York metropolitan area, versus California. "Our study also found that some of the soft drink products sold in California that we sampled had lower levels of 4-MEI than the samples we looked at of the same beverages sold outside the state, particularly in our earlier rounds of testing. It appears that regulations such as California's Proposition 65 may be effective at reducing exposure to 4-MEI from soft drinks, and that beverages can be manufactured in ways that produce less 4-MEI," suggests Nachman. ."

From Medical Daily: Bye-Bye Sugary Drinks: This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda

Published on

I was recently asked my thoughts about a nutritionist recommending Benecol spreads, which I actually had never heard of before. After researching Benecol, I looked with horror at all the non-real food ingredients in the various products (for example, Benecol light spread, with 39% vegetable oil, included partially hydrogenated soybean oil, plant stanol esters, various emulsifiers, potassium sorbate, artificial flavor, etc).  I was dismayed because to me it didn't seem like a "real food" - where were the "real" whole food ingredients? For example,consider emulsifiers which recent research says disrupts the "gut microbiome" (the community of microbes living in the gut) and causes inflammation. Which we all know is not good. And partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats) are again a big health no-no. And on and on.

And recently the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an organization that represents some 75,000 registered dietitians and nutritionists, gave its first endorsement (with a "Kids Eat Right" seal of approval) to Kraft American cheese single slices. Huh? Processed cheese (with whey protein concentrate, emulsifiers, sodium citrate, etc.) got an approval seal and not real cheese? What is going on? The answer may lie with the fact that many nutritionists are accepting cash for endorsing certain foods, especially those promoted by big business companies. The latest to be endorsed are cans of Coca Cola soda! From the Tampa Bay Times:

 Coca-Cola paid nutritionists to tout Coke as heart healthy snack

If a column in honor of heart health suggests a can of Coke as a snack, you might want to read the fine print.The world's biggest beverage maker, which struggles with declining soda consumption in the U.S., is working with fitness and nutrition experts who suggest its cola as a healthy treat. In February, for instance, several wrote online pieces for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or small soda as a snack idea.

The mentions — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — show the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.

Ben Sheidler, a Coca-Cola spokesman, compared the February posts to product placement deals a company might have with TV shows. "We have a network of dietitians we work with," said Sheidler, who declined to say how much the company pays experts. "Every big brand works with bloggers or has paid talent."

Other companies including Kellogg and General Mills have used strategies like providing continuing education classes for dietitians, funding studies that burnish the nutritional images of their products and offering newsletters for health experts. PepsiCo Inc. has also worked with dietitians who suggest its Frito-Lay and Tostito chips in local TV segments on healthy eating. Others use nutrition experts in sponsored content; the American Pistachio Growers has quoted a dietitian for the New England Patriots in a piece on healthy snacks and recipes and Nestle has quoted its own executive in a post about infant nutrition."

Most of the pieces suggesting mini-Cokes say in the bios that the author is a "consultant" for food companies, including Coca-Cola. Some add that the ideas expressed are their own. One column is marked at the bottom as a "sponsored article," which is an ad designed to look like a regular story. It ran on more than 1,000 sites, including those of major news outlets around the country. The other posts were not marked as sponsored content, but follow a similar format.

Kelly McBride, who teaches media ethics at The Poynter Institute, which owns the Tampa Bay Times, said the phrasing of the disclosure that the author is a "consultant" for food companies, including Coca-Cola, doesn't make it clear the author was specifically paid by Coke for the column."This is an example of opaque sponsored content," McBride said.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a professional group for dietitians, says in its code of ethics that practitioners promote and endorse products "only in a manner that is not false and misleading." A spokesman for the academy did not respond when asked if the posts on mini-Cokes meet those guidelines. Meanwhile, a group called Dietitians for Professional Integrity has called for sharper lines to be drawn between dietitians and companies. Andy Bellatti, one of its founders, said companies court dietitians because they help validate corporate messages.

Published on

Two studies that found a link with air pollution and health effects.The first found a narrowing of the carotid arteries (that bring blood to brain). This narrowing (stenosis) occurs prior to strokes. While this could be explained by other factors (for example, by especially poor diets or cigarette smoking), the link between high air pollution and heart attacks and strokes has been noted since the 1950s. From Medical Xpress:

Pollution levels linked to stroke-related narrowing of arteries

Air pollution has been linked to a dangerous narrowing of neck arteries that occurs prior to strokes, according to researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center. The scientists analyzed medical test records for more than 300,000 people living in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut. They found that people living in zip codes with the highest average levels of fine-particulate-matter pollution were significantly more likely to show signs of narrowing (stenosis) in their internal carotid arteries, compared to those living in zip codes with the lowest pollution levels.

Fine particulate matter pollutants, also called "PM 2.5 pollutants," are particulates with diameters less than 2.5 millionths of a meter. They are mostly by-products of combustion engines and burning wood. "We spend a lot of time thinking about traditional risk factors for stroke such as high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes and smoking—but our data underscore the possibility that everyday air pollution may also pose a significant stroke risk," said senior investigator Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, an assistant professor in NYU Langone Medical Center in the Department of Medicine, Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology.

Medical researchers have noticed since the 1950s that episodes of high air pollution can bring temporary jumps in local heart attack and stroke cases. More recent studies have linked heart attack and stroke risks to long-term pollution exposures as well, including PM 2.5 exposures.

The two internal carotid arteries are situated on either side of the neck and provide most of the brain's blood supply. Strokes often result when accumulated plaque breaks off from a narrowed section of an internal carotid artery and blocks smaller vessels in the brain.

In the study, the carotid narrowing data came from vascular ultrasound tests performed on 307,444 tri-state area residents during 2003-2008 by Life Line Screening, a leading community-based health screening company focused on evaluating risk factors for vascular disease...The researchers' analysis showed that subjects in the top fourth of tri-state zip codes, ranked by average PM 2.5 levels, were about 24 percent more likely than those in the bottom quarter to have shown signs of stenosis—defined as a narrowing by at least half—in either internal carotid artery.

"Our study was a population study, so it can't establish cause and effect, but it certainly suggests the hypothesis that lowering pollution levels would reduce the incidence of carotid artery stenosis and stroke," says Dr. Newman. Scientists aren't yet sure how air pollution contributes to vascular disease. Studies have indicated that it may do so in part by causing adverse chemical changes to cholesterol in the blood, by promoting inflammation, and by making blood platelets more likely to form clots."

It has long been known that diesel exhaust has negative health effects. From Science Daily:

Researchers uncover a mechanism linking inhaled diesel pollution and respiratory distress

Researchers have, for the first time, shown how exhaust pollution from diesel engines is able to affect nerves within the lung...Diesel exhaust is a significant component of urban air pollution, containing a complicated mixture of gases and airborne particles. "Studies have shown that exposure to these diesel particles is associated with harmful health effects," says Mr. Robinson. "These particles are very small -- down to 20 nanometres in diameter -- and are therefore not only invisible to the naked eye, but can penetrate deep into the lungs.

Published on

For years there has been discussion about curcumin's anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, and anti-cancer effects, but more research is needed (some trials are going on now). Curcumin is a chemical compound found in turmeric. Turmeric is a member of the ginger family. It is used as a spice and is a common ingredient in Indian cooking, but also used in Middle Eastern and South Asian recipes.From Medical Xpress;

Curcumin proved effective at combating cancer

WA scientists have helped re-affirm that curcumin, a chemical compound found in turmeric, is a safe and promising treatment for most cancers and other inflammation-driven diseases.The international review considered past clinical trials using curcumin to treat cancer patients and concluded curcumin was a safe and effective molecule to treat cancer.

A/Prof Sethi says curcumin is exceptionally effective for multiple myeloma patients and those suffering from the particularly lethal pancreatic cancer, for which there are no drugs. However, curcumin was not found to be as effective in breast cancer patients being treated with the chemotherapeutic agent cyclophosphamide. According to the research, curcumin can counteract the effect of cyclophosphamide.

A/Prof Sethi says curcumin is possibly the only drug that can be given at high doses—up to 12g—without any toxicity.... A/Prof Sethi says the only known side effect of the agent is blood thinning, and therefore advises against taking curcumin if undergoing surgery.

He recommends people use turmeric more often in everyday cooking. A/Prof Sethi says it would be ideal to combine curcumin with other drugs or natural compounds, like piperine, an alkaloid found in pepper to increase its bioavailabilty..

A/Prof Sethi says there is a lack of data to explain the underlying mechanism of its effect, however, it is known for its anti-inflammatory effects. "It has been shown that most chronic diseases, including cancer, are caused by inflammation and can be treated by anti-inflammatory agents."He says more work needs to be done to improve curcumin's viability, as body tissues quickly absorb it.