Skip to content

Want to reduce your risk of getting type 2 diabetes? Two large studies published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)  found that eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains really reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes.

The first study (which took data from 3 large American studies) found that persons eating the most whole grain foods (when compared to those eating the least) had a 29% lower risk in developing type 2 diabetes over the next 24 years. Whole grain foods included: whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, dark bread, brown rice, bran, wheat germ, and popcorn. The good results were from eating just two servings a day of whole grains.

A European study didn't just ask people what they ate, but actually measured the level of plasma vitamin C and carotenoids (from fruits and vegetables eaten) in the blood. Those with higher values had a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes over a 10 year period, with the highest group having a 49% lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Current guidelines recommend eating at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables each day, which is equivalent to eating 400 g or more per day. Many people don't eat nearly enough servings, as was seen in the study. Fruit and vegetable intake in the study  was divided into 5 groups, with median consumption ranging from 274 g (lowest), 357 g, 396 g, 452 g, to 508 grams (highest) per day.

The good news was that increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by just 66 grams (3/4 cup) per day was associated with a 25% lower risk of developing diabetes. So even a small  increase in fruit and vegetable consumption could help prevent type 2 diabetes!

By the way, there are also other health benefits from eating whole grains. Higher consumption lowers the risk of developing several major chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some types of cancer.

From Science Daily: Higher fruit, vegetable and whole grain intake linked to lower risk of diabetes

Higher consumption of fruit, vegetables and whole grain foods are associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to two studies published by The BMJ today.
...continue reading "Reduce Your Risk Of Diabetes By Eating Whole Grains, Fruits, and Vegetables"

Covid-19 is a weird and scary virus. It turns out that while most people report none or minimal symptoms from a Covid-19 infection, there are also thousands of people reporting prolonged symptoms. Instead of being sick with Covid-19 for 2 weeks or so (the average for mild cases), they get sick with the viral infection and then it never seems to go away. There may be big ups and downs with a wide variety of serious symptoms (including neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, fevers, heart palpitations), but they are still sick weeks or months after the initial infection.

What is going on? People experiencing long-term Covid-19 symptoms refer to themselves as "long-haulers" or "long-termers". Covid-19 is a new and complex disease that seems to attack many organs of the body. It is such a new disease that much is still unknown, including why some people seem to experience Covid-19 symptoms for weeks or months after the initial infection. But some possibilities are emerging, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) . ME/CFS clusters have occurred in the past after many infectious outbreaks, including after the SARS epidemic (a similar coronavirus) of 2003.

Paul Garner, professor of infectious diseases at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, has documented his battle with long-term Covid-19 symptoms in the British Medical Journal blog (also June 23 follow-up), and the need for "pacing" during recovery to prevent relapses. [twitter.com/paulgarnerwoof?lang=en ]

There are support groups on Facebook such as Survivor Corps, Covid-19 Support Group (have it/had it), Long Covid Support Group, and Long Haul Covid Fighters. Fiona Lowenstein started a Covid-19 support group (Body Politic Covid-19 support group) for people living with the virus

Bottom line: Don't let others, including doctors, dismiss your symptoms. They are real. Read about the experiences of others and join support groups. The good news is that slowly, over time, most people are reporting improvement. Unfortunately, it will take time for public health officials, including the CDC, to catch up and acknowledge what people are already experiencing.

The following are some good articles to read. Start with Ed Yong's article in The Atlantic: Covid-19 Can Last for Several Months

A first person account of prolonged Covid-19 symptoms. Professor Paul Garner's original British Medical Journal (BMJ) piece for the BMJ blog: Paul Garner: For 7 weeks I have been through a roller coaster of ill health, extreme emotions, and utter exhaustion

From VOX, the site for explanatory journalism: The emerging long-term complications of Covid-19, explained

From VOX: My coronavirus survivor group is my most important medical support right now

The CDC view of ME/CFS (but with no mention of Covid-19). From the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)

Many studies find differences between organic and conventional foods, with more favorable results for organic foods (e.g. better nutritionally, lower pesticide residues). A study by Emory University researchers that analyzed samples of conventional and organic milk from different regions of the US adds to the list. They found  that the samples of conventional milk contained pesticides, antibiotics, and synthetic growth hormones, but none of these were found in organic milk.

The pesticide levels in the conventional milk varied among the samples, but included frequently used pesticides such as atrazine, permethrin, cypermethrin, chloroyrifos, and diazinon. Chlorpyrifos, found in 59% of the conventional milk samples, is the pesticide that scientists absolutely want banned because of its neurotoxic effects, especially on developing babies and children.  They also found that antibiotic residue levels in conventional milk samples surpassed federal limits for amoxicillin (3%), and illegal sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Yikes!

These are important findings because milk is a staple in the diet of many people, especially children. By the way, international milk also can have pesticide and drug residues (e.g. Israel).

But not all organic milk is equal. Unfortunately a number of big so-called organic dairy farms (15,000 to 20,000 cows) are basically factory farms (e.g. Aurora Organic Dairy, Horizon) - they exploit loopholes in organic regulations, as well as deliberately not follow some organic standards. However, even low-quality organic milk has been shown to contain no residues of antibiotics and toxic pesticides - it's just that their milk nutritional profile is different than that of grass-fed organic cows.

Organic milk cows are supposed to be outside grazing during the growing season, at least 120 days a year - thus real organic milk is from "grass-fed" cows. Grass-fed cows (but not conventional and factory-farm organic cows) tend to produce milk with elevated levels of two types of fat: conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fat known as alpha-linolenic acid. Both have been associated with health benefits in humans, although the amounts found in milk are relatively small. Another type of fat called linoleic acid, (an omega-6 fat), tends to be lower in milk that is from pasture-fed cows.

The Cornucopia Institute has dairy scorecards and rankings of major organic milk brands, as well as other organic foods (e.g. poultry, cereal, eggs). Cornucopia is an organic agriculture watchdog group - an excellent resource to help you choose organic foods.

Some excerpts from the Jean A. Welsh et al. study in the journal Public Health Nutrition: Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA

Conclusions: Current-use antibiotics and pesticides were undetectable in organic but prevalent in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding federal limits. Higher bGH and IGF-1 levels in conventional milk suggest the presence of synthetic growth hormone. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these differences, if any, on consumers.   ...continue reading "Organic Milk Does Not Contain Toxic Pesticides Found In Conventional Milk"

Well.., given the high rate of C-sections in the US (32%) and many other countries, this is disturbing news. A study found that if a woman delivers her first baby by C-section (Cesarean birth), than her rates of conceiving again and also carrying the second baby successfully to term (a live birth) are lower than women who deliver a first baby vaginally.

The Penn State College of Medicine researchers looked at "unprotected intercourse and resulting conceptions", so it really was a measure of conception rates, and not a matter of choice. The study followed more than 2000 women for 3 years after the first birth, but it is unknown if these findings continue in year 4 and more. By the way, other studies over the years have had similar findings.

What could be causing these results? The researchers point out that it has been reported that many women (61%) develop a defect at the site of the cesarean incision (a cesarean scar defect) that may increase the risk of infertility.

From Science Daily: Women who deliver by C-section are less likely to conceive subsequent children

Women who deliver their first child by cesarean section (C-section) are less likely to conceive a second child than those who deliver vaginally, despite being just as likely to plan a subsequent pregnancy, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers. The team followed more than 2,000 women for three years after they delivered their first child.  ...continue reading "Conception Rates Are Different After C-Sections and Vaginal Births"

Humans (slightly) perk up their ears when listening intently to sounds! A recent study found that muscles around the human ear make tiny subtle movements (ear 'perking' movements) when focusing on novel, unusual, or specific sounds. These movements of muscles around the ears also indicate the direction of sounds a person is paying attention to.

It's not the obvious pointing of the ears that dogs and cats do - it's much more subtle and can be seen in the "electrical activity of muscles around the ear". Thus the researchers write: "Our species may nevertheless have retained a vestigial pinna-orienting system that has persisted as a 'neural fossil’ within in the brain for about 25 million years. Consistent with this hypothesis, we demonstrate that the direction of auditory attention is reflected in sustained electrical activity of muscles within the vestigial auriculomotor system. "

From Science Daily: Our animal inheritance: Humans perk up their ears, too, when they hear interesting sounds

Many animals, including dogs, cats and various species of monkeys, will move their ears to better focus their attention on a novel sound.  ...continue reading "Humans Slightly Perk Up Their Ears To Sounds"

2

Great news for those who enjoy a glass of wine or beer every day! A large study found that light to moderate drinking among middle-aged to older adults may preserve brain function as they age. Over a 10 year period, those who drank a drink or two a day tended to have better test scores in a series of tests that measured cognitive functioning.

Normally there is some cognitive decline as people age. But researchers found that low to moderate drinking (less than 8 drinks per week for women and less than 15 drinks for men) was associated with consistently higher mental functioning and slower rates of cognitive decline (when compared to those who never drank or drank more). They found that these associations were similar for both men and women, but stronger among white participants than black participants.

Just keep in mind that while this and other studies find cognitive benefits from drinking alcohol (in humans and mice), other studies find harms from drinking alcohol, specifically increased risk of many cancers.

From Science Daily: Light drinking may protect brain function

Light to moderate drinking may preserve brain function in older age, according to a new study from the University of Georgia.  ...continue reading "Is A Daily Glass Of Alcohol Good For The Brain?"

1

There have been concerns for years about the food additive titanium dioxide. This is because it may be in nanoparticle form, and recent studies have raised concerns that nanoparticles can travel to other organs in the body (because they are so small), and are inflammatory. Nanoparticles are so small that they are measured in nanometers or billionths of one meter.

It is added to food and medicines (e.g. Allegra) to make colors whiter and brighter, so it's not needed at all. It is in many processed foods, including candy and baked goods, so children actually consume more of it than adults. In Europe titanium dioxide nanoparticles (particles less than 100nm) are mainly found in the food additive called E171. Nanoparticles make up about 36% of the particles in E171.

Now a new study, even though done with mice, has raised more health concerns about titanium dioxide. Mice consuming titanium dioxide in their diet had significantly altered composition of their gut microbes, inflammation of their colon (the intestines), and changes in function of the liver. The effect was bigger in obese mice.

From Science Daily: Common food additive causes adverse health effects in mice

A common food additive, recently banned in France but allowed in the U.S. and many other countries, was found to significantly alter gut microbiota in mice, causing inflammation in the colon and changes in protein expression in the liver, according to research led by a University of Massachusetts Amherst food scientist.  ...continue reading "Titanium Dioxide Doesn’t Belong In Food"

High heat is not good for a developing baby during pregnancy. And neither is air pollution. A just published large study concluded that higher temperatures from climate change and increased air pollution (from ozone and fine particulates PM2.5) increases the risk of giving birth to premature, underweight, or stillborn children.

The researchers analyzed 68 studies, for a total of 32,798,152 births in the United States. Almost 33 million births! Another important finding was that those at highest risk were persons with asthma and minority groups, especially black mothers.

The researchers point out that animal studies find the same things: "that both air pollutant and heat exposure may contribute to adverse obstetrical outcomes". So there is lots of support for these findings of harmful effects.

Another recent study (by Univ. of California researchers) drew similar conclusions: that exposure to heatwaves during the week before birth was strongly linked to an increased risk of preterm delivery. And the hotter the temperature or the longer the heatwave, the greater the risk.

Since the long-term forecast is for increasing temperatures and longer duration heat waves throughout the world, these findings are very worrisome.

The study published in the JAMA Network Open (a Journal of the American Medical Association): Association of Air Pollution and Heat Exposure With Preterm Birth, Low Birth Weight, and Stillbirth in the USA: Systematic Review

A NY Times discussion of the findings: Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most

Discussion of earlier study (Feb. 2020) from Science Daily: Heatwave exposure linked to increased risk of preterm birth in California

1

Will 2020 be the warmest year on record? Early signs are suggesting that it might be - e.g. May was the warmest May globally, and the forecast is for a hotter than average summer. As month after month breaks temperature records, the question is - at what point will certain areas of the US (and other parts of the world) become unbearable? What can humans tolerate?

Temperatures are inching towards 120 degrees F in the summer in southwest United States, and higher elsewhere in the world. This is incredibly high! [For comparison, at 133 degrees Fahrenheit the coronavirus Covid-19 is killed off after 15 minutes.] While it varies for each species, the general rule for organisms is: "Above a certain temperature, a cell will collapse and die."

A Scientific American article wrote about humans: "So how does heat kill? When core body temperature rises too high, everything breaks down: The gut leaks toxins into the body, cells begin to die, and a devastating inflammatory response can occur."

There are stages to how the body responds: First heat exhaustion occurs. This can be reversed by moving the person to a cool location, loosening clothing, and applying cool, wet wash clothes to the body. But if the person does't get cooled off, then it advances to heat stroke. This is where their core body temperature rises above 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). Heat stroke can trigger seizures, convulsions, coma, and even death.

Another important point: humans can tolerate higher heat if the humidity is low. People cool off by sweating, and if the humidity is high, they can't. So keep all these things in mind when contemplating rising summer heat spells. What will humans eventually do as temperatures keep going up year after year? Mass migrations? Try to cope somehow?

Excerpts from Science News For Students: Explainer: How heat kills

The human body can’t handle excessive heat. The processes that keep us alive work best within a certain temperature window. That’s generally between about 36° and 37° Celsius (96.8° to 98.6° Fahrenheit), depending on the person.  ...continue reading "How Hot Is Too Hot For Humans?"

Eat dinner earlier, not later. A small study looked at the time dinner was eaten and the interval to bedtime. They found that eating a late dinner affects the metabolism negatively: blood sugar levels were higher, and the amount of ingested fat burned was lower, when compared to those eating an earlier dinner. Dinner was the same foods, just eaten at 2 different times.

The 20 young, healthy participants ate dinner at either 6 pm or 10 pm, and bedtime was at 11 pm. According to the results of the study, eating a late dinner alters metabolic markers during sleep in a way that could lead to obesity or diabetes. "The peak glucose level after late dinner was about 18% higher, and the amount of fat burned overnight decreased by about 10% compared to eating an earlier dinner."

This adds to evidence suggesting that the time meals are eaten can influence the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome. Sleep lowers the metabolic rate. Other studies have also found that eating earlier is better than later: for example, weight loss is greater in those eating the main meal of the day earlier rather than later.

The weird thing was, these effects were found even though the early dinner group was given a 200 calorie snack at 10 pm. So it's not like they had zero calories after their 6 pm dinner. (The late dinner group ate the same snack at 6 pm.) Based on these findings, I wonder how much better the metabolic markers would have been if zero calories were eaten after the 6 pm dinner?

From Science Daily: People who eat a late dinner may gain weight

Eating a late dinner may contribute to weight gain and high blood sugar, according to a small study published in the Endocrine Society's Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  ...continue reading "Try Not To Eat Dinner Close To Bedtime"