Skip to content

Food is all important for health. A recent study (that analyzed data from 10 large studies in the US, Europe, and Asia) found an association between high fiber intake from foods and also frequent eating of yogurt with a lower incidence of lung cancer. Persons with the highest yogurt and fiber consumption had a 33% reduced risk of lung cancer (when compared to the group who did not consume yogurt and consumed the least amount of fiber).

Think of it this way: The fiber in foods feeds the beneficial bacteria in the gut. High fiber foods that feed microbes in the gut are known as prebiotics. It is good to eat a variety of foods, because they provide a variety of fibers. High fiber foods are whole grains, fruits, vegetables, seed, nuts, and legumes (beans).

Gut microbes use fiber to generate short-chain fatty acids, and these are anti-inflammatory. Evidence suggests that the beneficial effects are not restricted to the gut, but reach organs throughout the body, including the lungs. The researchers suggest that both fiber and yogurt have anti-inflammatory effects, and the combination of fiber and yogurt is stronger against lung cancer than either alone. They also thought that the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species in yogurt somehow help improve the gut microbial system.

From Medical Xpress:  High fiber, yogurt diet associated with lower lung cancer risk  ...continue reading "High Fiber Foods, Yogurt, and Lung Cancer"

Good news for women who really like to eat onions and garlic! A study conducted in Puerto Rico found that women who more frequently consumed garlic and onions, especially  "sofrito", had a lower risk of breast cancer. Both onions and garlic are an important part of the Puerto Rican diet, and sofrito is a raw onion and garlic based condiment or puree that is the base for many Puerto Rican dishes.

This study found that as consumption of garlic and onions increased, there was a decrease in the risk of breast cancer, which was true for women both before menopause or after menopause. There was evidence of a dose-response (the more eaten, the lower the risk). This association was especially strong for women consuming sofrito more than once a day - they had a 67% decrease in breast cancer risk compared to those who never ate sofrito.

The researchers point out that studies show that the more one eats of onions and garlic, the lower the risk of certain cancers, such as the lung, prostate, colon, and stomach. However, the evidence for whether it has a protective effect on breast cancer has been mixed, but with most studies finding a protective effect with frequent consumption of onions and garlic, especially raw onions and garlic. One study in Mexico found a 70% lower risk of breast cancer in those eating one slice of onion per day, compared to those eating less than one slice. The researchers also mentioned that studies find that cooking onions and garlic reduces their anticancer activity.

From Science Daily: Onion and garlic consumption may reduce breast cancer risk   ...continue reading "Onions, Garlic, and Lower Risk of Breast Cancer"

A new large study found that eating a flavonoid rich diet is associated with a lower risk of death. Flavonoids are compounds found in abundance in plant derived foods and beverages, such as fruits, vegetables, dark chocolate, tea, legumes, and red wine. The study followed about 56,000 people in Denmark for 23 years and found that eating higher levels of flavonoid rich foods was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause (all-cause mortality), heart disease (cardiovascular disease), and cancer.

The researchers found that there was an inverse relationship (the more one eats, the lower the risk of death), and that this relationship was strongest among cigarette smokers and people who consume high amounts of alcohol (more than 20 grams per day). Bottom line: Make sure your diet includes lots of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and dark chocolate (yes!).

By the way, while other studies do find a lower incidence of heart disease and cancer in people eating a diet rich in flavonoids, in this study they were not looking at who got the diseases, but looked at deaths. Therefore the following title is misleading. It should instead say "... protects against cancer and heart disease deaths..." From Science Daily: Flavonoid-rich diet protects against cancer and heart disease, study finds  ...continue reading "Eating Foods Rich In Flavonoids Has Health Benefits"

Are we looking at vitamin D and sunlight the wrong way? Back in 2016 I posted about the results of a long-running Swedish study that made me rethink everything I knew about sunlight and health. (The prevailing view of dermatologists at the time and now is: to always use sunscreen if going outdoors in order to lower the risk of skin cancer. In other words, that sunlight is always harmful.)

The Swedish study followed women for 20 years and found that: Women who had more sunlight exposure experienced a lower mortality rate than women who avoided sun exposure. However, they were at an increased risk of skin cancer. But those with more sun exposure lived longer due to a decrease in heart (cardiovascular) disease and other noncancer reasons. And the most surprising finding: Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a similar life expectancy as smokers with the highest sun exposure. In other words: avoidance of sun exposure = cigarette smoking when looking at life expectancy. And the results of sun exposure was dose-dependent, with the more, the better for longer life expectancy.

The researchers suggested that  a person's vitamin D levels might be just a marker of sun exposure, which other studies and articles now also suggest. So while we measure vitamin D levels in studies, maybe we should instead be looking at sunlight exposure.

Since then I read more studies that found other benefits of sunlight exposure, such as sunlight having low levels of "blue light" which energizes T cells. T cells are a type of white blood cell, are part of the immune system, and help protect the body from infection and cellular abnormalities (cancer). An earlier study found that exposing skin to sunlight may help to reduce blood pressure and thus cut the risk of heart attack and stroke.

This year I read the following two nicely written articles about this whole issue, both a little different - so worth reading both to get a good idea about the research and the debate.

1) From Outside: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?

2) From Elemental Medium: What If Avoiding the Sun Is Bad for You?

And once again, a link to the 20 year Swedish study, from the Journal of Internal Medicine: Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death: a competing risk analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort

A recent large study found that getting high levels of vitamin D from foods, but not supplements, is linked to a lower rate of a common skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma) years later. Once again: the beneficial health effect is associated with eating real foods, but not supplements.

Researchers found an inverse relationship with vitamin A intake and squamous cell carcinoma - those that had the highest dietary intake of vitamin A had a 17 % reduction of the skin cancer during the next 26 years. The inverse associations were highest among those with moles and those who had sunburns during childhood or adolescence.

The high intake group had the vitamin A amount equivalent to one medium baked sweet potato or 2 large carrots each day. Most of their intake came from fruitsand vegetables. Vitamin A (retinoids) is important in keeping skin cells healthy, and retinoids are considered cancer protective (or anticancer) for several cancers.

What foods are high in vitamin A?  Plant-based sources of vitamin A (carotenoids, including lutein and lycopene) include orange and yellow fruits  and vegetables, such as sweet potatoes, carrots, butternut squash, pumpkin, apricots, cantaloupe, red peppers, tomatoes, as well as broccoli, spinach, and leafy dark vegetables. Animal based sources of vitamin A  (retinol) are dairy foods (milk, cheese, yogurt), eggs, some types of fish (e.g. herring), and beef liver. (More information at National Institutes of Health.)

From Futurity: CAN GETTING MORE VITAMIN A CUT SKIN CANCER RISK?  ...continue reading "Vitamin A and Skin Cancer Risk"

For years researchers have been finding links between vitamin D and all sorts of health benefits, including lower incidence of cancer with higher vitamin D levels. A recent study by Michigan State physicians found that taking vitamin D supplements for at least 3 years resulted in cancer patients living longer, that is, "having significant reduction of cancer-related mortality" . However, it did not prevent cancer.

One issue with much of the vitamin D research that has been done is whether vitamin D is really  causing these health benefits or is it just an association? Perhaps people who take vitamin D are also different in some way from those who  don't, or something else is going on, and this may be confusing the results.What was nice about this  study is that it was a review of studies already done, but the researchers only included vitamin D studies  that used randomly controlled trials (RCT).

In the RCTs  included in the study, people were randomly assigned to different groups and either they were 1) given vitamin D supplements for 3 years or more, or 2) they did not take vitamin D supplements (the placebo group). Thus they evaluated 10 RCT studies with 79,055 persons who were followed for 4 years or more. Vitamin D was associated with significant reduction of cancer-related deaths (when compared with the placebo group). But there was no reduction in cancer incidence. Meaning the vitamin D did not prevent cancer (have a protective effect) in the studies they looked at.

The researchers did not say what they thought was an optimal vitamin D supplement dose or optimal levels in the blood. By the way, keep in mind that vitamin D can easily be gotten from exposure to sunshine. After all, it is called the sunshine vitamin.

From Science Daily: Vitamin D could help cancer patients live longer   ...continue reading "Vitamin D and Cancer"

Eat real foods, not supplements. Study after study has found beneficial health effects from eating real foods, but not from taking supplements. Now another large study found similar effects - eating real foods was linked to a lower risk of death for any reason (all cause mortality) and death from heart disease (cardiovascular), which was not found with supplements. The only dietary supplement that was associated with a lower risk of death and cancer was lycopene.

In fact, the Tufts University researchers also found that excess intake of calcium from supplements (exceeding 1,000 mg/day) was associated with a 62% increased risk for dying from cancer, but this was not found with foods. And even in persons with a low intake of nutrients from foods, the use of dietary supplements had no effect on the risk of death.The study conclusions were that: "Use of dietary supplements is not associated with mortality benefits among U.S. adults."

From Medical Xpress: Nutrients from food, not supplements, linked to lower risks of death, cancer

...continue reading "Getting Nutrients From Food (But Not Supplements) Linked to Lower Risk of Death"

Did you know that over 90% of all Americans have pesticide residues in their bodies? How do we know this? From studies and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which does biomonitoring of large groups of Americans in order to measure pesticides (and other toxic environmental chemicals) in their bodies. Biomonitoring tells us the "body burden" of toxic chemicals, usually by measuring them in our blood and urine, but also in hair, breast milk and meconium (an infant's first feces gives a measure of prenatal exposure to pesticides). Biomonitoring studies have detected hundreds of different chemicals (including many pesticides) in people, and shown that every single person has a mixture of many contaminants in their body.

The bad news is that we don't really know what all these chronic low level mixtures of pesticides are doing to us. Studies are finding health problems (e.g. various cancers, endocrine disruption, neurological and reproductive problems, even semen quality) with pesticide exposures - especially during pregnancy (the developing fetus), and during childhood. We're talking about pesticide exposures of ordinary people, living ordinary lives, in cities, suburbs, and rural areas.

How do pesticides get into us? Pesticides get into us from inhalation, through the skin, and through ingestion (foods, water). Studies find that conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are good ways to ingest pesticides, and with more of these foods eaten, the higher the pesticide residue levels in the body. Unfortunately, as more and more pesticides such as fungicides, glyphosate and 2,4-D are used on crops, our exposures and levels of these pesticides in our bodies are increasing.

When our homes, our gardens, and lawns are treated with pesticides, we also get exposed to pesticides. We track them from the outside, and children (and pets) play in them on treated lawns. We are exposed to pesticide "drift" from neighboring properties. Pesticides used inside the house stay in the house dust (they don't break down easily in homes). Pesticides are even found in rain and fog. Scary, isn't it?

Can we lower the levels of pesticides in our bodies? Absolutely yes. Eat as many organic foods as possible - the levels of pesticide residues in the body (as measured in the blood and urine) will go down rapidly. Study after study shows this. A study even found an association with eating organic foods and a lower cancer rateDon't use pesticides on lawns. Think of weeds as "native grasses" and clover as beneficial. When dealing with indoor pest problems, use least-toxic Integrated Pest Management.

A nice discussion of this is in a recent article by journalist Liza Gross. Excerpts from The Nation: More Than 90 Percent of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

...continue reading "Almost All Americans Have Pesticide Residues In Their Bodies"

For a few years I've been noticing that studies of vitamin D have had mixed results for a number of medical conditions. A number of times initial studies found an association with low levels of vitamin D and a number of medical conditions, but follow up well-designed studies are just not finding the same results with vitamin D supplementation - or results have been mixed. Also, in some studies, what initially looked like vitamin D being protective for some cancers and multiple sclerosis, now looks like it's sunlight that is giving the protective results. In some cases, vitamin D levels are a proxy for sunlight exposure (the more sunlight exposure, the higher the vitamin D levels in the person). The following 6 studies recently published highlight this same trend of mixed results.

While vitamin D levels increased from high dose vitamin D, there was no change in bone bone mineral density (BMD) in older adults during the 12 months of the study. No adverse effects form the vitamin D supplementation was reported [the older adults received 12,000 international units (IU), 24,000 IU, or 48,000 IU once a month]. From Science Daily: Vitamin D supplements are of no benefit to the over 70s

There is little benefit for those over 70 taking higher dose vitamin D supplements to improve their bone strength and reduce the risk of falls, new research has revealed.

High doses of vitamin D (4000 international units) appeared more beneficial than low dose vitamin D (400 international units) supplements in advanced colorectal cancer patients. From Medical Xpess: High-dose vitamin D shows benefit in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

...continue reading "Recent Vitamin D Studies Have Mixed Results"

Are all foods contaminated by the herbicide glyphosate? The weed-killer glyphosate, which is in Roundup, keeps turning up in foods - basically in every food studied. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and its use keeps increasing - which means we are increasingly exposed to more glyphosate residues in foods. What does this mean for our health? Along with other health effects (e.g. endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, alters the gut microbiome), there is increasing evidence that glyphosate herbicides are carcinogenic (cancer causing) - especially linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Studies detect glyphosate in most adults in the US, including pregnant women. Since glyphosate herbicides are so widely and heavily used by farmers (greater than 88.6 pounds per square mile in the US midwest!!, according to the USGS), then it is difficult to avoid glyphosate residue in foods. The US government is not helping the situation - they have been refusing to test for glyphosate in foods for years, and they have twice raised the allowable glyphosate residue levels in foods when asked to do so by Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup). The only way to avoid glyphosate is to eat organic foods - it is not allowed in organic food production. 

A recent Canadian government study looked at whether glyphosate was found in 200 honey samples from western Canada. Glyphosate was detected in 197 of the 200 samples! Even though beekeepers do not use glyphosate in beekeeping, the bees were picking it up in their search for nectar and bringing it back to the hives. Which means whenever one eats the honey, that person is also getting some glyphosate residues. A little here, a little there... we're getting  some everywhere...

Excerpts from an article by journalist Carey Gillam for Environmental Health News:

Weed killer residues found in 98 percent of Canadian honey samples

Study is the latest evidence that glyphosate herbicides are so pervasive that residues can be found in foods not produced by farmers using glyphosate. As U.S. regulators continue to dance around the issue of testing foods for residues of glyphosate weed killers, government scientists in Canada have found the pesticide in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

The authors of the study, all of whom work for Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, said the prevalence of glyphosate residues in honey samples - 98.5 percent - was higher than what was reported in several similar studies done over the last five years in other countries.  ...continue reading "Pesticide Residues In Honey"