Skip to content

Many people have chronic low-grade inflammation, which is associated with a number of chronic diseases, and increased risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and early death. Thus there is a lot of interest in things a person could do to lower the inflammation. A number of studies have found a person's general diet may influence chronic low-grade inflammation - either increase it or decrease it, as well as whether they smoke or not. A recent large Swedish study found that persons who ate an anti-inflammatory diet for at least 16 years had a lower risk of dying early from any cause (all cause mortality), as well as dying from cancer, or dying from heart (cardiovascular) disease.

In the study an anti-inflammatory diet was a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grain cereals, whole grain bread, coffee, tea, red wine (low to moderate levels), beer (low to moderate levels), chocolate, nuts, olive and canola oils. These foods are both anti-inflammatory and also rich in anti-oxidants. Pro-inflammatory foods were: red meat, processed red meat, offal, chips, soft drinks. In other studies a pro-inflammatory diet was also one with lots of processed foods, low fiber, and refined grains. From Science Daily:

Anti-inflammatory diet linked to reduced risk of early death

Adhering to an anti-inflammatory diet was associated with lower risks of dying from any cause, dying from cardiovascular causes, and dying from cancer in a recent Journal of Internal Medicine study. ...continue reading "Diet, Inflammation, and Health"

A decades long study (from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) had results that many women may find reassuring - because there may be something they can do to increase their odds of preventing breast cancer. The study found that women who ate more than 5.5 servings of fruits and vegetables each day had an 11% lower risk of breast cancer than those who ate 2.5 or fewer servings daily.

While the findings support eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, they found that cruciferous (broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower) and yellow/orange vegetables (e.g. winter squash) appear to be especially beneficial in reducing the risk of breast cancer, especially those that are more aggressive tumors. The association between amount of fruits and vegetables eaten daily  and breast cancer appeared to be strongest 8 or more years before cancer diagnosis - meaning fruit and vegetable intake now appears to have effects many years later.

By the way, the researchers found in earlier research that a higher fiber intake (especially during adolescence and early adulthood) was also associated with a lower beast cancer risk. Now let's see if these findings hold up over time in other studies. From Science Daily:

High fruit and vegetable consumption may reduce risk of breast cancer

Women who eat a high amount of fruits and vegetables each day may have a lower risk of breast cancer, especially of aggressive tumors, than those who eat fewer fruits and vegetables, according to a new study led by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In their findings, cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, and yellow and orange vegetables, had a particularly significant association with lower breast cancer risk.  ...continue reading "Eating Lots of Fruits and Vegetables Associated With a Lower Breast Cancer Risk Years Later"

Once again, recent studies found that eating real food (fish) is associated with health benefits, but taking a supplement (omega-3) isn't. Similar findings about fish versus omega-3 fatty acid supplements have also been found in other studies. Fish contains omega-3 fatty acids and many other nutrients - more than are found in supplements.

The first study is a Cochrane review of studies already done. The review provides good evidence that taking long-chain omega 3 (fish oil, EPA or DHA) supplements does not benefit heart health or reduce risk of stroke or death from any cause. In other words, people take the supplements believing it helps heart (cardiovascular) health - but the evidence isn't there.

On the other hand, a large study of people living throughout the US and followed for 16 years found an association with higher fish consumption and lower risk of early death, and death from cardiovascular disease. Additionally, in men - those eating the most fish (as compared to those eating the least) had a lower risk of death from cancer, respiratory disease, and liver disease, and in women - lower risk of death from Alzheimer's disease. However, eating fried fish didn't have those health benefits. The group eating the most fish had 8 oz or more fish per week, while the group having the least had less than 2 oz. per week.

From Science Daily:  Omega 3 supplements have little or no heart or vascular health benefit

New evidence published today shows there is little or no effect of omega 3 supplements on our risk of experiencing heart disease, stroke or death.  ...continue reading "Health Benefits Linked to Eating Fish, Not Supplements"

Long-awaited  vitamin D studies are finally appearing this year. A large international study found that higher levels of vitamin D in a person's blood is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer. Those with the highest vitamin D levels had a 21% lower risk (compared to the lowest group) of colorectal cancer after an average 5.5 years.

But the researchers generally do not recommend vitamin D supplements - saying that most people had adequate levels from foods and sunshine. However, they suggest that the risk for vitamin D deficiency is higher for those with very dark skin; for older adults (their skin may not be as efficient at synthesizing vitamin D); and for those who do not go outside at all - and that these groups may need supplementation (but not beyond 4000 IU per day - because higher levels have negative health effects). From Medical Xpress:

Large international study links blood vitamin D levels to colorectal cancer risk

new study authored by scientists from the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and more than 20 other medical centers and organizations finds that higher circulating vitamin D concentrations are significantly associated with lower colorectal cancer risk. This study strengthens the evidence, previously considered inconclusive, for a protective relationship. Optimal vitamin D concentrations for colorectal cancer prevention may be higher than the current National Academy of Medicine recommendations, which are based only on bone health ...continue reading "Vitamin D and Colorectal Cancer Risk"

1

The last post was about several reviews of vitamin D studies, and how when people are put randomly into different groups and then followed for a while - that the studies generally are not finding the same wonderful effects of higher levels of vitamin D in the blood that observational studies are finding - instead finding no effect or mixed results. Some issues with observational studies: the groups are self-selected, some are a one time snapshot of a person (thus one can't tell what happens over time); and can't prove cause and effect (can only say there is an association or link). [See all posts about vitamin D.]

But anyway, today's post is about some more vitamin D studies, all published in 2018. All of them find health benefits from higher blood levels of vitamin D. What is an ideal level of vitamin D varies from study to study, and some are observational - thus can only say "find an association with" in the findings. The fifth study finds beneficial effects from higher doses of vitamin D, and the participants were randomly assigned to the groups (good!). Click on links to read details. All excerpts are from Science Daily:

Vitamin D deficiency linked to greater risk of diabetes

An epidemiological study conducted by researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Seoul National University suggests that persons deficient in vitamin D may be at much greater risk of developing diabetes. The findings are reported in the April 19, 2018 online issue of PLOS One ...continue reading "Five Studies Looking at Vitamin D and Health"

Does the type of iron in supplements and additives matter for your health? OK, this was a preliminary study and done in a lab using human cells, which means much more research needs to be done, but... It may be that different forms of iron in supplements and additives have slightly different effects in the human body, specifically the intestines. Ferrous sulphate so far looks good (had no effect on the cancer cells studied), while 2 other forms of iron - ferric citrate and ferric EDTA - may actually promote the formation of colon cancer. That is, they may be considered carcinogenic.

Ferric EDTA and ferric citrate have been observed to promote colon cancer in studies using mice. Bottom line: When buying supplements and foods, check labels to make sure the iron is in the form of ferrous sulphate, and not ferric citrate or ferric EDTA. From Science Daily:

Certain iron supplements may influence the development of colon cancer ...continue reading "Perhaps The Type Of Iron Supplement Matters"

A recent study published in BMJ (British Medical Journal) found a link between high consumption of ultra-processed food and higher rates overall of cancer, but also a higher risk of breast cancer. Specifically, a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a greater than 10% increase of overall cancer and 11% increase of breast cancer during the 6+ years of the study.

Alarmingly (because of the health implications), several surveys (in Europe, the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Brazil) have suggested that ultra-processed food products are now between 25 to 50% of calories eaten every day.

Ultra-processed food is food that is highly processed. It is food that is mass produced and packaged, as well as foods that have manufactured substances in them - such as hydrogenated oils (also contains trans fats), protein isolates, additives, preservatives, artificial or natural flavors, colors, nitrites (in processed meat), titanium dioxide (nanoparticles), etc. The food packaging can leach chemicals such as pthalates (endocrine disruptors). The list goes on and on and on. All of these things in ultra-processed foods may be involved in causing health problems, including cancer. They are typically also poorer nutritionally and higher in salt than unprocessed or minimally processed foods. These ultra-processed foods that are so popular are all around us - in fast food, in mass produced desserts and breads, packaged snacks, soups, cold cuts, margarine, frozen or shelf stable ready to eat meals, instant foods, sodas and drinks, etc.

On the other hand, unprocessed or minimally processed foods are fresh, dried, ground, chilled, frozen, pasteurised, or fermented foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes (beans), rice, pasta, eggs, meat, fish, or milk. There are also “processed culinary ingredients”  which are salt, vegetable oils, butter, sugar, and other substances extracted from foods and used in kitchens to transform unprocessed or minimally processed foods into "culinary preparations" (meals). The study did NOT find any association with unprocessed, minimally processed, or processed culinary ingredients with cancer. Only with the ultra-processed food. Instead, the study found that higher consumption of “minimally/unprocessed foods” (and lower ultra-processed food) was associated with lower risks of overall cancer and breast cancer.

So an apple is unprocessed, and plain apple sauce made with just apples is minimally processed, while a packaged apple dessert with additives added is ultra-processed. Think of it as "transformed food". Also keep in mind that your beneficial gut microbes like unprocessed or minimally processed food - especially those high in fiber. You know - a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, legumes (beans).  ...continue reading "Ultra-Processed Food and Risk of Cancer"

The results of a recent study in the United Kingdom are in line with what a number of researchers (here, here, and here) have been writing about for a while - that studies show that some cancer screening (e.g. for prostate cancer) of people with no symptoms does not save lives.

The UK study randomly assigned men (aged 50 to 69) to get a PSA test one time or to not get a PSA test (the controls). The PSA test measures prostate-specific antigen in the blood, and is typically used to screen for prostate cancer. It is not done routinely in the UK. They found that while more men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the PSA group, after 10 years there was no statistical difference in death rates between the two groups. As the researchers themselves said, the PSA screening test resulted in "an increase in the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases" (the ones that wouldn't cause a problem). But not in the aggressive killer cancers.  However, the researchers are now continuing the study to see if there are differences in the 2 groups after an even longer period of time. From Medical Xpress:

One-off PSA screening for prostate cancer does not save lives

Inviting men with no symptoms to a one-off PSA test for prostate cancer does not save lives according to results from the largest ever prostate cancer trial conducted over 10 years by Cancer Research UK-funded scientists and published today (Tuesday) in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Researchers at the Universities of Bristol and Oxford found that testing asymptomatic men with PSA detects some disease that would be unlikely to cause any harm but also misses some aggressive and lethal prostate cancers.

The CAP Trial, which spanned almost 600 GP practices in the UK and included more than 400,000 men aged 50-69, is the largest trial ever to investigate prostate cancer screening. The trial compared 189,386 men who were invited to have a one-off PSA test with 219,439 men who were not invited for screening. After an average of 10 years follow up, there were 8,054 (4.3%) prostate cancers in the screened group and 7,853 (3.6%) cases in the control group. Crucially, both groups had the same percentage of men dying from prostate cancer (0.29%).

While some prostate cancers are aggressive and lethal, others are clinically insignificant and will never lead to any harm or death if left undetected. Ideally, aggressive prostate cancers need to be identified and treated as early as possible. But finding a cancer that would never have caused men harm during their lifetime can have a serious impact on quality of life, including the worry of a cancer diagnosis, the possibility of infection following a biopsy and impotence and incontinence following treatment. ... Dr Richard Roope, Cancer Research UK's GP expert, said: "The PSA test is a blunt tool missing the subtleties of the disease and causing men harm.

Are there foods that could prevent cancer? Well... studies show that a dietary pattern with lots of fiber, and perhaps along the lines of the Mediterranean diet, may be the most beneficial. In other words, it's not just one or a few "super-foods" that a person should eat, but an overall dietary pattern. But one specific food does appear beneficial for health - nuts, specifically tree nuts.

Researchers at the Yale Cancer Center followed a large group of stage 3 colon cancer patients after they had been treated for about 6.5 years, and looked at how frequently they consumed nuts. (Stage 3 colon cancer means it had spread to lymph nodes, but not to distant sites like the liver and lungs.) They found an association with frequent consumption (2 or more servings per week) of tree nuts (walnuts, hazelnuts, almonds, cashews, pecans, etc.) and a 42% lower incidence of the colon cancer recurring and 57% lower death rate. However, these findings did not apply to peanuts, which are legumes. [NOTE: One ounce or a handful of nuts is considered a serving.]

Why would nuts be beneficial? Generally speaking, nuts lower inflammation and insulin resistance. The lead researcher Dr. Charles Fuchs said that "behaviors that make you less insulin-resistant, including eating nuts, seem to improve outcomes in colon cancer". Parts of this research were discussed last year, but now it has been written up in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. ...continue reading "Nuts And Colon Cancer"

Once again, a study found an association between a worrisome health problem (intestinal polyps) with a dietary supplement (calcium), but no problems with eating the foods (calcium rich foods). The large multi-center study specifically looked at serrated polyps (SPs) because they are considered precursor lesions for colorectal cancer - that is, that while they are not cancerous, some of them will develop into cancer. Persons invited to join the study had a recent colonoscopy with at least one adenomatous polyp detected and removed, and then were scheduled for another colonoscopy 3 to 5 years later. This was considered a "chemoprevention study" to see if certain supplements help prevent polyps (and thus cancer).

People in different parts of the US were randomly assigned to either receive calcium supplements (1200 mg/day of elemental calcium), vitamin D (1000 IU/day of vitamin D3),  both supplements (calcium supplement plus vitamin D), or neither. Supplement treatment continued for 3 to 5 years and then there was an observational period that was 6 to 10 years after the person first started supplementation. The higher incidence of serrated polyps was a "late effect" (6 to 10 years later) and not seen during the treatment time (the first 3 to 5 years). They found that women and current smokers had higher risks of serrated polyps when exposed to supplemental calcium. Vitamin D alone was not linked with polyps.

Other studies have also found an association between calcium supplements and increased risk of certain health problems, and a lower incidence of polyps with a higher intake of dietary calcium (real food). The researchers said: "Patients with a history of premalignant serrated polyps, especially women and smokers, may wish to avoid vitamin D and calcium supplementation." BOTTOM LINE: General guidelines should be to eat foods, not supplements, to get your nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. There are many studies also at this point that a high fiber diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), nuts, seeds are associated with better intestinal health and fewer polyps (here, here). Another way to view it is: feed your beneficial gut microbes with good, real food. And especially not highly processed junk. From Medical Xpress:

Calcium supplements may boost risk of abnormal bowel growths

Calcium supplements, taken with or without vitamin D, may increase the risk of small growths in the large bowel (colon) called polyps, suggest results from a large US trial published online in the journal Gut. Polyps are small growths in the lower part of the large bowel. They are non-cancerous, but some could eventually turn into cancer if they are not removed. Polyps come in different shapes and sizes, and this study specifically focused on the risk of serrated polyps, which are less common than conventional "adenomatous" polyps, but likely have the same risk of developing into cancer. 

...continue reading "Best to Eat Calcium Rich Foods, Not Calcium Supplements"