Skip to content

An interesting study about exposure to household cleaning products (regular cleaning products compared to eco-friendly products) and the gut microbiomes of young children was recently published. Canadian researchers found that the use of household cleaning disinfectants in the home was associated with changes in gut microbial communities in infants (more of some bacteria and less of others) - when compared to infants living in homes where eco-friendly cleaners were used. These changes occurred in a dose dependent manner (the more they were used, the bigger the changes).

Also interesting was that the more disinfectants (which are antibacterial) were used in a home, the more Lachnospiraceae was found in the infant's gut microbiota in infancy (age 3 to 4 months), and this was associated with a higher body mass of the child at 1 and 3 years, and increased odds of being overweight or obese at age 3. Use of eco-friendly products was associated with decreased odds of the child being overweight or obese at age 3. What was heavy use of household disinfectants? Daily or weekly. Just keep in mind that these are associations - not a definite cause and effect. But animal studies find similar results. And I wonder - what is frequent use of disinfectants doing to adult gut microbiomes? From Medical Xpress:

Household cleaning products may contribute to kids' overweight by altering their gut microbiota

Commonly used household cleaners could be making children overweight by altering their gut microbiota, suggests a Canadian study published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). The study analyzed the gut flora of 757 infants from the general population at age 3-4 months and weight at ages 1 and 3 years, looking at exposure to disinfectants, detergents and eco-friendly products used in the home. 

...continue reading "What Are Household Disinfectants Doing To Our Gut Microbes?"

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"

Studies finding health effects from BPA keep appearing. BPA (bisphenol-A) is a chemical used in many everyday products (e.g. the lining of soda and food cans, store receipts) and so almost all humans are exposed to it daily. Researchers are getting increasingly worried about BPA and related chemicals (including substitutes for BPA such as BPS) because they are endocrine (hormone) disruptors with health effects in humans and animals. This chemical is so widely used that more than 7 billion metric tons of it are produced annually throughout the world.

Unfortunately the US government keeps agreeing with the chemical industry that the chemical is "safe", and disregarding the results of studies finding health effects (reproductive effects, obesity, etc). Of course the chemical industry is fighting tooth and nail to discredit studies done by independent researchers - a lot of money is at stake.

The following are excerpts from an article describing the latest study finding health effects from low dose exposure from BPA - it altered the amount of insulin released by the person (and so perhaps influencing the development of type 2 diabetes). What was worrisome is that the dose is considered "safe" by the US government - and in the study people were exposed to it once, while in real life humans are exposed to such doses multiple times daily.

The good news is that BPA is excreted within a day, but the bad news is that we the keep being exposed to it. By the way, substitutes for BPA (such as BPS) are just as bad, and are also endocrine disruptors - after all, they're all related chemically. So buying BPA-free canned food or plastic won't help a person avoid endocrine disruptors - these also leach into food. From an article written by Lynn Peeples at Environmental Health News:

In a scientific first, researchers gave people BPA — and saw a link to precursor of type 2 diabetes

In a scientific first, researchers gave people BPA — and saw a link to precursor of type 2 diabetesThe controversial study suggests that BPA exposure deemed safe by the feds could alter the amount of insulin released and elevate people's type 2 diabetes risk. 

A first-of-its-kind study of a small group of people exposed to a very small amount of bisphenol-A (BPA) is raising questions about the federal government's stance that low doses of the common chemical are safe — as well as the ethics of conducting such an experiment on humans.

...continue reading "Exposure to BPA Has An Effect on Insulin Levels"

The following article in a popular magazine follows up on research that came out last year about the alarming steep decline in male sperm counts and sperm concentration over the past few decades. This is true for the U.S., Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and it is thought world wide. The article discusses the causes: environmental chemicals and plastics, especially those that are endocrine disruptors (they disrupt a person's hormones!). These chemicals are all around us, and we all have some in our bodies (but the amounts and types vary from person to person). Some examples of such chemicals are parabens, phthalates, BPA and BPA substitutes.

Even though there are effects from these chemicals throughout life, some of the worst effects from these chemicals seem to be during pregnancy - with a big effect on the developing male fetus. Testosterone levels in men are also droppingBottom line: males are becoming "less male", especially due to their exposure to all these chemicals when they are developing before birth (fetal exposure). Since it is getting worse with every generation of males, the concern is that soon males may be unable to father children because their sperm count will be too low - infertility.

Why isn't there more concern over this? What can we do? We all use and need plastic products, but we need to use safer chemicals in products, ones that won't mimic hormones and have endocrine disrupting effects. Remember, these chemicals have more effects on humans than just sperm quality (here and here). While you can't totally avoid plastics and endocrine disrupting chemicals, you can definitely lower your exposure. And it's most important before conception (levels of these chemicals in both parents), during pregnancy, and during childhood.

Do go read the whole article. Excerpts from Daniel Noah Halpern's article in GQ: Sperm Count Zero

A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We’ve become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely. What’s causing this mysterious drop in sperm counts—and is there any way to reverse it before it’s too late? 

Last summer a group of researchers from Hebrew University and Mount Sinai medical school published a study showing that sperm counts in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have fallen by more than 50 percent over the past four decades. (They judged data from the rest of the world to be insufficient to draw conclusions from, but there are studies suggesting that the trend could be worldwide.) That is to say: We are producing half the sperm our grandfathers did. We are half as fertile.

The Hebrew University/Mount Sinai paper was a meta-analysis by a team of epidemiologists, clinicians, and researchers that culled data from 185 studies, which examined semen from almost 43,000 men. It showed that the human race is apparently on a trend line toward becoming unable to reproduce itself. Sperm counts went from 99 million sperm per milliliter of semen in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011, and the decline has been accelerating. Would 40 more years—or fewer—bring us all the way to zero? 

I called Shanna H. Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist at Mount Sinai and one of the lead authors of the study, to ask if there was any good news hiding behind those brutal numbers. Were we really at risk of extinction? She failed to comfort me. “The What Does It Mean question means extrapolating beyond your data,” Swan said, “which is always a tricky thing. But you can ask, ‘What does it take? When is a species in danger? When is a species threatened?’ And we are definitely on that path.” That path, in its darkest reaches, leads to no more naturally conceived babies and potentially to no babies at all—and the final generation of Homo sapiens will roam the earth knowing they will be the last of their kind.

...continue reading "Will All Men Eventually Be Infertile?"

Lately there has been discussion about "intermittent fasting" (on some days or time periods) and possible health benefits. Now an interesting small study has been published that found health benefits to eating as usual, but only within a restricted time frame.

Thirteen healthy, but overweight individuals were either assigned to an "eat normally as usual" group or a group that "ate only within a restricted time frame" - that is, they ate breakfast 1.5 hours or more later and supper 1.5 hours earlier (this was their last food of the day). After 10 weeks those eating only within the restricted time frame had lost body fat ( a health benefit), but not weight. However, there were complaints that eating within a restricted time frame was hard to do because it interfered with social events and family meals. Bottom line: lengthening the daily fast (from dinner to breakfast) without changing foods eaten appears to have health benefits. (Posts on "minifasting", Fasting Mimic Diet, fasting, 5 day calorie restriction). From Science Daily:

Changes in breakfast and dinner timings can reduce body fat

Modest changes to breakfast and dinner times can reduce body fat, a new pilot study in the Journal of Nutritional Sciences reports. During a 10-week study on 'time-restricted feeding' (a form of intermittent fasting), researchers led by Dr Jonathan Johnston from the University of Surrey investigated the impact changing meal times has on dietary intake, body composition and blood risk markers for diabetes and heart disease.  ...continue reading "Increasing the Length of the Nighttime Fast May Have Health Benefits"

Most people have heard about the three huge "garbage patches" in the ocean - where tiny pieces of plastic are floating and unfortunately also being eaten by fish and birds. But the story doesn't end there - we, all humans, are also ingesting tiny pieces of plastic, for example when we breathe and eat food (e.g tiny pieces are now in fish and shellfish, so we're also eating tiny pieces of plastic). How much are we inadvertently ingesting?  What is it doing to us? 

These tiny pieces of plastic less than 5 mm in size are called microplastics. As we know, plastic doesn't break down like food and wood (into compost, soil), but it does break apart into tiny particles (from friction, heat, and light). Right now research suggests that we are exposed to more microplastic particles in indoor air then outdoor air - for example, it's in the dust from breakdown of textiles used in our furniture and synthetic fabrics in the clothing we wear and wash. (Fleece especially sheds a lot into the air when worn and into our water when washed.) There are plastic microparticles in the air, in the wind, in our street dust. Examples of microplastics in outdoor air are from the use of vehicles, such as tire abrasion, construction activities, from artificial turf, and plastic litter. It's in our water - in rivers and lakes (and our drinking water), oceans, and in our soil.

Right now no one knows what the effects of ingesting these plastic microparticles are to humans (as pointed out in a 2017 study of urban dust by  Sharareh Dehghani et al) and whether we get rid of them or whether they persist in the body. Or even how much we're ingesting and breathing in. Another concern is whether there is an effect on developing children. Some research finds that microparticles can persist in the lungs.

The good news is that there are things one can do to lower the microplastic amounts in indoor air. To lower the amount of microplastics: open up your windows to vent the air (outdoor air is less polluted generally than indoor air), vacuum frequently, use a good filter on forced air heating systems and central air conditioning systems. Perhaps use a good air purifier. But also reduce the amount of plastics in your indoor environment by buying fewer items made from plastics (from furniture to ordinary household goods to toys to synthetic clothing, especially fleece). Try to buy "natural" as much as possible - especially natural fibers such as cotton, wool, linen, hemp.

Recently there have been a number of articles written about this issue for the general public. Well worth reading is: C. Joyce's article for NPR: Beer, Drinking Water And Fish: Tiny Plastic Is Everywhere  ...continue reading "We Are Eating and Breathing In Tiny Plastic Particles?"


Nice study that explains why sitting for long periods is so unhealthy - it reduces blood flow to the brain (cerebral blood flow) . The results from a study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) found that prolonged, uninterrupted sitting (4 hours in the study) in healthy office workers reduced cerebral blood flow. However this was offset when frequent, short-duration walking breaks were taken - about 2 minutes of walking every 30 minutes. However, taking a 8 minute walking break every 2 hours did not have the same positive effect - even though that was the same amount of walking over the 4 hour period.

Maintaining good blood flow to the brain is a great reason to stretch your legs and walk a few minutes whenever possible, preferably at least every 30 minutes - whether at work or at home. From Medical Xpress:

Sitting for long hours found to reduce blood flow to the brain

A team of researchers with Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. has found evidence of reduced blood flow to the brain in people who sit for long periods of time. In their paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, the group outlines the experiments they carried out with volunteers and what they found.  ...continue reading "Sitting For Long Periods and Reduced Blood Flow To the Brain"

The controversy over the pesticide Roundup and glyphosate (which is the active ingredient in Roundup) rages on. This week the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published results of independent laboratory tests (commissioned by them) that looked at glyphosate levels in common oat based foods (cereals, oatmeal, granola, and snack bars). Not surprisingly, they found glyphosate in almost all conventional cereals and at much higher levels than the little they found in some organic cereals (it was felt this was from cross-contamination or "pesticide drift" from conventional farms onto organic farms). The main questions are: Why is this pesticide found in foods? What, if anything, does this mean for our health? Are these levels safe?

The main thing to know: Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide (a type of pesticide) in the world. Over 250 million pounds were applied in the U.S. in 2015, with much of the application in the Midwest. Incredibly huge amounts of glyphosate are used in the midwest on farmland - greater than 88.6 pounds per square mile! Top crops it's used on are corn, soybeans, canola - especially genetically modified Roundup Ready crops. It is also used as a dessicant right before harvest ("preharvest") on many crops, such as wheat and oats (see Monsanto's guide for preharvest use). This is why harvested crops have glyphosate residues on them, and the foods we eat. Note that glyphosate (Roundup) can not be used on organic crops.

The herbicide has been linked to a number of health problems, including cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems. (Posts on glyphosate.)  There are currently hundreds of lawsuits from farmers and others claiming that Roundup gave them cancer. This past week a California jury awarded $289. millions dollars to a man who said his cancer was due to repeated glyphosate weed killer (including Roundup) exposure as part of his job. A new concern is that glyphosate has an effect on our gut bacteria - that it messes with the human gut microbiome. Also, that Roundup has more of an effect than glyphosate alone (what's in all those hiddden inert ingredients?) At this point we just don't have all the answers, but there is cause for concern.

Whether these government allowed levels of pesticide residue in our foods are "safe" is also being hotly debated. The chemical industry and EPA say it's safe, while a number of researchers are saying no. It has been pointed out by many that the chemical industry (Monsanto - the makers of Roundup) and the EPA have worked hand in hand to make sure that Roundup is considered "safe".

Also, government allowable levels of glyphosate in foods (called tolerance for pesticide residue) were raised when the pesticide industry lobbied for that (which happened when Roundup Ready crops were introduced and as preharvest use increased). The EPA for years deliberately did not look at how much glyphosate residue is in our foods - if you don't know, how can you be concerned? And research now shows that MOST people have detectable glyphosate residues in them, including most pregnant women. [See all glyphosate posts.]

Both Quaker Foods and General Mills (their product Cheerios was among those with higher levels of glyphosate residues) responded to the EWG report by saying that their products are safe because the glyphosate residue levels in their products are within the EPA’s acceptable levels. Yes, but are these levels really safe? Especially if a person eats many foods with multiple pesticide residues daily.

Bottom line: We just don't know what these small, but increasing levels of glyphosate residues in our food and our bodies means for our health. If you are concerned, and I am, then try to eat organic foods when possible, especially organic corn, soybean, canola, wheat, and oats in order to try to minimize glyphosate levels in your body. Glyphosate and Roundup is not allowed to be used on organic crops. 

Two recent studies caught my eye – both reviews of scientific research that looked at the issue of diet and whether it contributes to the development of Intestinal Bowel Disease (IBD), specifically Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. These are chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and which are rapidly increasing in developed countries (over 1 million individuals in the US). The main question is: Does a person’s diet contribute to the development of IBD?

Both articles (one in the journal Nature Reviews and one in Immunology) said: YES, there is growing evidence that a person’s diet has a role in the development of IBD. Both articles stated that the current view is that some individuals may be genetically susceptible, and their diet (which feeds the microbes in the gut) then makes them more prone to the disease due to the mucosal lining becoming permeable and inflamed. Studies have shown that people with IBD have gut microbial communities that are imbalanced or out of whack (dysbiosis).

What does this mean? A person’s diet has a key role in what microbes live in the gut (human gut microbiome) – what one eats feeds the microbes in the gut, and a person’s general dietary pattern feeds some types of microbes and not others. So what one eats determines what lives in the gut microbial community. Unfortunately a fiber-deficient diet (typical Western diet) is both linked to increased mucosal inflammation (the mucus layer of the intestines) and it makes it leaky. In other words, a fiber deficient diet impairs the mucus layer of the intestines. Animal studies also support this (that the diet regulates mucosal barrier function).

People in developed countries such as the US typically eat a Western style diet. A Western diet is characterized by high amounts of red meat, processed food, high-fat foods, refined grains, sugary desserts, and low intakes of dietary fiber. However, the Western style diet has been linked to increased mucosal inflammation of the intestines, and to a higher incidence of a number of diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.

What diet is best? A diet rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, legumes (beans), and fish. Low in red meat, but moderate amounts of poultry. High in vitamin D, and high in omega-3 fatty acids. High in dietary potassium and zinc. Eat the foods, not supplements. One good example to follow is the Mediterranean diet. Think of it this way: high fiber diets lower inflammation in the gut, low fiber diets increase inflammation.

Both articles had similar diagrams showing that diet has an effect on the microbes in the gut (the microbiome), which results in either 1) a healthy mucosal lining of the intestines, or 2) a disturbed mucosal lining, disturbed permeability, and inflammation. The one article calls it the “mucinous layer” and the other calls it the gut “barrier” in the diagrams, but both are talking about the mucosal lining of the intestines.

The following image contrasts the effects on the intestines of the two types of diet - the intestines on the left have "homeostasis" (balance) from a healthy dietary pattern (lots of fiber, fruits& vegetables, etc) , and the one on the right has inflammation from a Western dietary pattern.  To see it more clearly, go to the original Figure 1. in the article by L. Celiberto et al: Inflammatory bowel disease and immunonutrition: novel therapeutic approaches through modulation of diet and the gut microbiome

The other review:  The role of diet in the aetiopathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease

Another study finds that substantial weight loss can frequently reverse type 2 diabetes -  in 46% of people who had the disease 6 years or less. In the study (which was conducted in the United Kingdom) individuals were randomly assigned to different groups - either standard medical care for diabetes group or intense weight loss group (intense dieting in the first 4 months of the study), and then all were followed for 8 months (maintenance period). Those whose diabetes was reversed were all in the weight loss group and lost an average of 35 pounds during the weight loss (dieting) phase.

According to the researchers some of the non-responders (their diabetes did not reverse itself) just hadn't lost enough weight, but also tended to have diabetes a little longer (3.8 years) than the responder group (2.7 years).

Another similar earlier study also found that type 2 diabetes can be reversed in many after losing weight of about 31 pounds (600 to 700 calories a day) during an 8 week period. 40% of study participants overall reversed their diabetes, but 60% of those with short-duration of diabetes (under 10 years) reversed their diabetes. IN SUMMARY: Both of these studies had fantastic results in reversing type 2 diabetes after a large weight loss, which may lead to doctors suggesting weight loss as the number one thing to do after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. From Science Daily:

Why weight loss produces remission of type 2 diabetes in some patients

A clinical trial recently showed that nearly half of individuals with type 2 diabetes achieved remission to a non-diabetic state after a weight-loss intervention delivered within 6 years of diagnosis. Now a study published August 2nd in the journal Cell Metabolism reveals that this successful response to weight loss is associated with the early and sustained improvement in the functioning of pancreatic beta cells. This finding challenges the previous paradigm that beta-cell function is irreversibly lost in patients with type 2 diabetes.  ...continue reading "Type 2 Diabetes May Be Reversed With Weight Loss"