Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on High Fiber Diet Is Beneficial For Those With Type 2 Diabetes

Once again a study found that a high fiber diet feeds beneficial gut microbes and causes changes in the gut microbe community (the microbiome). What's new in this study is that eating the high fiber diet had health benefits for people with type 2 diabetes - that it lowered their blood sugar levels (better blood glucose control), resulted in  greater weight loss, and better lipid levels. And that when these gut microbes were transplanted into mice - they had similar health effects (better regulation of blood sugar). Which showed it was the microbes that caused the beneficial effects.

What foods are high-fiber foods? Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes (beans). [See Feeding Your Gut Microbes] From The Scientist:

High-Fiber Diet Shifts Gut Microbes, Lowering Blood Sugar in Diabetics

A diet high in fiber can reshape the gut microbiome, helping people with type 2 diabetes stay healthy. A study published yesterday (March 8) in Science found that when patients with the condition ate a high-fiber diet, they had an abundance of microbial species that helped to reduce blood sugar and regulate weight compared with cohorts who ate a less fiber-rich diet.  ...continue reading "High Fiber Diet Is Beneficial For Those With Type 2 Diabetes"

Published on Leave a comment on Differences Between Grass-Fed Organic, Organic, and Conventional Milk

People often wonder if there are any health benefits to buying organic milk versus conventional milk. And further, how about grass-fed organic milk? Now a recent study answers that question nicely with regards to beneficial fatty acids. Keep in mind that ideally (for health benefits) want fewer omega-6 fatty acids, and more omega-3 fatty acids, with a ratio close to 1. Guess which is the healthiest? The 100% grass-fed organic milk (ratio of .95 - just about 1) is best, then the organic milk, and in last place - conventional milk.

Why is that? It's due to different food and grazing requirements (see below). From Beyond Pesticides:

Study Finds Grass-Fed and Organic Milk to be Healthier Than Conventional

Milk from 100% grass-fed cows has higher levels of beneficial fatty acids than conventional and even organic milk, according to a study published by an international team of scientists in the journal Food Science and Nutrition. The research follows up on data published in 2013, which compared only conventional and organic milk, finding organic milk contained 62 percent more omega-3 fatty acids and 25 percent fewer omega-6s. 

The study compared the composition of several fatty acids within the three types of milk tested (conventional, organic, and grass-fed). Of primary concern was the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids. Although omega 6s are not necessarily bad fats, high amounts or unbalanced ratios of omega-6 to omega-3s has been linked to a range of health problems, from cardiovascular disease, to cancer and other illnesses. High consumption of omega 3s, on the other hand, is linked to reduced risks of a number of diseases, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer, and many other chronic disorders. The diet of early humans maintained a ratio of 1, but modern Western food production, with its focus on processed and hydrogenated fats, has raised that ratio to an average of 15.

Looking at over 1,600 milk samples over a 3-year span, results found ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 to be .95 for 100% grassfed milk, 2.28 for organic milk, and 5.77 in conventional milk.  ...continue reading "Differences Between Grass-Fed Organic, Organic, and Conventional Milk"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Does Prostate Cancer Screening Save Lives?
Prostate, urethra, and bladder Credit: Wikipedia

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.

Published on Leave a comment on Best to Eat Calcium Rich Foods, Not Calcium Supplements

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"

Published on Leave a comment on Can We Avoid the Endocrine Disruptors Around Us?

Today I am posting the story of one person writing about how hard it is to reduce contaminants, that is, unwanted chemicals, in our bodies. The story is by Nicholas Kristof, who has been eating organic foods and trying his best to avoid endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (such as BPA) for a number of years. But the analysis of his urine showed that he wasn't able to totally avoid them.

This also raises the question - how many more unwanted chemicals would have been in his body if he hadn't been so diligently trying to avoid them? And as usual, the question remains - what are all these chemical mixtures doing to him and to us? How about developing fetuses and children? To men and women trying to conceive a baby? To the ill and elderly? Right now an experiment is going on in the world, one which we can't escape - chemicals, including endocrine disruptors (all produced by the chemical industry) are being tested on us (the research subjects). For more information on this topic, click on category ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS and scroll through the posts, or go to Environmental Working Group - ewg.org, or get a Detox Me Action Kit from the Silent Spring Institute (and get your urine analyzed).  Excerpts from the article by Nicholas Kristof, from the NY Times:

What Poisons Are In Your Body?

Our bodies are full of poisons from products we use every day. I know – I’ve had my urine tested for them. But before I get into all that, let’s do a quick check for poisons that might be in your body. 

...continue reading "Can We Avoid the Endocrine Disruptors Around Us?"

Published on Leave a comment on Heavy Drinking And Risk of Dementia

Study after study has found negative health effects from frequent heavy drinking of alcohol, including a number of cancers. On the other hand, light to moderate drinking seems to have some health benefits (here and here). Recently a large study conducted in France found that chronic heavy drinking, which has resulted in alcohol use disorders (alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, or alcoholism), is the biggest risk factor for developing dementia, especially early onset dementia. Only people with alcohol use disorders which resulted in them being hospitalized were included in the study.

But the surprising thing was that lower levels of "chronic heavy drinking" doesn't seem so much - it's daily consumption of more than 60 grams of pure alcohol  for men, and more than 40 grams of pure alcohol for women. In the United States, a standard drink contains about 14 grams of alcohol - which is a 12 ounce (350 ml) glass of beer, a 5 ounce (150 ml) glass of 12% wine, or a 1.5 ounce (44 ml) glass of spirits. In other words, drinking 3 glasses of wine daily (or more) is heavy drinking for a woman. (Note: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) views moderate drinking as 1 glass of wine daily for women, and 2 glasses of wine daily for men).  ...continue reading "Heavy Drinking And Risk of Dementia"

Published on Leave a comment on Eating Yogurt Associated With Lower Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke

Another study finding health benefits from eating yogurt - that men and women with hypertension who eat at least 2 servings or more per week of yogurt were at a lower risk of having a heart attack (myocardial infarction) and stroke. Women also had a lower risk of a revascularization procedure (such as a coronary artery bypass). The strongest association between yogurt consumption and lower risk of cardiovascular disease was among those with higher DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet scores.The DASH diet is considered a healthy diet, one rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, beans (legumes), etc.

The major thing to keep in mind is that high blood pressure is a major cardiovascular disease risk factor. So anything that helps lower risk of heart attack or stroke is good. Note that in this large study they did not randomly assign people to different groups - so the higher yogurt intake people also tended to have a healthier lifestyle. But other studies have had similar findings to this one. For example, eating dairy products regularly is linked to lower rates of cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure, while eating yogurt regularly is linked to lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

Also note that the types of yogurt (whole-fat, low-fat, non-fat) eaten were not looked at, as well as the types of probiotics added to yogurts. Some research suggests that beneficial effects are from whole fat dairy products rather than low-fat dairy products - which is different than DASH diet recommendations. From Science Daily:

Eating yogurt may reduce cardiovascular disease risk

A new study in the American Journal of Hypertension, published by Oxford University Press, suggests that higher yogurt intake is associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk among hypertensive men and women. .... High blood pressure affects about one billion people worldwide but may also be a major cause of cardiovascular health problems. Higher dairy consumption has been associated with beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease-related comorbidities such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and insulin resistance.

For the current analyses, participants included over 55,000 women (ages 30-55) with high blood pressure from the Nurses' Health Study and 18,000 men (ages 40-75) who participated in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study.

Higher intakes of yogurt were associated with a 30 percent reduction in risk of myocardial infarction among the Nurses' Health Study women and a 19 percent reduction in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study men. There were 3,300 and 2,148 total cardiovascular disease cases (myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization) in the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, respectively. Higher yogurt intake in women was associated with a 16 percent lower risk of undergoing revascularization.

In both groups, participants consuming more than two servings a week of yogurt had an approximately 20 percent lower risks of major coronary heart disease or stroke during the follow-up period. When revascularization was added to the total cardiovascular disease outcome variable, the risk estimates were reduced for both men and women, but remained significant. Higher yogurt intake in combination with an overall heart-healthy diet was associated with greater reductions in cardiovascular disease risk among hypertensive men and women.  [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Chronic Diseases Raise Cancer Risk, and Exercise Lowers It

A new observational study from Taiwan found that having one of eight chronic diseases, such as heart disease or diabetes, or their markers (e.g. high cholesterol levels as a marker for heart disease), also significantly raises the person's odds of developing cancer or dying from cancer. The study estimated that these diseases or markers accounted for about 20% of all new cancers and 39% of all cancer deaths. That's about the risk of 5 lifestyle factors combined (smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, unhealthy diet, and lack of exercise) contributing to cancer development and death.

The eight chronic diseases and markers were: cardiovascular disease (markers for which include blood pressure, total cholesterol, and heart rate), diabetes, chronic kidney disease (markers for which include proteinuria and glomerular filtration rate), pulmonary disease, and gouty arthritis (for which uric acid is a marker). The higher the chronic disease and marker score, the higher the risk of developing cancer and cancer death (a dose-response). Chronic diseases and markers were associated with a shortened lifespan -  about 13.3 years in men and 15.9 years in women.

But the good news is that regular physical exercise lowers the risk of developing cancer by about 48% and the risk of cancer death by 27%. That's huge!  So physical exercise and activity could be viewed as "cancer prevention" strategies. The researchers pointed out that additional cancer prevention strategies are avoiding smoking (very important), avoiding excessive alcohol consumption, maintaining healthy weight, and a healthy diet. From Science Daily:

Substantial impact of chronic diseases on cancer risk

Several common chronic diseases together account for more than a fifth of new cancer cases and more than a third of cancer deaths, finds a study published by The BMJ today. The findings show that the cancer risks from common chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, are as important as those from five major lifestyle factors combined.

A team of researchers based in the US and Taiwan therefore set out to investigate the combined effect of eight common chronic diseases or disease markers (for example, high blood pressure as a marker of heart disease) on cancer risk compared with lifestyle factors. They also explored whether physical activity could reduce the cancer risk associated with chronic diseases and disease markers. The study involved 405,878 men and women in Taiwan with no history of cancer .... underwent a series of medical tests between 1996 and 2007. .... Participants were followed for an average of 8.7 years.

The researchers found that cardiovascular disease markers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease markers, pulmonary disease, and gouty arthritis marker were individually associated with risk of developing cancer or cancer death. Higher chronic disease risk scores based on these diseases or markers were linked with an increased risk of developing cancer and cancer death, with the highest level associated with a more than twofold increase in risk of developing cancer and a fourfold increase in risk of cancer death.

High chronic disease risk scores were also associated with substantial reduction in life span. The highest scores were associated with 13.3 years of life lost in men and 15.9 years of life lost in women. Together, these chronic diseases and markers accounted for more than one fifth of all new cancers and more than one third of all cancer deaths in this study population, which was similar to the contribution of five major lifestyle risk factors combined -- smoking, insufficient physical activity, insufficient fruit and vegetable intake, alcohol consumption, and obesity.

The researchers also found that physical activity was associated with a nearly 40% reduction in the excess risks of cancer and cancer death associated with chronic diseases and markers. [Original study.]

1

Published on 1 Comment on A Little Alcohol Daily May Be Beneficial

Interesting new research found health benefits to the brain from daily low intake of alcohol (equivalent to about 2 1/2 drinks per day). The University of Rochester (in New York) researchers found that while low daily (chronic) levels of alcohol were beneficial to the brain's glymphatic system, higher daily levels or binge drinking was not. And the low daily levels of alcohol intake was also better for the glymphatic system than no alcohol at all (the control group). In 2015 this same research team described the glymphatic system as not just the brain’s “waste-clearance system,” but as potentially helping fuel the brain by transporting glucose, lipids, amino acids, and neurotransmitters.

I'm sure this study will be greeted by many as great news, but remember it was done with MICE, and not humans, so one should be cautious in generalizing the results. But the researchers think that it does apply to humans, and may explain why some studies find some health benefits to low levels of daily alcohol intake, even better than no alcohol, and many negative effects to higher levels of alcohol intake - thus the J-shaped curve of effects seen in studies. [NOTE: Studies also find that alcohol consumption can cause cancer, and this is dose related. Studies find the Mediterranean diet (which includes low to moderate levels of alcohol) beneficial for brain health.]

By the way - no, the mice didn't receive wine as the press release from the Univ. of Rochester says. The mice actually received "intraperitoneal injections of low, intermediate, and high doses of ethanol" or just plain saline (the control group). From Science Daily:

In wine, there's health: Low levels of alcohol good for the brain

While a couple of glasses of wine can help clear the mind after a busy day, new research shows that it may actually help clean the mind as well. The new study, which appears in the journal Scientific Reports, shows that low levels of alcohol consumption tamp down inflammation and helps the brain clear away toxins, including those associated with Alzheimer's disease.

"Prolonged intake of excessive amounts of ethanol is known to have adverse effects on the central nervous system," said Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., co-director of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) and lead author of the study. "However, in this study we have shown for the first time that low doses of alcohol are potentially beneficial to brain health, namely it improves the brain's ability to remove waste." The finding adds to a growing body of research that point to the health benefits of low doses of alcohol. While excessive consumption of alcohol is a well-documented health hazard, many studies have linked lower levels of drinking with a reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases as well as a number of cancers.

Nedergaard's research focuses on the glymphatic system, the brain's unique cleaning process that was first described by Nedergaard and her colleagues in 2012. They showed how cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is pumped into brain tissue and flushes away waste, including the proteins beta amyloid and tau that are associated with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Subsequent research has shown that the glymphatic system is more active while we sleep, can be damaged by stroke and trauma, and improves with exercise.

The new study, which was conducted in mice, looked at the impact of both acute and chronic alcohol exposure. When they studied the brains of animals exposed to high levels of alcohol over a long period of time, the researchers observed high levels of a molecular marker for inflammation, particularly in cells called astrocytes which are key regulators of the glymphatic system. They also noted impairment of the animal's cognitive abilities and motor skills.

Animals that were exposed to low levels of alcohol consumption, analogous to approximately 2 ½ drinks per day, actually showed less inflammation in the brain and their glymphatic system was more efficient in moving CSF through the brain and removing waste, compared to control mice who were not exposed to alcohol. The low dose animals' performance in the cognitive and motor tests was identical to the controls.

"The data on the effects of alcohol on the glymphatic system seemingly matches the J-shaped model relating to the dose effects of alcohol on general health and mortality, whereby low doses of alcohol are beneficial, while excessive consumption is detrimental to overall health" said Nedergaard. "Studies have shown that low-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a lesser risk of dementia, while heavy drinking for many years confers an increased risk of cognitive decline. This study may help explain why this occurs. Specifically, low doses of alcohol appear to improve overall brain health." [Original study. Especially interesting is the Introduction & Discussion sections.]

Published on Leave a comment on Are You Getting Unnecessary Medical Tests?

This post is about an issue that I've covered before - the issue of unnecessary medical tests and care, which has been documented by many, especially Dr. H. Gilbert Welch (here and here). In the past I've focused on research documenting physical and emotional harms resulting from overuse of some medical tests and procedures, especially some types of cancer screening, but today's post is about the financial harms of unnecessary medical tests and procedures.

We're talking about medical tests or services that are overused, perhaps done "routinely" when there are no symptoms or real reasons to do the test. The cost of unnecessary tests and services can be financially devastating to the person receiving the bill(s). But this "waste" has also been estimated  at $765 billion a year by the National Academy of Medicine. This is about a fourth of all the money spent each year on health care! Wow. The following article by Marshall Allen is co-published on both ProPublica and NPR. Excerpts from NPR:

Unnecessary Medical Care: More Common Than You Might Imagine

It's one of the intractable financial boondoggles of the U.S. health care system: Lots and lots of patients get lots and lots of tests and procedures that they don't need. Women still get annual cervical cancer testing even when it's recommended every three to five years for most women. Healthy patients are subjected to slates of unnecessary lab work before elective procedures. Doctors routinely order annual electrocardiograms and other heart tests for people who don't need them.

That all adds up to substantial expense that drives up the cost of care for all of us. Just how much, though, is seldom tallied. So, the Washington Health Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to making care safer and more affordable, decided to find out. The group scoured the insurance claims from 1.3 million patients in Washington state who received one of 47 tests or services that medical experts have flagged as overused or unnecessary. What the group found should cause both doctors, and their patients, to rethink that next referral. In a single year:

  • More than 600,000 patients underwent a treatment they didn't need, treatments that collectively cost an estimated $282 million.
  • More than a third of the money spent on the 47 tests or services went to unnecessary care.
  • 3 in 4 annual cervical cancer screenings were performed on women who had adequate prior screenings – at a cost of $19 million.
  • About 85 percent of the lab tests to prep healthy patients for low-risk surgery were unnecessary — squandering about $86 million.
  • Needless annual heart tests on low-risk patients consumed $40 million.

Susie Dade, deputy director of the alliance and primary author of the report released Thursday, said almost half the care examined was wasteful. Much of it comprised the sort of low-cost, ubiquitous tests and treatments that don't garner a second look. But "little things add up," she said. "It's easy for a single doctor and patient to say, 'Why not do this test? What difference does it make?'"

ProPublica has spent the past year examining how the American health care system squanders money, often in ways that are overlooked by providers and patients alike. The waste is widespread – estimated at $765 billion a year by the National Academy of Medicine, about a fourth of all the money spent each year on health care.

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor at The Dartmouth Institute who writes books about overuse, said the findings come back to "Economics 101." The medical system is still dominated by a payment system that pays providers for doing tests and procedures. "Incentives matter," Welch said. "As long as people are paid more to do more they will tend to do too much."