Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on Selenium, Retinoic Acid, and Cancer Risk

Image result for meat, fish, eggs It is important to eat a varied diet for health, one that focuses on the food groups (and no - cookies and cake are not necessary foods). The first study looks at liver cancer risk and selenium - which is found in fish, shellfish, meat, milk, eggs, and certain South American nuts, such as Brazil nuts. The second article focuses on colorectal cancer and retinoic acid, a compound derived in the body from vitamin A. Vitamin A rich foods can provide you with retinoic acid, such as the lungs, kidneys, and liver of beef, lamb, pork. Also poultry giblets, eggs, cod liver oil, shrimp, fish, fortified milk, butter, cheddar cheese and Swiss cheese. Red and orange vegetables and fruits such as sweet potatoes, squash, carrots, pumpkins, cantaloupes, apricots, peaches and mangoes all contain significant amounts of beta-carotene, thus retinoids. Note that research generally has found health benefits from real foods, not from supplements.

From Science Daily:  Selenium status influence cancer risk

As a nutritional trace element, selenium forms an essential part of our diet. Researchers have been able to show that high blood selenium levels are associated with a decreased risk of developing liver cancer. Selenium (Se) is found in foods like fish, shellfish, meat, milk and eggs; certain South American nuts, such as Brazil nuts, are also good sources of selenium. It is a trace element that occurs naturally in soil and plants, and enters the bodies of humans and animals via the food they ingest. European soil has a rather low selenium concentration, in comparison with other areas of the world, especially in comparison to North America. Deficiencies of varying degrees of severity are common among the general population, and are the reason why German livestock receive selenium supplements in their feed.

While in Europe, neither a selenium-rich diet nor adequate selenium supplementation is associated with adverse effects, selenium deficiency is identified as a risk factor for a range of diseases. "We have been able to show that selenium deficiency is a major risk factor for liver cancer," says Prof. Dr. Lutz Schomburg of the Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, adding: "According to our data, the third of the population with lowest selenium status have a five- to ten-fold increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma -- also known as liver cancer."....Previous studies had suggested a similar relationship between a person's selenium status and their risk of developing colon cancer, as well as their risk of developing autoimmune thyroid disease. (Original study)

From Science Daily: Retinoic acid suppresses colorectal cancer development, study finds

Retinoic acid, a compound derived in the body from vitamin A, plays a critical role in suppressing colorectal cancer in mice and humans, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Mice with the cancer have lower-than-normal levels of the metabolite in their gut, the researchers found. Furthermore, colorectal cancer patients whose intestinal tissues express high levels of a protein that degrades retinoic acid tend to fare more poorly than their peers.

"The intestine is constantly bombarded by foreign organisms," said Edgar Engleman, MD, professor of pathology and of medicine. "As a result, its immune system is very complex. There's a clear link in humans between inflammatory bowel disease, including ulcerative colitis, and the eventual development of colorectal cancer. Retinoic acid has been known for years to be involved in suppressing inflammation in the intestine. We wanted to connect the dots and learn whether and how retinoic acid levels directly affect cancer development."

"We found that bacteria, or molecules produced by bacteria, can cause a massive inflammatory reaction in the gut that directly affects retinoic acid metabolism," said Engleman. "Normally retinoic acid levels are regulated extremely tightly. This discovery could have important implications for the treatment of human colorectal cancer."

Further investigation showed that retinoic acid blocks or slows cancer development by activating a type of immune cell called a CD8 T cell. These T cells then kill off the cancer cells. In mice, lower levels of retinoic acid led to reduced numbers and activation of CD8 T cells in the intestinal tissue and increased the animals' tumor burden, the researchers found. "It's become very clear through many studies that chronic, smoldering inflammation is a very important risk factor for many types of cancer," said Engleman.

Published on Leave a comment on Stopping All Exercise and Blood Flow In the Brain

What happens to your brain when you stop exercising? The results of this Univ. of Maryland study should be a wake up call for those who are not quite convinced of exercise's health benefits to the brain. The researchers examined cerebral blood flow in athletes (ages 50-80 years, who were recruited from running clubs) before and after a 10-day period during which they stopped all exercise. Using MRI brain imaging techniques, they found a significant decrease in blood flow to several brain regions important for cognitive health, including the hippocampus, after they stopped their exercise routines.

As the researchers pointed out: "...the take home message is simple -- if you do stop exercising for 10 days, just as you will quickly lose your cardiovascular fitness, you will also experience a decrease in blood brain flow." The only good news was that there were no differences on cognitive measures both before and after stopping exercise for 10 days. From Science Daily:

Use it or lose it: Stopping exercise decreases brain blood flow

We all know that we can quickly lose cardiovascular endurance if we stop exercising for a few weeks, but what impact does the cessation of exercise have on our brains? New research led by University of Maryland School of Public Health researchers examined cerebral blood flow in healthy, physically fit older adults (ages 50-80 years) before and after a 10-day period during which they stopped all exercise. Using MRI brain imaging techniques, they found a significant decrease in blood flow to several brain regions, including the hippocampus, after they stopped their exercise routines.

"We know that the hippocampus plays an important role in learning and memory and is one of the first brain regions to shrink in people with Alzheimer's disease," says Dr. J. Carson Smith, associate professor of kinesiology and lead author of the study, which is published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience in August 2016. "In rodents, the hippocampus responds to exercise training by increasing the growth of new blood vessels and new neurons, and in older people, exercise can help protect the hippocampus from shrinking. So, it is significant that people who stopped exercising for only 10 days showed a decrease in brain blood flow in brain regions that are important for maintaining brain health."

The study participants were all "master athletes," defined as people between the ages of 50 and 80 (average age was 61) who have at least 15 years history of participating in endurance exercise and who have recently competed in an endurance event. Their exercise regimens must have entailed at least four hours of high intensity endurance training each week. On average, they were running 36 miles (59 km) each week or the equivalent of a 10K run a day! Not surprisingly, this group had a V02 max (maximum volume of oxygen) above 90% for their age. This is a measure of the maximal rate of oxygen consumption of an individual and reflects their aerobic physical fitness.

Dr. Smith and colleagues measured the velocity of blood flow in brain with an MRI scan while they were still following their regular training routine (at peak fitness) and again after 10 days of no exercise. They found that resting cerebral blood flow significantly decreased in eight brain regions, including the areas of the left and right hippocampus and several regions known to be part of the brain's "default mode network" -- a neural network known to deteriorate quickly with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. This information adds to the growing scientific understanding of the impact of physical activity on cognitive health.

Published on Leave a comment on Endocrine Disruptors BPA, BPS, and Now BPSIP

Studies are accumulating evidence that the hormone disrupting effects of compounds BPA (bisphenol A) and BPS (the common substitute for BPA) have numerous negative health effects in humans, including reproductive disorders. But now a second BPA substitute - BPSIP - is also being found in humans, and may be even more persistent than BPA and BPS. This is because they're all chemically similar, and all three are endocrine disruptors. This article points out that they have slightly different effects, and when we are exposed to more than one of them (which we are), then the health effects will be even more worrisome.

Unfortunately these plasticizers are in products all around us, and so detected within almost all of us. They're in food packaging containers (and therefore in food), water bottles, can linings, toys, personal care products, thermal paper products such as cash receipts, etc. Canned foods are considered one of the most significant routes of human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA).

Other endocrine disruptors include phthalates - so read personal care product labels to avoid these. Another way to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors is to buy and store food not in plastic containers, but in glass containers or stainless steel. Don't microwave food in any sort of plastic containers. Avoid products with fragrances in them, including air fresheners. Avoid flexible vinyl (e.g. shower curtains). (For all posts on endocrine disruptors, and an article from National Institutes of Health.) From a research article by Liza Gross in PLOS Biology:

Wreaking Reproductive Havoc One Chemical at a Time

Bisphenol A (BPA), unlike DES, remained obscure until the 1950s, when chemists tapped it to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. BPA now tops the list of high-volume chemicals, and is found in numerous consumer products, including water bottles, food packaging containers and can linings, and thermal paper products like cash receipts and boarding passes (Fig 1). And because it can leach out of products, it’s been detected in the urine of nearly every person tested. It’s also been found in breast milk, follicular and amniotic fluid, cord blood, placental tissue, fetal livers, and the blood of pregnant women.  ...continue reading "Endocrine Disruptors BPA, BPS, and Now BPSIP"

Published on Leave a comment on Can Eating A Vegetarian Diet Lower Blood Pressure?

Can eating a vegetarian diet lower blood pressure? Both this review and other reviews of studies say YES, that those following vegetarian diets have a lower prevalence of hypertension. Overall, the mean prevalence of hypertension was 21% in those consuming a vegetarian diet and 29% in those consuming a nonvegetarian diet (the differences varied between studies).Those following a vegetarian diet also tended to have a healthier lifestyle. As the researchers point out: blood pressure medicine lowers blood pressure for one day, while lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, not smoking, limiting or avoiding alcohol) can lower blood pressure for life. From Medscape:

Vegetarian Diet: A Prescription for High Blood Pressure?

Hypertension is one of the most costly and poorly treated medical conditions in the United States and around the world. Consequences of hypertension include morbidity and mortality related to its long-term effects, which include stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, limb loss, aortic aneurysm, and atrial fibrillation, among many others. Although there is an armamentarium of medications to treat hypertension, we do little for prevention. In this review we examine the relationship between vegetarian and nonvegetarian diets and the prevalence of hypertension. 

Current nonpharmacologic treatments include: physical activity (≥ 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity on most days of the week); smoking cessation; dietary modification (lower sodium, increased potassium; mainly plant-based foods; low-fat foods; reduced-fat dairy products; moderate amounts of lean unprocessed meats, poultry, and fish; and moderate amounts of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil); weight reduction; management of stress; and limited alcohol consumption.

It is well known that hypertension is modulated by dietary influences. In this review we examine vegetarian, vegan, and nonvegetarian (omnivore) diets and prevalence of hypertension among these dietary populations. A vegetarian diet (ie, lacto/ovo-vegetarian) includes plant foods, dairy products, and eggs (excludes all meat, such as turkey, beef, poultry, seafood, bacon, etc.). A vegan diet is similar to vegetarian, except it further excludes dairy products and eggs (no animal or animal products). On the other hand, an omnivore diet (referred to as nonvegetarians throughout this study) includes both plant and animal foods and products.....The majority of studies included in this review addressed vegetarians and vegans as a single group (vegetarians), whereas others differentiated them. Vegetarian diets are known to be low in saturated fat and cholesterol, high in fiber, low in sodium, and high in potassium. These key elements have been shown to correlate with lower incidence of cancer, heart disease, and other chronic diseases, such as diabetes type II, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

The exact percentage of those following a vegetarian or vegan diet in the US is unknown; however, a 2014 study found that 221 of 11,399 adult respondents, from a group generally representing the demographics of the US, identified as vegan (0.5%), vegetarians (1.5%), or meat-eaters (98%). The prevalence of hypertension in the US in 2011 was roughly 33.8%.

The mean prevalence of hypertension in those consuming a vegetarian diet was 21% and 29% in those consuming a nonvegetarian diet. The overall prevalence of hypertension among vegetarians was 33% lower than nonvegetarian diets. These data support the hypothesis of a decreased prevalence of hypertension in those maintaining a vegan or vegetarian diet versus a nonvegetarian diet, in cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies, and in those consuming a vegan or vegetarian diet according to an experimental dietary change. The blood pressure benefit is noted to disappear in those reverting back to a nonvegetarian diet. 

Overall, these findings support previous reviews and meta-analyses of vegetarian and nonvegetarian diets and blood pressure. A recent meta-analysis that identified 39 studies with 21,915 participants concluded vegetarian diets were associated with a drop in mean systolic (-5.9 mm Hg) and diastolic (-3.5 mm Hg) blood pressures when compared with nonvegetarians. Other reviews had similar conclusions, showing that vegetarians have a lower blood pressure compared with nonvegetarians. Of the studies that included a vegan diet separate from other vegetarians (eg, lacto/ovo), the data show a significantly lower prevalence of hypertension when compared with nonvegetarians and other vegetarians. However, limited research has been conducted on strict, consistent vegan diets.

There are possible rationalizations for the observed associations between diet and hypertension. First, vegetarians have a lower rate of smoking tobacco. Smoking can increase blood pressure acutely and chronically over time.....Second, vegetarians tend to drink less alcohol compared with nonvegetarians. Alcohol, specifically ≥ 2 drinks/day, increases blood pressure by causing vasodilation, followed by a compensatory increase in blood pressure.....Further, vegetarians have a lower mean BMI when compared with nonvegetarians, which means a lower overall weight....Fourth, vegetarians tend to exercise more than nonvegetarians. Vegetarians reported a greater incidence of physical activity of ≥ 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity per day.

A limitation of this study is that it remains unclear whether vegetarians are more health conscious and therefore live healthier lives, or whether a predominant diet of fruits and vegetables is a basis for lower blood pressure.

Published on Leave a comment on The Longer Overweight, the Greater A Woman’s Cancer Risk

Yikes! A good reason to lose weight now rather than years from now, and the importance of not ignoring a weight gain (you know, over the years as the pounds slowly creep up). The researchers found that for every 10 years of being overweight as an adult, there was an associated 7% increase in the risk for all obesity-related cancers. The degree of overweight (dose-response) during adulthood was important in the risk of developing cancer, especially for endometrial cancer. This study just looked at postmenopausal women, so it is unknown if it applies to men. From Medscape:

Longer Duration of Overweight Increases Cancer Risk in Women

A longer duration of being overweight during adulthood significantly increased the incidence of all cancers that are associated with obesity, a new study in postmenopausal women has concluded. The large population-based study was published August 16 in PLoS Medicine.

Dr Arnold and colleagues found that for every 10 years of being overweight as an adult, there was an associated 7% increase in the risk for all obesity-related cancers. The risk was highest for endometrial cancer (17%) and kidney cancer (16%). For breast cancer, the increased risk was 5%, but no significant associations were found for rectal, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, ovarian, and thyroid cancer.

When the authors took into account the degree of excess weight over time, the risks were further increased, and there were "clear dose-response relationships," they note. Again, the risk was highest for endometrial cancer. For each additional decade spent with a body mass index (BMI) that was 10 units above normal weight, there was a 37% increase in the risk for endometrial cancer.

Study Details: The researchers used data from the huge American Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of postmenopausal women (aged 50 to 79 years at time of study enrollment). For this analysis, the team focused on a cohort of 73,913 postmenopausal women. During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 6301 obesity-related cancers were diagnosed. About 40% (n = 29,770) of women in the cohort were never overweight during their adult life....Women who were ever overweight were on average overweight for about 30 years, while those who were ever obese had been so for an average of 20 years. The authors found that the risk of being diagnosed with an obesity-related cancer rose for every 10 years of being overweight.

Published on Leave a comment on Exercise Can Lead To Misdiagnosis of Heart Disease

 The last post pointed out that the importance of high levels of physical activity or exercise in reducing the risk of 5 diseases. Now a study points out that all this exercise (starting at about 3 to 5 hours of exercise per week) can result in the heart becoming enlarged from all this exercise ("athlete's heart"), and that this is totally normal and healthy. The researchers also stressed that doctors should be aware that athlete's heart or "exercise-related cardiac remodeling" can occur not only in professional athletes, but also in those engaging in moderate levels of exercise, and that it not be misdiagnosed as heart disease. From Science Daily:

Regular exercise can lead to heart disease misdiagnosis

Scientists have shown that people who exercise for even a few hours each week can enlarge their hearts. This is a normal and beneficial response to exercise, but until now has only been recognised in athletes. The researchers say that doctors should now consider an individual's activity level before diagnosing common heart conditions.

"It's well known that the hearts of endurance athletes adapt in response to exercise, a phenomenon called 'athlete's heart'. This study is the first to show that healthy adults who do regular exercise may also develop enlarged hearts. As a result, there's a risk that some active adults could be misdiagnosed with heart disease," says Declan O'Regan, of the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, based at Imperial College London, and one of the lead scientists on the research. The findings were published today in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Scientists have not previously known the extent to which the hearts of healthy people adapt to the demands of moderate exercise. Over 1000 people took part in this study, making it one of the largest of its kind. Participants selected one of four possible categories that best represented their activity level over the past year, according to how many hours of exercise they did each week. Around one third of participants reported doing three to five hours of exercise, and the scientists found that one in five of these people had developed an enlarged heart as a result. Similar adaptations were seen in almost half of those who reported doing more than five hours of exercise.

The findings suggest that above a threshold of three hours, the more exercise you do, the more your heart is likely to adapt, and the more the exercise, the more pronounced the changes. "Going to the gym frequently increases the thickness of your heart muscle and the volume of your heart chambers, particularly the right ventricle. It's a completely normal, healthy response. It shouldn't be misdiagnosed as being heart disease," says O'Regan. These adaptations allow the heart to pump more blood, which helps to supply exercising muscles with the oxygen and nutrients they need. Changes to the heart's thickness and volume happen in tandem, and this distinguishes them from the changes seen in disease, which occur in isolation.

Today, doctors across the world use a standard of set values to see if the thickness and volume of a person's heart fall into the healthy or abnormal range. This helps to ensure consistency between different hospitals. According to O'Regan, the data that underpins these ranges comes from a relatively small study with people who were mainly sedentary. He says, "In this latest study, we looked at a much larger and broader group of people. We found that more people reported being active than had done in previous studies. Our recommendations reflect this growing participation in exercise.".....And this interesting research shows that even moderate physical activity is associated with changes in the heart's size and shape, which are visible on a cardiac MRI.

Published on Leave a comment on Really Increase Activity Level to Reduce Risk of 5 Diseases

Get active, really active, to reduce your risk for 5 diseases: breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, and ischemic stroke. Instead of the 150 minutes of brisk walking or 75 minutes per week of running (which is equal to the 600 metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes now recommended by the World Health Organization), this study found that much more exercise is needed for best health results.

This study (which was a review and analysis of 174 studies) found that there is a dose-response effect, with the most reduction in the risk of the 5 conditions by getting 3000 to 4000 MET minutes per week. This sounds like a lot, but the researchers  point out that this can be achieved by incorporating exercise into your daily routines. The researchers write: "A person can achieve 3000 MET minutes/week by incorporating different types of physical activity into the daily routine—for example, climbing stairs 10 minutes, vacuuming 15 minutes, gardening 20 minutes, running 20 minutes, and walking or cycling for transportation 25 minutes on a daily basis would together achieve about 3000 MET minutes a week."

So start thinking creatively about how to increase exercise or activity into your daily life, especially moderate or vigorous intensity activity. For example, park your car far from the store door, or better yet, bicycle or walk to the store from home. From Medscape:

Get Moving: High Physical-Activity Level Reduces Risk of 5 Diseases

High levels of physical activity can reduce the risk for five major diseases, including type 2 diabetes, new research shows. Findings from the systematic review and meta-analysis were published online ....The data, from a total 174 studies comprising 149,184,285 total person-years of follow-up, suggest that the more total regular daily physical activity one engages in — including recreation, transportation, occupational activity, and/or daily chores — the lower the risks for breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke.

However, significant reductions in those conditions were seen only with total activity levels considerably higher than the minimum 600 metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week recommended by the World Health Organization for health benefits. That 600 METs equates to about 150 minutes/week of brisk walking or 75 minutes/week of running. (A MET is defined as the ratio of the metabolic rate during that activity to the metabolic rate when resting.) Risks of the five conditions dropped significantly with an increase in MET minutes per week from 600 to 3000 to 4000, with less additive benefit seen above that level.

For reference, the authors say, "a person can achieve 3000 MET minutes/week by incorporating different types of physical activity into the daily routine — for example, climbing stairs 10 minutes, vacuuming 15 minutes, gardening 20 minutes, running 20 minutes, and walking or cycling for transportation 25 minutes on a daily basis would together achieve about 3000 MET minutes a week." "This amount might seem a bit large, but this is about total activity across all domains of life.…For people who currently don't exercise, clinicians could encourage them to incorporate physical activity into their daily routines, [such as] turning household chores into exercise. 

Another recent meta-analysis of trials involving more than one million individuals indicated that an hour of moderate-intensity activity, such as brisk walking or cycling, offsets the health risks of 8 hours of sitting. The message that physical inactivity is a killer — leading to 5.3 million premature deaths annually worldwide, which is as many as caused by smoking and twice as many as associated with obesity, has been emerging over the past few years, with warnings that "sitting is the new smoking."

This new research is the first meta-analysis to quantify the dose-response association between total physical activity across all domains and the risk of five chronic diseases. The 174 prospective cohort studies included 35 for breast cancer, 19 for colon cancer, 55 for diabetes, 43 for ischemic heart disease, and 26 for ischemic stroke. (Some included more than one end point.)....Higher levels of total physical activity were associated with lower risks of all five outcomes.

With the development of diabetes, for example, compared with no physical activity, those with 600 MET minutes per week (the minimum recommended level of activity) had a 2% lower risk. That risk reduction jumped by an additional 19% with an increase from 600 to 3600 METs/week. Gains were smaller above that, with the increase of total activity from 9000 to 12,000 MET minutes/week yielding only an additional 0.6% diabetes reduction.

Overall, compared with insufficiently active individuals (total activity < 600 MET minutes/week), the risk reduction for those in the highly active category (≥ 8000 MET minutes/week) was 14% for breast cancer; 21% for colon cancer; 28% for diabetes; 25% for ischemic heart disease; and 26% for ischemic stroke. 

Credit: Medscape

Published on Leave a comment on Strong Evidence That Alcohol Causes Seven Cancers

A medical article in the journal Addiction states that there is strong evidence that alcohol causes 7 cancers, that there is evidence that it probably causes more, the effects are dose related, and if one also smokes the risks are greatly increased. The 7 cancers are: oropharynx (mouth and pharynx), larynx, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum, and female breast.

An earlier post reported on conflicting results from some studies (e.g. that low to moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial), as well as the finding that effects are dose-related (the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of cancer). NOTE: One standard drink contains 14 grams of alcohol, and is equivalent to one ordinary beer, a glass of wine (5 oz), or a nip of spirits (1.5 oz or 44 ml). The article excerpts below state that the strongest effects are from consuming 50 grams or more of alcohol per day (compared to those who don't drink at all).

From Medscape: No Confusion: Alcohol Causes Seven Cancers

There is "strong evidence" that alcohol causes seven cancers, and other evidence indicates that it "probably" causes more, according to a new literature review published online July 21 in Addiction. Epidemiologic evidence supports a causal association of alcohol consumption and cancers of the oropharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum, and female breast, says Jennie Connor, MB, ChB, MPH, from the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, in Dunegin, New Zealand.

In short, alcohol causes cancer. This is not news, says Dr Connor. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and other agencies have long identified alcohol consumption as being causally associated with these seven cancers. So why did Dr Connor, who is an epidemiologist and physician, write a new review? Because she wants to "clarify the strength of the evidence" in an "accessible way." 

The newly published review "reinforces the need for the public to be made aware of the causal link between alcohol and cancer," said Colin Shevills, from the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, in a press statement....The lack of clarity about alcohol causing cancer, Dr Connor believes, is related to alcohol industry propaganda as well as the fact that the "epidemiological basis for causal inference is an iterative process that is never completed fully."

Dr Connor writes that the strength of the association of alcohol as a cause of cancer varies by bodily site. The evidence is "particularly strong" for cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and esophagus (relative risk, ~4-7 for ≥50 g/day of alcohol compared with no drinking) but is less so for colorectal cancer and liver and breast cancer (relative risk, ~1.5 for ≥50 g/day). "For cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus there is a well-recognized interaction of alcohol with smoking, resulting a multiplicative effect on risk," adds Dr Connor.

Other cancers are also likely caused by alcohol. Dr Connor writes that there is "accumulating research" supporting a causal contribution of alcohol to cancer of the pancreas, prostate, and skin (melanoma). One British expert had an opinion about alcohol's carcinogenicity. In a statement about the new review, Prof Dorothy Bennett, director of the Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute at St. George's, University of London, said: "Alcohol enters cells very easily, and is then converted into acetaldehyde, which can damage DNA and is a known carcinogen."

In the new review, Dr Connor describes various hallmarks of causality that have been found in epidemiologic studies of alcohol and these seven cancers, such as a dose-response relationship and the fact that the risk for some of these cancers (esophageal, head and neck, and liver) attenuates when drinking ceases. Current estimates suggest that alcohol-attributable cancers at the seven cancer sites make up 5.8% of all cancer deaths worldwide, she states. The alcohol industry has a lot at stake, she says, which in turn leads to "misinformation" that "undermines research findings and contradicts evidence-based public health messages."

But there is no safe level of drinking with respect to cancer, says Dr Connor, citing research about low to moderate levels of alcohol, which has been covered by Medscape Medical News. This was also the conclusion of the 2014 World Cancer Report, issued by the World Health Organization's IARC.

Published on Leave a comment on Twin Study Finds Being Overweight Not Linked To Early Death or Heart Attack

Another interesting study looking at whether being overweight is linked to premature death, heart attacks, and diabetes. This study looked at sets of twins, in which one is heavier than the other, and followed them long-term (average 12.4 years) and found that NO - being overweight or obese (as measured by Body Mass Index or BMI) is NOT associated with premature death or heart attack (myocardial infarction), but it is associated with higher rates of type 2 diabetes. These results are in contrast with what a large study recently found. From Science Daily:

Higher BMI not associated with increased risk of heart attack or early death, twin study shows

A study of 4,046 genetically identical twin pairs with different amounts of body fat shows that twin siblings with a higher Body Mass Index, as a measure of obesity, do not have an increased risk of heart attack or mortality. The study, conducted by researchers at Umeå University in Sweden, also shows that a higher BMI is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes...."The results suggest that lifestyle changes that reduce levels of obesity do not have an effect on the risk of death and heart attack, which contradicts conventional understandings of obesity-related health risks," says Peter Nordström, researcher at the Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation at Umeå University.

In the cohort study, Peter Nordström and research colleagues at Umeå University compared health data from 4,046 monozygotic twin pairs. All twins in the study had different levels of body fat, as measured in BMI....During a follow-up period of on average 12.4 years, differences between the twins were compared when it comes to incidents of mortality, heart attack and type 2 diabetes. The results clearly showed that twin siblings with a higher BMI did not have an increased risk of mortality or heart attack compared to their thinner counterparts. However, twins with a higher BMI did have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

The results showed that: - Among twin siblings with a higher BMI (mean value 25.1), there were 203 heart attacks (5 %) and 550 deaths (13.6 %) during the follow-up period. - Among twin siblings with a lower BMI (mean value 23.9), there were 209 heart attacks (5.2 %) and 633 deaths (15.6 %) during the same period. - Among the 65 twin pairs in the study who had a BMI difference of 7 or higher, and where the larger twin siblings had a BMI of 30 or higher, there were still no noticeably increased risk of mortality or heart attack associated with a higher BMI.

The study, described in the article Risks of Myocardinal Infarction, Death, and Diabetes in Identical Twin Pairs With Different Body Mass Index, is based on the Swedish Twin Registry, the largest of its kind in the world. The median age of the twins in the study was 57.5 and participants' ages ranged from 42-92. The cohort study was conducted between 1998 and 2003, with follow-ups regarding incident of mortality, heart attack and diabetes during a 10 year period until 2013. One study limitation was that weight and length (used to calculate BMI) was self-reported.

Published on Leave a comment on Frequent Nut Consumption Has Health Benefits

Studies have found that increased nut consumption has been associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. A newly published study looked at large groups of people to see if this was due to nuts reducing systemic inflammation throughout the body - which can be measured by inflammatory biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and  interleukin 6 (IL6).

The researchers found that nut consumption was inversely associated with concentrations of biomarkers CRP and IL-6 - that is, the more nuts eaten weekly, the lower the inflammatory biomarkers. They also found that substituting nuts for red meat, processed meat, eggs, refined grains, potatoes, or potato chips was associated with a healthier inflammatory biomarker profile. In the study, one serving of nuts was equivalent to 28 g (1 oz) of peanuts or other nuts. What's in nuts? Unsaturated fatty acids, high quality plant protein, fiber, minerals, vitamins, bioactive compounds such as phytosterols, antioxidants, magnesium, etc. Bottom line: eat a serving of nuts at least several times a week. From Science Daily:

Frequent nut consumption associated with less inflammation

In a study of more than 5,000 people, investigators from Brigham and Women's Hospital have found that greater intake of nuts was associated with lower levels of biomarkers of inflammation, a finding that may help explain the health benefits of nuts. The results of the study appear July 27 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"Population studies have consistently supported a protective role of nuts against cardiometabolic disorders such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, and we know that inflammation is a key process in the development of these diseases," said corresponding author Ying Bao, MD, ScD, an epidemiologist in BWH's Channing Division of Network Medicine. "Our new work suggests that nuts may exert their beneficial effects in part by reducing systemic inflammation."

Previously Bao and her colleagues observed an association between increased nut consumption and reduced risk of major chronic diseases and even death, but few prospective cohort studies had examined the link between nut intake and inflammation. In the current study, the research team performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Nurses' Health Study, which includes more than 120,000 female registered nurses, and from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which includes more than 50,000 male health professionals.... looked at the levels of certain telltale proteins known as biomarkers in blood samples collected from the study participants. They measured three well-established biomarkers of inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL6) and tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (TNFR2).

After adjusting for age, medical history, lifestyle and other variables, they found that participants who had consumed five or more servings of nuts per week had lower levels of CRP and IL6 than those who never or almost never ate nuts. In addition, people who substituted three servings per week of nuts in place of red meat, processed meat, eggs or refined grains had significantly lower levels of CRP and IL6.

Peanuts and tree nuts contain a number of healthful components including magnesium, fiber, L-arginine, antioxidants and unsaturated fatty acids such as α-linolenic acid. Researchers have not yet determined which of these components, or if the combination of all of them, may offer protection against inflammation, but Bao and her colleagues are interested in exploring this further through clinical trials that would regulate and monitor diet.