Skip to content

   Is "fat but fit" a myth or true? The results of this study suggest that it is a myth. That there is a higher risk of coronary heart disease, and even if everything looks OK initially, it is associated with an eventual metabolic changes (and problems). Just wait a while - as can be seen in the results of this study that followed people from 8 European countries over many years (about 12.2 years). The study found that being normal weight and fit is best, and that "metabolically healthy" obese people were more likely to go on to develop metabolic abnormalities (and become metabolically unhealthy obese people) over the years. Metabolically unhealthy signs included high blood pressure, low HDL-cholesterol, and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).

Bottom line: aim for normal weight for a lower risk of heart disease (and of course, be physically active and eat a healthy diet - fewer processed foods, and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes). From Science Daily:

'Fat but fit' are at increased risk of heart disease

Carrying extra weight could raise your risk of heart attack by more than a quarter, even if you are otherwise healthy.Researchers have found that being overweight or obese increases a person's risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by up to 28 per cent compared to those with a healthy body weight, even if they have healthy blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests being 'fat but fit' is a myth, and that people should aim to maintain a body weight within a healthy range.

Storing too much fat in the body is associated with a number of metabolic changes, including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar and altered cholesterol levels, which can lead to disease and poor health. However, previous studies have revealed a subset of overweight people who appear to lack the adverse health effects of excess weight, leading to them being classified as 'metabolically healthy obese' in the medical literature, and 'fat but fit' in the media.

Now, a group led by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Cambridge has shown that despite an apparent clean bill of health, this overweight group is still at increased risk compared to those with a healthy weight. In the largest study of its kind to date, scientists used data from more than half a million people in 10 European countries -- taken from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) -- to show that excess weight is linked with an increased risk of heart disease, even when people have a healthy metabolic profile.

In the study, published in the European Heart Journal, researchers looked at the link between excess weight and risk of CHD, a condition where not enough blood gets through to the heart due to clogged arteries, leading to heart attacks. After a follow-up period of more than 12 years, a total of 7,637 people in the EPIC cohort experienced CHD events, such as death from heart attack. Researchers then selected a representative group of more than 10,000 individuals as controls, for analysis. Body weight was classified according to definitions from the World Health Organization. Those with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 were classed as obese, while those with a BMI of 25-30 were classed as overweight, and 18.5-25 as normal weight. More than half of the control group (63 per cent) were female, with an average age of 53.6 and an average BMI of 26.1.

Participants were categorised as 'unhealthy' if they had three or more of a number of metabolic markers, including high blood pressure, blood glucose, or triglyceride levels, low levels of HDL cholesterol, or a waist size of more than 37" (94 cm) for men and 31" (80 cm) for women. .... the researchers found that compared to the healthy normal weight group, those classed as unhealthy had more than double the risk of CHD, whether they were normal weight, overweight or obeseHowever, analysis also revealed that within the apparently healthy group there was a significant difference in outcomes for people depending on their weight. The research found that compared to those at normal weight, people who were classified as healthy but were overweight had an increased CHD risk of 1.26 (26 per cent), while those who were healthy but obese had an increased risk of 1.28 (28 per cent). [Original study.]

Mediterranean Diet is Healthy Eating – A Good Option for Seniors So, how many of you have had doctors discuss nutrition with you? How about your cardiologist? "No"...many of you answer. Well, that shouldn't be surprising according to a new survey of 930 cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals. Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. And currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training. Most also reported that they spend less than 3 minutes discussing nutrition per appointment. What does that really mean? Is it just a few words like: lose weight, eat better, and eat less salt? That's not enough to be real nutrition advice.

Why is nutrition important? Among the top 17 risk factors, poor diet quality has been identified by the US Burden of Disease Collaborators as the leading cause of premature deaths and disability in the United States. Heart health is influenced by the diet. Many studies have shown that people following such healthy diets as the Mediterranean diet (with an emphasis on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, legumes, and olive oil) have a significantly lower incidence of heart disease and major cardiovascular events (especially strokes). One recent study (an analysis of other studies) linked eating 8 to 10 portions of fruits and vegetables daily with a lower risk of early death, cancer, heart disease, and stroke. From Medscape:

Cardiologists Are Hungry for Knowledge on Nutrition

Hello. My name is Dr Stephen Devries and I'm a cardiologist and executive director of the nonprofit Gaples Institute for Integrative Cardiology. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to share with you some interesting findings related to a new study I was involved in regarding nutrition education in cardiology. I'm sure you are aware that patients increasingly want to take more charge of their own health. In order to do so, they are asking their doctors more questions about nutrition. But how prepared are physicians to address those questions? Specifically, we asked: How prepared are cardiologists to deal with nutrition questions in their own practice?

In order to get at that question, my colleagues and I, members of the Nutrition Working Group of the American College of Cardiology, surveyed[1] over 900 practicing cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals and asked them a wide range of questions relating to their experience with nutrition education, their attitudes about nutrition and practice, and a little bit about their own personal nutrition habits.

What did we find? Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. When we inquired a bit about their attitudes regarding nutrition and practice, 95% of cardiologists reported that they believed it was their personal responsibility to deliver at least basic nutrition education to their patients. We were a bit surprised. We had wondered whether cardiologists felt that it was someone else's job to do; but no, they felt that it was their own personal responsibility to at least deliver basic diet counseling to their patients.

We then asked cardiologists about their own personal health habits and inquired about their personal intake of vegetables and fruit. We found that only 20% of practicing cardiologists reported eating a total of five or more servings of vegetables and fruit per day. That is an important finding, not only because it speaks to opportunities to improve cardiologists' own health, but also because there are data[2] showing that physicians who adopt healthy lifestyle practices are more likely to counsel patients to do so as well.

Where do we go from here? It's paradoxical that nutrition and lifestyle are identified in many of our clinical care guidelines as the foundations of good cardiovascular care, yet how can our cardiologists implement those guidelines without receiving adequate nutrition training? Obviously, we need to address that problem by providing meaningful nutrition education in all phases of medical training, beginning in medical school through internal medicine residency, and extending into cardiovascular training itself. Currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training—and that needs to change. We also should include more nutrition content on board exams so that there will be additional motivation to teach nutrition to help pass the exam.

2

Image result for lobster meal wikipedia A recent study provided evidence that higher levels of cadmium in women may increase the risk of endometrial cancer. Endometrial cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, and it occurs primarily in postmenopausal women. Endometrial cancer is associated with estrogen exposure (for example, being obese, and also from external or environmental sources of estrogen).

Cadmium is a metal commonly found in foods such as kidneys, liver, and shellfish, but also tobacco (cigarette smoking). Cadmium is toxic, it accumulates in the body, it is an estrogen-mimicking chemical, and it is associated with several hormone-dependent cancers. The researchers found that a doubling of cadmium exposure (as compared to those with low levels) was associated with a 22% increased risk of endometrial cancer.  Bottom line: Go ahead and enjoy these foods, but try to eat foods with naturally high levels of cadmium in moderation - such as shellfish, kidneys, and liver. From Science Daily:

Increased endometrial cancer rates found in women with high levels of cadmium

More than 31,000 new cases of endometrial cancer are expected to be diagnosed in 2017. Through a five-year observational study recently published in PLOS One, researchers at the University of Missouri found that women with increased levels of cadmium -- a metal commonly found in foods such as kidneys, liver and shellfish as well as tobacco -- also had an increased risk of endometrial cancer. It's an observation the researchers hope could lead to new treatments or interventions to prevent the fourth most common cancer in women.

"Cadmium is an estrogen-mimicking chemical, meaning it imitates estrogen and its effects on the body," said lead author Jane McElroy, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the MU School of Medicine. "Endometrial cancer has been associated with estrogen exposure. Because cadmium mimics estrogen, it may lead to an increased growth of the endometrium, contributing to an increased risk of endometrial cancer."

The research team partnered with cancer registries in Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa to identify cases of endometrial cancer. The team enrolled 631 women with a history of endometrial cancer in the study and 879 women without a history of the cancer to serve as a control group. The participants were asked to complete a survey of more than 200 questions about risk factors potentially associated with endometrial cancer. Once they completed the questionnaire, participants were sent a kit to collect urine and saliva samples. Through tests conducted at the MU Research Reactor, the samples were analyzed for cadmium levels.

While more research is needed to better understand the risks associated with cadmium, researchers say there are steps individuals can take to limit their cadmium-associated cancer risks. "We all have cadmium present in our kidneys and livers, but smoking has been shown to more than double a person's cadmium exposure," McElroy said. "Also, we recommend being attentive to your diet, as certain foods such as shellfish, kidney and liver can contain high levels of cadmium. You don't necessarily need to cut these from your diet, but eat them in moderation. This is especially true if women have a predisposition to endometrial cancer, such as a family history, diabetes or obesity." [Original study.]

  Two more studies found that higher levels of vitamin D in the blood are associated with better health outcomes - one study found a lower risk of breast cancer, especially among postmenopausal women, and in the other - better outcomes after a metastatic melanoma diagnosis.

The breast cancer study suggested that a fairly high blood level of vitamin D (25(OH)D serum level>38.0 ng/mL) was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer. But overall they found that women supplementing with vitamin D (more than 4 times a week) at any dose had a lower risk of breast cancer over a 5 year period than those not supplementing with vitamin D. From Environmental Health Perspectives:

Serum Vitamin D and Risk of Breast Cancer within Five Years

Vitamin D is an environmental and dietary agent with known anticarcinogenic effects, but protection against breast cancer has not been established. We evaluated the association between baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, supplemental vitamin D use, and breast cancer incidence over the subsequent 5 y of follow-up. From 2003-2009, the Sister Study enrolled 50,884 U.S. women 35-74 y old who had a sister with breast cancer but had never had breast cancer themselves. Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, we measured 25(OH)D in serum samples from 1,611 women who later developed breast cancer and from 1,843 randomly selected cohort participants.

We found that 25(OH)D levels were associated with a 21% lower breast cancer hazard (highest versus lowest quartile). Analysis of the first 5 y of follow-up for all 50,884 Sister Study participants showed that self-reported vitamin D supplementation was associated with an 11% lower hazard. These associations were particularly strong among postmenopausal women.

In this cohort of women with elevated risk, high serum 25(OH)D levels and regular vitamin D supplement use were associated with lower rates of incident, postmenopausal breast cancer over 5 y of follow-up. These results may help to establish clinical benchmarks for 25(OH)D levels; in addition, they support the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation is useful in breast cancer prevention.

The first sentence in the melanoma study lays out what is widely known: "Vitamin D deficiency (≤20 ng/mL) is associated with an increased incidence and worse prognosis of various types of cancer including melanoma." Studies show that the relationship between vitamin D, sunlight exposure, and melanoma is complicated in a number of ways, including: sun exposure may be associated with increased survival in patients with melanoma. which may mean that vitamin D has a protective role in patients with melanoma. Several studies suggest that vitamin D may delay melanoma recurrence and improve overall prognosis. The study also found that metastatic melanoma patients with vitamin D deficiency who are unable to or don't raise their vitamin D blood levels (25(OH)D3) have a worse outcome compared to those who are are able to markedly increase (by greater than >20 ng/mL) their 25(OH)D3 levels. From Oncotarget:

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with a worse prognosis in metastatic melanoma

Vitamin D deficiency (≤20 ng/mL) is associated with an increased incidence and worse prognosis of various types of cancer including melanoma. A retrospective, single-center study of individuals diagnosed with melanoma from January 2007 through June 2013 who had a vitamin D (25(OH)D3) level measured within one year of diagnosis was performed to determine whether vitamin D deficiency and repletion are associated with melanoma outcome.

A total of 409 individuals diagnosed with histopathology-confirmed melanoma who had an ever measured serum 25(OH)D3 level were identified. 252 individuals with a 25(OH)D3 level recorded within one year after diagnosis were included in the study .... A worse melanoma prognosis was associated with vitamin D deficiency, higher stage, ulceration, and higher mitotic rate. In patients with stage IV metastatic melanoma, vitamin D deficiency was associated with significantly worse melanoma-specific mortality. Patients with metastatic melanoma who were initially vitamin D deficient and subsequently had a decrease or ≤20 ng/mL increase in their 25(OH)D3 concentration had significantly worse outcomes compared to non-deficient patients who had a >20 ng/mL increase. Our results suggest that initial vitamin D deficiency and insufficient repletion is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with metastatic melanoma.

  I've frequently mentioned that when taking vitamin D supplements, the one to take is vitamin D3, and not D2. Medscape (the medical site) has an article explaining that results of a recent study showed that vitamin D3 is twice as effective as D2 in raising blood levels of vitamin D. The vitamin D3 form is derived from animal products, while vitamin D2 is plant-based. So check any supplements you purchase because many contain the vitamin D2 form of vitamin D.

Of course, sunlight is the best because it has more benefits than vitamin D - such as also having low levels of "blue light" which energizes T cells (which are part of the immune system). From Medscape:

Vitamin D3, Not D2, Is Key to Tackling Vitamin D Deficiency

Vitamin D3 is significantly more effective at raising the serum biological marker of vitamin D status than vitamin D2 when given at standard doses in everyday food and drink, say UK researchers — findings that could have major implications for both current guidelines and the supplement industry.

In a randomized controlled trial of vitamin D supplements, vitamin D3, which is derived from animal products, was associated with significantly higher serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels after 12 weeks than vitamin D2, which is plant-based and currently used in the vast majority of vitamin D supplements.

"The importance of vitamin D in our bodies is not to be underestimated, but living in the UK it is very difficult to get sufficient levels from its natural source, the sun, so we know it has to be supplemented through our diet," explained lead author Laura Tripkovic, PhD, department of nutritional sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom, in a press release.

She added, "Our findings show that vitamin D3 is twice as effective as D2 in raising vitamin D levels in the body, which turns current thinking about the two types of vitamin D on its head." "Those who consume D3 through fish, eggs, or vitamin D3-containing supplements are twice as likely to raise their vitamin D status [compared with those] consuming vitamin Drich foods, such as mushrooms, vitamin Dfortified bread, or vitamin Dcontaining supplements, helping to improve their long-term health." [Original study.]

 The use of nanoparticles in foods is increasing every year, but we still know very little about whether they have health risks to humans, especially if one is eating foods with them daily (thus having chronic exposure). The nanoparticles in foods are ingredients so small that they are measured in nanometers or billionths of one meter. The most common nanoingredients are: titanium dioxidesilicon dioxide, and zinc oxide. Titanium dioxide is typically used as a "food coloring" to make foods whiter or brighter, but it may or may not be listed on the label. In Europe, this food additive is known as E171. Currently there are no restrictions on using titanium diaoxide nanoparticles in food.

Recent search suggests that there may be health effects from the nanoparticles in our food (here and here), thus we should be cautious. Evidence is accumulating that titanium dioxide nanoparticles can have a negative inflammatory effect on the intestinal lining. Similarly, a new study  looking at both mice and humans suggests that individuals with inflammatory intestinal conditions such as intestinal bowel disease (colitis and Crohn's disease) might have negative health effects from titanium dioxide nanoparticles - that they could worsen intestinal inflammation. Interestingly, the nanoparticles accumulated in spleens of mice used in the study. The researchers also found that levels of titanium were increased in the blood of patients with active colitis. From Science Daily:

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles can exacerbate colitis

Titanium dioxide, one of the most-produced nanoparticles worldwide, is being used increasingly in foodstuffs. When intestinal cells absorb titanium dioxide particles, this leads to increased inflammation and damage to the intestinal mucosa in mice with colitis. Researchers at the University of Zurich recommend that patients with colitis should avoid food containing titanium dioxide particles. The frequency of inflammatory bowel disease like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis has been on the rise in many Western countries for decades.... In addition to genetic factors, environmental factors like the Western lifestyle, especially nutrition, play an essential role in the development of these chronic intestinal diseases.

The research of Gerhard Rogler, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Zurich, now shows that titanium dioxide nanoparticles can intensify the inflammatory reaction in the bodies of patients with inflammatory intestinal diseases. Titanium dioxide is a white pigment used in medicines, cosmetics and toothpaste and increasingly as food additive E171, for example, in icing, chewing gum or marshmallows. Until now, there have been no restrictions on its use in the food industry.

The scientists led by Gerhard Rogler concentrated their research on a protein complex inside cells: the NLRP3 inflammasome. This protein complex is part of the non-specific immune system, which detects danger signals and then triggers inflammation. If the inflammasome is activated by bacterial components, for example, and the inflammatory reaction plays a vital role in the defense against infective agents. In the same way, NLRP3 can be activated by small inorganic particles -- sometimes with negative consequences: If uric acid crystals form in the cells, for example the inflammation leads to gout.

The research team first studied the effect of inorganic titanium dioxide particles in cell cultures. They were able to show that titanium dioxide can penetrate human intestinal epithelial cells and macrophages and accumulate there. The nanoparticles were detected as danger signals by inflammasomes, which triggered the production of inflammatory messengers. In addition, patients with ulcerative colitis, whose intestinal barrier is disrupted, have an increased concentration of titanium dioxide in their blood. "This shows that these particles can be absorbed from food under certain disease conditions," Rogler says.

In a further step, the scientists orally administered titanium dioxide nanoparticles to mice, which serve as a disease model for inflammatory bowel disease. Here, as well, the particles activated the NLRP3 complex, which led to strong intestinal inflammation and greater damage to the intestinal mucosa in the mice. In addition, titanium dioxide crystals accumulated in the animals' spleens. Whether these findings will be confirmed in humans must now be determined in further studies. "Based on our results," Rogler concludes, "patients with an intestinal barrier dysfunction as found in colitis should abstain from foods containing titanium dioxide."  [Original study.]

 Another study was just published with worrisome findings about phthalates. Phthalates are a group of chemicals used widely in common consumer products such as food packaging, toys, medical devices, medications, and personal care products. They are endocrine disruptors (can interfere with normal hormonal function) and are linked to a number of health problems (here, here, and here).

The study looked at urban Australian men and found that the higher the level of phthalates, the higher the rate of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and hypertension. The researchers also found that higher levels of chronic low-grade inflammatory biomarkers (meaning higher levels of low-grade inflammation) was associated with higher levels of phthalates. All these findings confirm what other studies, done in other countries, have found.

Phthalates, which are measured in the urine,  were detected in 99.96% of the 1504 men. Eating a western dietary pattern (fast food, highly processed, low fiber) was also associated with higher phthalate levels.  However, they did not find an association of phthalate levels with asthma and depression. From Science Daily:

Everyday chemicals linked to chronic disease in men

Chemicals found in everyday plastics materials are linked to cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure in men, according to Australian researchers. Researchers from the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) investigated the independent association between chronic diseases among men and concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals known as phthalates.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals widely used in common consumer products, such as food packaging and wrappings, toys, medications, and even medical devices. Researchers found that of the 1500 Australian men tested, phthalates were detected in urine samples of 99.6% of those aged 35 and over. "We found that the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure increased among those men with higher total phthalate levels," says senior author Associate Professor Zumin Shi, from the University of Adelaide's Adelaide Medical School and the Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, and a member of SAHMRI's Nutrition & Metabolism theme.

"While we still don't understand the exact reasons why phthalates are independently linked to disease, we do know the chemicals impact on the human endocrine system, which controls hormone release that regulate the body's growth, metabolism, and sexual development and function. "In addition to chronic diseases, higher phthalate levels were associated with increased levels of a range of inflammatory biomarkers in the body," he says.

Age and western diets are directly associated with higher concentrations of phthalates. Previous studies have shown that men who ate less fresh fruit and vegetables and more processed and packaged foods, and drank carbonated soft drinks, have higher levels of phthalates in their urine.... Associate Professor Shi says that although the studies were conducted in men, the findings are also likely to be relevant to women. "While further research is required, reducing environmental phthalates exposure where possible, along with the adoption of healthier lifestyles, may help to reduce the risk of chronic disease," he says. [Original study.]

 Once again several studies found health benefits associated with drinking coffee daily - this time "reduced risk of death" in 2 studies, and in one study a reduced risk of gallbladder cancer.

Just keep in mind that the studies found associations, but did not establish that drinking coffee caused X (reduced risk of death) - so perhaps coffee drinkers differ in some still unknown way from non-coffee drinkers. But...so many studies are piling up showing an association with health benefits that it looks likely that it is actually the coffee causing the benefits. Both decaffeinated and regular coffee seem beneficial, and it doesn't matter how it is prepared (e.g., espresso, drip, cappuccino). (Earlier posts about coffee - here, here, here)

In the one study higher consumption of coffee was associated with a lower risk of death from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease in African Americans, Japanese Americans, Latinos, and whites. People who consumed a cup of coffee a day (decaffeinated or regular) were 12 percent less likely to die compared to those who didn't drink coffee, and those who drank two to three cups a day had an 18 percent reduced chance of death.

The conclusion of the other study of over half million adults in 10 European countries was similar: coffee drinking was associated with lower risk for death from "all causes", especially from circulatory diseases and diseases related to the digestive tract. This association held up among all the countries. The highest levels of consumption  group (3 cups or more of coffee per day)  had the lowest risk of death - as compared to those drinking none or less than 1 cup of coffee per day. However, the one negative result from drinking more than 3 cups of coffee daily was an increase in risk for ovarian cancer mortality in women (but only when compared to coffee non-drinkers).

From STAT News: Drink coffee? It won’t hurt you, and may reduce your risk of an early death

Good news, coffee drinkers: A couple of massive new studies that looked at hundreds of thousands of people for about 16 years finds that a few cups of coffee a day won’t hurt you and could lower your risk of dying prematurely. The studies reinforce previous findings that drinking an 8-ounce cup of joe (or three) won’t hurt you, but the authors of the new works and other experts say caveats abound.

Murphy told STAT his is the largest study on coffee and mortality to date. In the study, researchers with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and Imperial College London tracked 521,000 adults from 10 European countries who self-reported their coffee consumption over an average of 16 years.... In investigating more than 40,000 deaths from this group, the team found that participants who fell into the highest 25 percent of coffee consumers had a lower risk of death due to any cause compared to non-coffee drinkers. They saw a reduced risk of early death by diseases related to the digestive and circulatory systems. The researchers also discovered a link between higher coffee consumption and lower risk of early death by lung cancer in men. And they also looked at suicide — completed suicides were lower for coffee drinkers, but only in men. [Original study.]

In a second study of 180,000 people tracked for an average of 16 years, University of Southern California investigators found drinking one to six cups of coffee per week led to a decreased risk of early death. The study was focused on non-white populations, andtheir findings proved consistent for coffee drinkers across racial and ethnic groups. One of the USC study’s senior authors, V. Wendy Setiawan... said coffee consumption may be linked a lower risk of early death for people with heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, and kidney disease.Drink one cup per day, and the risk of dying early from those diseases decreases by 12 percent, she said. [Original study.]

This 2016 study is from Medscape: Coffee Consumption and Risk of Gallbladder Cancer in a Prospective Study

Evidence indicates that coffee consumption may reduce the risk of gallstone diseasewhich is strongly associated with increased risk of gallbladder cancer. The association between coffee consumption and gallbladder cancer incidence was examined in a prospective cohort study of 72,680 Swedish adults (aged 45 − 83 years) who were free of cancer and reported their coffee consumption at baseline.....  In conclusion, coffee consumption was observed to be associated with a reduced risk of gallbladder cancer. A potential protective association between coffee consumption and risk of gallbladder cancer may be mediated via reduced gallstone formation or through other mechanisms such as reduction of oxidative damage and inflammation and regulation of DNA repair, phase II enzymatic activity, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and metastasis.

  Lately more and more research has been finding health benefits with frequent consumption of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO). It is also a basic part of the popular Mediterranean diet - which emphasizes fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes (beans), whole grains, some fish, and extra virgin olive oil. Now a study conducted by investigators at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggests that the olive oil in the Mediterranean diet probably promotes healthy brain aging. The researchers said: "Our study is the first demonstration that EVOO can beneficially affect memory, amyloid plaques, and tau pathology, the hallmark lesions in the brain of Alzheimer's patients."

But... note that they are taking findings from their study done on mice and hypothesizing that this is what is also going on in humans.  Their study used specially bred mice (and only 22 in total) - one group which received extra virgin olive oil in their food (starting at 6 months of age), and the other not. The researchers found that after a few months of this diet that there were differences between the 2 groups when tested at 12 months (which is also when they were euthanized). Note that mice are short lived and after 6 months they are considered "mature adults".

The researchgers now plan to test varying daily doses of EVOO on humans soon - this way they can see what the minimal dosage is for beneficial effects (if any), and if there is a maximal dosage where there are negative health effects. In the meantime, enjoy olive oil in your diet - looks like it will benefit your health in a number of ways (herehere, and here). From Medscape:

Olive Oil Key Ingredient in Alzheimer's Prevention?

Extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) appears to protect memory and learning ability and reduces the formation of beta amyloid (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain — the classic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) — new animal research shows. The study, conducted by investigators at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggests that it is the olive oil component of the Mediterranean diet that likely promotes healthy brain aging.... "And results are important enough to absolutely encourage people to consume greater amounts of EVOO. Given that it's been consumed for at least 2000 years, I do not anticipate any side effects," he added.

For the study, the investigators tested the potentially beneficial effects of EVOO on triple transgenic mice. These mice are specifically bred to develop key pathologic features of AD (Alzheimer's disese), including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The animals were divided into two groups. One group received EVOO-enriched chow, and the other received regular chow without EVOO. The olive oil was introduced into the diet when the mice were 6 months of age, before they began to develop symptoms of AD..... The mice were subjected to the same behavioral tests at both 9 and 12 months of age, after which they were euthanized and their brains were examined for the presence of key pathologic features of AD.

The researchers confirmed that mice fed the EVOO-enriched diet performed significantly better at both 9 and 12 months on tests designed to assess working memory, spatial memory, and learning abilities compared with mice fed regular chow. The researchers also found a statistically significant reduction in the amount of Aβ peptides deposited in the brains of the EVOO-treated animals compared with controls. There was also a significant reduction in the phosphorylated forms of tau in mice fed the EVOO-enriched chow compared to controls, although olive oil had no effect on total tau levels in the same region of the brain.

The investigators also examined whether the improvements in cognitive performance and brain pathology that were observed in EVOO-treated mice might be the result of an improvement in synaptic integrity. Once again, they found greater preservation in the integrity of the synapses between neurons in EVOO-fed mice compared with controls....  Furthermore, there was a dramatic increase in nerve cell autophagy activation in brain cells from the EVOO-fed animals compared with controls. Dr Pratico explained that autophagy is a mechanism by which cells digest proteins that are produced in excess or that are abnormal. In this particular animal model, autophagy digests and gets rid of both amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau.

"Thanks to the autophagy activation, memory and synaptic integrity were preserved, and the pathological effects in animals otherwise destined to develop Alzheimer's disease were significantly reduced. This is a very important discovery, since we suspect that a reduction in autophagy marks the beginning of Alzheimer's disease."

 The following is a study with weird results, really weird results. And it makes me think of all the times I've heard people joke: "just smelling food makes me gain weight", because we all knew it wasn't true. But what if it was true? .... The results of this study done in mice are that actually smelling the food one eats results in weight gain, and not being able to smell the food results in weight loss - even if both groups eat the same amount of food. And the "supersmellers" (those with a "boosted" sense of smell) gained the most weight of all.

What? How could that be? Yes, the study was done in mice, but perhaps it also applies to humans (the researchers think so). The researchers think  that the odor of what we eat may play an important role in how the body deals with calories - if you can't smell your food, you may burn it rather than store it. In other words, a link between smell and metabolism. Excerpts from Science Daily:

Smelling your food makes you fat

Our sense of smell is key to the enjoyment of food, so it may be no surprise that in experiments at the University of California, Berkeley, obese mice who lost their sense of smell also lost weight. What's weird, however, is that these slimmed-down but smell-deficient mice ate the same amount of fatty food as mice that retained their sense of smell and ballooned to twice their normal weight. In addition, mice with a boosted sense of smell—super-smellers—got even fatter on a high-fat diet than did mice with normal smell.

The findings suggest that the odor of what we eat may play an important role in how the body deals with calories. If you can't smell your food, you may burn it rather than store it. These results point to a key connection between the olfactory or smell system and regions of the brain that regulate metabolism, in particular the hypothalamus, though the neural circuits are still unknown. The new study, published this week in the journal Cell Metabolism, implies that the loss of smell itself plays a role, and suggests possible interventions for those who have lost their smell as well as those having trouble losing weight. "Sensory systems play a role in metabolism. Weight gain isn't purely a measure of the calories taken in; it's also related to how those calories are perceived," said senior author Andrew Dillin,...

The smell-deficient mice rapidly burned calories by up-regulating their sympathetic nervous system, which is known to increase fat burning. The mice turned their beige fat cells—the subcutaneous fat storage cells that accumulate around our thighs and midriffs - into brown fat cells, which burn fatty acids to produce heat. Some turned almost all of their beige fat into brown fat, becoming lean, mean burning machines. In these mice, white fat cells—the storage cells that cluster around our internal organs and are associated with poor health outcomes—also shrank in size. The obese mice, which had also developed glucose intolerance - a condition that leads to diabetes—not only lost weight on a high-fat diet, but regained normal glucose tolerance.

On the negative side, the loss of smell was accompanied by a large increase in levels of the hormone noradrenaline, which is a stress response tied to the sympathetic nervous system. In humans, such a sustained rise in this hormone could lead to a heart attack.

Dillin and Riera developed two different techniques to temporarily block the sense of smell in adult mice. .... In both cases, the smell-deficient mice ate as much of the high-fat food as did the mice that could still smell. But while the smell-deficient mice gained at most 10 percent more weight, going from 25-30 grams to 33 grams, the normal mice gained about 100 percent of their normal weight, ballooning up to 60 grams. For the former, insulin sensitivity and response to glucose - both of which are disrupted in metabolic disorders like obesity - remained normal.

Mice that were already obese lost weight after their smell was knocked out, slimming down to the size of normal mice while still eating a high-fat diet. These mice lost only fat weight, with no effect on muscle, organ or bone mass. The UC Berkeley researchers then teamed up with colleagues in Germany who have a strain of mice that are supersmellers, with more acute olfactory nerves, and discovered that they gained more weight on a standard diet than did normal mice[Original study.]