Skip to content

Category: nutrition

Published on Leave a comment on Lifestyle Habits That May Protect Men From Lethal Prostate Cancer

Data from 2 huge studies was analyzed and found that vigorous exercise and other healthy habits seems to cut the chance of developing aggressive and lethal prostate cancer up to 68 percent in men over 60. The beneficial lifestyle habits are: weekly vigorous exercise or activity to the point of sweating, at least 7 servings of tomatoes a week, at least one serving of fatty fish per week, reduced intake of processed meat, and being a long-term non-smoker.

Interestingly, vigorous activity or exercise to sweating - ideally up to 3 hours a week - showed the biggest association with a 34 % reduced risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

From Science Daily: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

A study that tracked tens of thousands of midlife and older men for more than 20 years has found that vigorous exercise and other healthy lifestyle habits may cut their chances of developing a lethal type of prostate cancer by up to 68 percent.

While most prostate cancers are "clinically indolent," meaning they do not metastasize and are nonlife-threatening, a minority of patients are diagnosed with aggressive disease that invades the bone and other organs, and is ultimately fatal. Lead author Stacey Kenfield, ScD, of UCSF, and a team of researchers at UCSF and Harvard, focused on this variant of prostate cancer to determine if exercise, diet and smoke-free status might have life-saving benefits.

In the study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the researchers analyzed data from two U.S. studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study that tracked more than 42,000 males ages 40 to 75, from 1986 to 2010; and a second, the Physicians' Health Study that followed more than 20,000 males ages 40 to 84, from 1982 to 2010.

To gage the effects of lifestyle habits, the researchers developed a score based on the results of the health professionals survey, then applied it to the physicians' study. They assigned one point for each affirmative response to questions about regular intense exercise that induced sweating, body mass index (BMI) under 30, tobacco-free status for a minimum of 10 years, high intake of fatty fish, high intake of tomatoes and low intake of processed meat.

The researchers identified 576 cases of lethal prostate cancer in the health professionals' group and 337 cases in the physicians' group. Participants with 5 to 6 points in the health professionals' group had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the physicians' group for the same comparison.

"We estimated that 47 percent of lethal prostate cancer cases would be prevented in the United States if men over 60 had five or more of these healthy habits," said Kenfield, assistant professor in the Department of Urology at UCSF Medical Center, and formerly of the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, where the study was initiated.

"It's interesting that vigorous activity had the highest potential impact on prevention of lethal prostate cancer. We calculated the population-attributable risk for American men over 60 and estimated that 34 percent of lethal prostate cancer would be reduced if all men exercised to the point of sweating for at least three hours a week," Kenfield said.

The researchers also calculated that lethal prostate cancer among American men over 60 would be cut by 15 percent if they consumed at least seven servings of tomatoes per week and that 17 percent would be spared this diagnosis if they consumed at least one serving of fatty fish per week. Reducing intake of processed meats would cut the risk by 12 percent, they reported. In contrast, the population-attributed risk for smoking was 3 percent, largely because the majority of older American men are long-term nonsmokers.

Published on Leave a comment on Drink Coffee and Live Longer?

 Drink coffee daily -  3 to 5 cups of either regular or decaffeinated - and live longer by lowering your risk of premature death from cardiovascular disease, neurological disease, type 2 diabetes, and suicide. Yes, it was an observational study, but the results are similar to what other studies are finding. From Medical Xpress:

Moderate coffee drinking may lower risk of premature death

People who drink about three to five cups of coffee a day may be less likely to die prematurely from some illnesses than those who don't drink or drink less coffee, according to a new study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health researchers and colleagues. Drinkers of both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee saw benefits, including a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, neurological diseases, type 2 diabetes, and suicide.

"Bioactive compounds in coffee reduce insulin resistance and systematic inflammation," said first author Ming Ding, a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition. "That could explain some of our findings. However, more studies are needed to investigate the biological mechanisms producing these effects."

Researchers analyzed health data gathered from participants in three large ongoing studies: 74,890 women in the Nurses' Health Study; 93,054 women in the Nurses' Health Study 2; and 40,557 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Coffee drinking was assessed using validated food questionnaires every four years over about 30 years. During the study period, 19,524 women and 12,432 men died from a range of causes.

In the whole study population, moderate coffee consumption was associated with reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease, and suicide. Coffee consumption was not associated with cancer deaths. The analyses took into consideration potential confounding factors such as smoking, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and other dietary factors.

Published on Leave a comment on Very Low Levels of Vitamin D and Heart Problems

New research found that negative health effects - 35% increased risk of cardiovascular problems (coronary heart disease, heart attacks, strokes) are when the vitamin D levels are really low (under 15 nanograms per milliliter). Currently many doctors recommend optimal levels for health as somewhere between 35 to 40 ng/ml. One article in Medscape recommended 1,000 IU of vitamin D (preferably D3) daily to achieve this level. Or you can go outside in the sun for 15 to 20 minutes. From Science Daily:

Specific vitamin D levels linked to heart problems

A lack of vitamin D can result in weak bones. Recent studies also show that vitamin D deficiency is linked to more serious health risks such as coronary artery disease, heart attacks, and strokes. And now, a new study shows what level of deficiency puts someone at risk of developing these heart problems.Researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City have found that patients are fine from a heart standpoint, and may need no further treatment, if their vitamin D level is anywhere above 15 nanograms per milliliter.

"Although vitamin D levels above 30 were traditionally considered to be normal, more recently, some researchers have proposed that anything above 15 was a safe level. But the numbers hadn't been backed up with research until now," said J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, co-director of cardiovascular research at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, and lead researcher of the study.

The body naturally produces vitamin D as a result of exposure to the sun, and it's also found in a few foods -- including fish, fish liver oils, and egg yolks as well as some dairy and grain products. Those who don't have enough exposure to sunlight or vitamin D producing foods often have low vitamin D levels. Low levels are also attributed to race because people with dark skin have a natural protectant against ultraviolet light.

Dr. Muhlestein and his team have studied the effects of vitamin D on the heart for several years, looking at smaller numbers of patients. In this study, thanks to Intermountain Healthcare's vast clinical database, they were able to evaluate the impact of vitamin D levels on more than 230,000 patients. The 230,000 patients were split up into four groups (<15 ng/ml, 15-29, 30-44, ≥45) and were followed for the next three years by researchers who looked for major adverse cardiac events, including death, coronary artery disease, heart attacks, stroke, and incidents of heart or kidney failure.

Dr. Muhlestein found that for the nine percent of patients in the lower than 15 group, their risk of cardiovascular events increased by 35 percent compared to the other three groups, and the risks faced by the other three groups weren't very different from each other.

Published on Leave a comment on Reducing Sugar Improves Health

This study showed that children reducing sugar consumption (but not fruits), and without reducing calories, after 10 days improved all sorts of metabolic health markers: blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, liver function, fasting blood glucose, and insulin levels. As one of the researchers said: "I have never seen results as striking or significant in our human studies; after only nine days of fructose (sugar) restriction, the results are dramatic and consistent from subject to subject." Once again, not all calories are the same.

On average, the obese children in this study had been getting about 27 percent of their daily calories from sugar, and during the study period it was lowered to about 10 percent of daily calories. By comparison, the average American takes in about 15 percent, though children typically consume much more than this in part because they have the highest intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. In February of this year, the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended that Americans limit their intake of added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily calories. From Medical Xpress:

Obese children's health rapidly improves with sugar reduction unrelated to calories

Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases, including high cholesterol and blood pressure, in children in as little as 10 days, according to a study by researchers at UC San Francisco and Touro University California.

"This study definitively shows that sugar is metabolically harmful not because of its calories or its effects on weight; rather sugar is metabolically harmful because it's sugar," said lead author Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco. "This internally controlled intervention study is a solid indication that sugar contributes to metabolic syndrome, and is the strongest evidence to date that the negative effects of sugar are not because of calories or obesity."

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions—increased blood pressure, high blood glucose level, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels—that occur together and increase risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Other diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes, now occur in children—disorders previously unknown in the pediatric population.

In the study, 43 children between the ages of 9 and 18 who were obese and had at least one other chronic metabolic disorder, such as hypertension, high triglyceride levels or a marker of fatty liver, were given nine days of food, including all snacks and beverages, that restricted sugar but substituted starch to maintain the same fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calorie levels as their previously reported home diets.....The study menu restricted added sugar (while allowing fruit), but substituted it by adding other carbohydrates such as bagels, cereal and pasta so that the children still consumed the same number of calories from carbohydrate as before, but total dietary sugar was reduced from 28 to 10 percent, and fructose from 12 to 4 percent of total calories, respectively. The food choices were designed to be "kid food" - turkey hot dogs, potato chips, and pizza all purchased at local supermarkets, instead of high sugar cereals, pastries, and sweetened yogurt.

Children were given a scale and told to weigh themselves everyday, with the goal of weight stability, not weight loss. When weight loss did occur (a decrease of an average of 1 percent over the 10-day period but without change in body fat), they were given more of the low-sugar foods."When we took the sugar out, the kids started responding to their satiety cues," said Schwarz. "They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar. Some said we were overwhelming them with food."

After just 9 days on the sugar-restricted diet, virtually every aspect of the participants' metabolic health improved, without change in weight. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by 5mm, triglycerides by 33 points, LDL-cholesterol (known as the "bad" cholesterol) by 10 points, and liver function tests improved. Fasting blood glucose went down by 5 points, and insulin levels were cut by one-third. "All of the surrogate measures of metabolic health got better, just by substituting starch for sugar in their processed food—all without changing calories or weight or exercise," said Lustig. "This study demonstrates that 'a calorie is not a calorie.' Where those calories come from determines where in the body they go. Sugar calories are the worst, because they turn to fat in the liver, driving insulin resistance, and driving risk for diabetes, heart, and liver disease."

Published on

Another study providing evidence that the Mediterranean diet is good for the brain. In elderly dementia-free adults (mean age 80 years) - those that generally followed a Mediterranean diet (higher adherence) had a larger brain volume than those not following the Mediterranean diet, as well as more total gray and white matter volume.The difference between the groups is equal to about 5 years of aging.

Having "higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet" in the study meant higher consumption of healthy foods or lower consumption of unhealthy foods. The Mediterranean diet stresses a  high intake of vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, fish, olive oil, and low intake of saturated fatty acids, dairy products, meat, and poultry; and mild to moderate amounts of alcohol. Specifically: Higher fish intake (at least 3 to 5 oz. weekly) and lower meat intake (no more than 3.5 oz. daily) correlated with greater total gray matter volume. Higher fish intake was also associated with "greater mean cortical thickness". From Medical Xpress:

Mediterranean diet may keep your mind healthier in old age

In news that sounds a bit like it came straight from a sci-fi thriller, researchers say that eating too much meat might shrink your brain. On the flip sid e, however, eating healthy foods from the so-called Mediterranean diet may help your brain stay in good shape as you get older, the new study suggests. The researchers said that people over 65 who ate more fish, vegetables, fruit, grains and olive oil had a larger brain volume than a similar group who didn't follow a Mediterranean diet.

"It was encouraging to see that the more you adhere to this Mediterranean diet, the more protection you get against brain atrophy [shrinkage]," said study author Yian Gu, an assistant professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University in New York City. .... But Gu noted that her study's observational findings cannot prove a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between diet and brain volume. The study was only designed to find an association.

Previous research has linked the Mediterranean diet to a lower risk of Alzheimer's disease, the study said. The diet stresses the consumption of vegetables, legumes (beans, peas and lentils), fruits, cereals, fish and monounsaturated fats such as olive oil, the study authors said. The eating plan also includes a low intake of meat, poultry, saturated fats and dairy products, as well as mild to moderate amounts of alcohol, according to the researchers.

For the study, Gu and her colleagues split 674 adults into two groups based on how closely their diets aligned with the Mediterranean diet. Their average age was 80 years. All participants underwent MRI scans of their brains to measure total brain volume and thickness. They also completed questionnaires about their food choices and eating patterns.

The researchers found that brain volumes of those who didn't follow a Mediterranean diet were smaller than those who did. The difference was minor in overall size—equated to about five years of aging, the study authors said. But, more specifically, the investigators found that eating more fish and less meat was associated with even less brain shrinkage. Using the study findings, Gu contended that eating at least 3 to 5 ounces of fish weekly, or no more than 3.5 ounces of meat each day, could protect the brain from shrinkage. She acknowledged that study participants may have inaccurately recalled their food consumption habits in the questionnaires used.

Published on Leave a comment on Eat Organic Foods to Lower Pesticide Levels

Several studies have found that when children eat organic foods, especially fruits and vegetables, the amount of pesticides in their bodies declines significantly. Most organophosphorus pesticides have been phased out for residential use, but they are still widely used in agriculture, and so these pesticides are detected in both foods and people.

This latest study looked at 20 children living in urban Oakland, Calif., and 20 in the agricultural community of Salinas, about 100 miles south. The children (between 3 - 6 years of age) ate a conventional diet for four days and an organic diet for seven days and then returned to conventional foods for five days. Their urine was collected daily and analyzed for pesticides, specifically by looking at pesticide metabolites (pesticide breakdown products).

Several classes of pesticides were frequently detected, for they were found in more than 72 percent of their urine samples, and 2,4-D was detected in 90% of samples. Of the six most frequently detected pesticides, two decreased by nearly 50 percent when children were on the organic diet, and levels of the common herbicide 2,4-D fell by 25 percent. Amounts of some pesticides were not significantly lower on the organic diet, but these were pesticides associated with use around homes for pest control, and not on foods (e.g., pyrethroids, diazinon, malathion).

Bottom line: eat as many organic foods as possible to lower pesticide levels in the  body. To further reduce pesticide levels in the body - avoid pesticide use around the home and garden. Instead, use least toxic IPM (Integrated Pest Management) or organic pest control and organic gardening.

From Medical Xpress: Organic produce means reduced pesticides in kids, study shows

New research out of the Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health at UC Berkeley shows that switching from conventional to organic fruits and vegetables, even for just a few days, significantly reduces pesticide levels in children's bodies.

Twenty children in Oakland, California and 20 in Salinas, California, all 3 to 6 years old, had their urine tested for 16 days during the study. For the first four, they ate conventional produce, for the next seven their diet was organic, and then conventional for the last five. The levels of several pesticides that showed up in daily testing dropped by one-quarter to one-half during the organic stretch.

Excerpts from the original study from Environmental Health Perspectives: Effect of Organic Diet Intervention on Pesticide Exposures in Young Children Living in Low-Income Urban and Agricultural Communities

Recent organic diet intervention studies suggest that diet is a significant source of pesticide exposure in young children....We aimed to determine whether consuming an organic diet reduced urinary pesticide metabolite concentrations in 40 Mexican-American children, 3–6 years of age, living in California urban and agricultural communities. In 2006, we collected urine samples over 16 consecutive days from children who consumed conventionally grown food for 4 days, organic food for 7 days, and then conventionally grown food for 5 days. We measured 23 metabolites, reflecting potential exposure to organophosphorous (OP), pyrethroid, and other pesticides used in homes and agriculture.

For six metabolites with detection frequencies > 50%, adjusted geometric mean concentrations during the organic phase were generally lower for all children, and were significant for total dialkylphosphates (DAPs) and dimethyl DAPs (DMs; metabolites of OP insecticides) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, a herbicide), with reductions of 40%, 49%, and 25%, respectively (p < 0.01). Chemical-specific metabolite concentrations for several OP pesticides, pyrethroids, and herbicides were either infrequently detected and/or not significantly affected by diet.

Although most residential uses of many organophosphorus (OP) pesticides, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon, have been phased out since the mid-2000s due to potential health risks to children, they have continued to be used in agriculture [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2000, 2001]. The use of OP pesticides in agriculture could result in ingestion of residues in food, and recent studies suggest that dietary intake of produce and juices may account for a significant proportion of OP pesticide exposure in young children (Lu et al. 2006b, 2008; Morgan et al. 2005; Smith-Spangler et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2003). Some of the best evidence supporting these findings includes results from diet intervention studies where significant reductions in excreted urinary pesticide metabolites were observed in young children when they consumed an organic diet (Lu et al. 2006b, 2008)....The lower urinary pesticide metabolite concentrations found in children eating organic diets is consistent with food residue monitoring data that has shown lower pesticide residue levels in organic versus conventionally grown food [Baker et al. 2002; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2008].

Other factors associated with children’s cumulative pesticide exposures include socioeconomic status and location of residence. For example, low-income children may experience higher exposures to pesticides, particularly pyrethroids, because of poor housing quality and associated pest infestations and home pesticide use (Bradman et al. 2005a; Quirós-Alcalá et al. 2011; Whyatt et al. 2002). Children living in agricultural areas, compared with children living in non-agricultural suburban areas, are exposed to higher ambient and residential contamination from drift or volatilization from nearby agricultural applications and take-home residue by farmworking parents (Bradman et al. 2011; Harnly et al. 2009;Lu et al. 2000; Quirós-Alcalá et al. 2011).

Our finding that an organic diet was not associated with a significant reduction in pyrethroid metabolite (3-PBA) excretion for all children is not surprising given that these pesticides are primarily used in and around homes and not commonly applied to food crops; the finding is also consistent with Lu et al. (2006a), who reported that residential use is a more significant pyrethroid exposure factor for children than a conventional diet. 

Several studies indicate that dietary intake is a potential route of exposure for herbicides.....Overall, these studies indicate that 2,4-D may be present in food and support our finding that the lower levels observed in our population during the organic diet phase were attributable to lower dietary exposure.

In summary, consistent with other studies, urinary 2,4-D and two measures of OP pesticide exposure (total DMs and total DAP metabolites) were lower in children eating an organic diet. Other frequently detected metabolites for pyrethroids, diethyl OP pesticides, and the herbicide metolachlor were not significantly lower during the organic diet phase. Further, several compound-specific herbicide and OP pesticide metabolites had low detection frequencies, indicating that diet was not an important exposure source for these pesticides (e.g., diazinon, malathion) in this population. Last, independent of diet, most frequently detected metabolites were generally higher in Salinas compared with Oakland children, with DMs and metolachlor at or near significance (p = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), suggesting additional sources of pesticide exposure for children living in agricultural communities.

1

Published on 1 Comment on To Drink Some Alcohol Or Not?

Lately the studies and articles about whether some alcohol consumption has health benefits (or not) have been mixed. But I am seeing patterns. Every one agrees that heavy alcohol consumption is unhealthy on many levels, but whether lower amounts are beneficial is disputed.  Some of the studies show a J-shaped curve: regular consumption of low to moderate levels of wine (e.g., up to one to 2 glasses of wine, esp. red wine) seems best for health and is associated with low prevalence of various diseases (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, heart failure) and death, while total abstainers have a higher rate of health problems and mortality, and high levels of consumption (heavy drinkers) is linked to even higher levels of serious disease (heart disease, cancer) and death. Studies world-wide also find an alcohol dose-related link to cancer (the more one drinks, the higher the rates of various cancers). Earlier posts on alcohol consumption health effects are here and also here.

Adding to the complexity of this issue, low to moderate levels of wine consumption, especially red wine (up to 1 to 2 glasses of wine per day or several times a week), are part of the Mediterranean diet (linked to many health benefits, including longevity, lower rates of cancer and heart disease), and part of the diet of communities with many healthy centenarians ("Blue Zones"), according to The Blue Zones author Dan Buettner.

Perhaps part of the problem with reviews of the studies is that what is "light to moderate drinking" varies from study to study - is it 1/2 glass or 1 glass daily or several times a week, or 2 or 3 glasses daily, or even more? People tend to underestimate what they drink when asked. There also is the issue of hard liquor/spirits (which recent studies find to have more negative health effects such as higher cancer mortality) vs wine or beer, and also if one drinks a little each day or engages in binge or episodic drinking  - all have different health effects. The CDC posts on its web-site: that moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men (this means no more than 7 drinks a week for a woman, and 14 for men). The Mayo Clinic defines a drink as one 12 oz. beer, 5 oz. of wine or  1.5 oz. of 80-proof spirits. I'm posting some of the studies and articles gathering recent headlines.

This was interesting in that 2 studies compared drinking low levels (1 daily wine glass) of white wine vs red wine. In the second study both wine groups also had significantly improved triglyceride levels, and the white wine group had significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose levels (better glucose control). From Washington Post: White wines may be just as good for you as red (in some ways, at least)

The short answer is that the evidence supporting white wine's health benefits, while still limited, is growing. While previous studies on the elixir have been mostly focused on testing in animals or on testing the components of the drink itself, scientists have recently reported on two randomized clinical trials that found good news for white wine enthusiasts.

The first study, called In Vino Veritas (In Wine, Truth) involved tracking 146 subjects half of whom drank pinot noir, and half of whom drank a white chardonnay-pinot over a year. The researchers reported at a European Society of Cardiology meeting last year that those who worked out twice per week and drank wine — either kind — saw a significant improvement in cholesterol levels.

The second, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, had a similar design. Researchers in Israel recruited 224 volunteers with diabetes 2 to drink 150 mL of either white wine, red wine or mineral water (the control) with dinner every day for two years. They were encouraged to eat a Mediterranean diet, which includes mostly plant-based foods and replaces butter with olive oil, but their caloric intake was not restricted.

The results were compelling: Drinking a glass of red wine (but not white wine) every day appeared to improve cardiac health and cholesterol management. But both red and white wine seemed to improve glucose control in some patients. Full of the same plant flavonoids in red wine that are thought to have a protective effect, white wine has been studied significantly less despite some promising initial findings. White wine has been shown by researchers at the University of Barcelona to be higher in antioxidants and has been associated with weight loss and anti-aging effects. Interestingly, researchers say no material differences were identified in blood pressure, adiposity, liver function, drug therapy, symptoms or quality of life among those who drank red wine, white wine or mineral water except for one thing. Sleep quality, it seems, improved in both wine groups.

A more detailed discussion of the above study (diabetics consuming either red wine, white wine, or mineral water). From Medscape:  Red Wine, White Wine Improve Cardiometabolic Risk Markers in Diabetics, Says 2-Year Trial

These results don't match up with all the other studies showing cardiovascular benefits from small to moderate levels of alcohol consumption. From Washington Post:  Surprising finding from heart study: Moderate drinking may have ‘cardiotoxic’ effects in elderly hearts

In a study of 4,466 people between the ages of 71 and 81, researchers found that even a limited alcohol intake of two or more servings a day for men and one or more for women was associated with subtle alterations in cardiac structure and function. Of those affected, the men experienced enlarged left ventricle walls while the women saw a small reduction in heart function.....elderly women appeared to be more susceptible to the cardiotoxic effects of alcohol.

The study appears to contradict or at least provide a new perspective on previous research. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, more than 100 prospective studies show that moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular issues. "The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction in risk," according to a summary of literature its researchers put together.

More support for low levels/moderate alcohol intake, but not for smoking and heavy alcohol use, or even for totally abstaining from alcohol. from Science Daily:  Smoking, heavy alcohol use are associated with epigenetic signs of aging

Cigarette smoking and heavy alcohol use cause epigenetic changes to DNA that reflect accelerated biological aging in distinct, measurable ways, according to research....They found that all levels of exposure to smoke were associated with significantly premature aging. Interestingly, moderate alcohol use -- about one to two drinks per day -- was correlated with the healthiest aging, while very low and high consumption were linked to accelerated aging.

From Science Daily:  Women with moderate beer consumption run lower risk of heart attack

Women who drink beer at most once or twice per week run a 30 percent lower risk of heart attack, compared with both heavy drinkers and women who never drink beer. These are the findings of a Swedish study which has followed 1,500 women over a period of almost 40 years....High spirits consumption was associated with increased risk of cancer mortality. (NOTE: The original study is in the Scandinavian Journal of Health Care - In addition, they found that women who sometimes drank wine had a lower risk of developing diabetes compared with the other two groups. Also: a tendency for increased mortality was found in women who had never drunk alcohol.)

However, a September 2015 Medscape article said that the picture is complex (some alcohol linked to better cardiovascular health, but that alcohol consumption is linked to cancer). They found the greatest negative effects in low income countries where there are higher rates of heavy alcohol use. Alcohol Ups Mortality and Cancer Risk; No Net Benefit

Last year Medscape published an article pointing out the conclusions of the 2014 World Cancer Report (WCR), issued by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The main conclusion: the rate of cancer from alcohol consumption is dose dependent - the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of cancer. Back in 1988 , the IARC labeled alcohol a carcinogen. However, what is "light to moderate drinking" varies from study to study, and perhaps light and moderate levels need to be separated out. From Medscape: No Amount of Alcohol Is Safe

The more alcohol that a person drinks, the higher the risk. The alcohol/cancer link has been strengthened by the finding of a dose/response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers. A causal relationship exists between alcohol consumption and cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon-rectum, liver, and female breast; a significant relationship also exists between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer.

But surely, light drinking doesn't cause or contribute to cancer? Apparently, it does. In a meta-analysis of 222 studies comprising 92,000 light drinkers and 60,000 nondrinkers with cancer, light drinking was associated with risk for oropharyngeal cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and female breast cancer.From this meta-analysis, it was estimated that in 2004 worldwide, 5000 deaths from oropharyngeal cancer, 24,000 from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and 5000 from breast cancer were attributable to light drinking. Light drinking was not associated with cancer of the colon-rectum, liver, or larynx.

However, a caveat is in order here. When alcohol use is self-reported, respondents might underestimate, or underreport, their actual alcohol intake. This can result in finding associations between cancer and light to moderate drinking, when in reality, alcohol intake is much higher.

Published on Leave a comment on Calcium Supplements and Kidney Stones

Once again, a study finds that foods are superior to supplements (here calcium supplements). It appears that eating foods rich in calcium has protective effects against kidney stones, but taking calcium supplements may result in kidney stone growth.

On the other hand, vitamin D may prevent kidney stone formation. Reviewing studies over the past few years, it seems that vitamin D (the sunshine vitamin) is the one supplement with positive effects.

From Science Daily: Calcium supplements may increase the risk of kidney stone recurrence

Calcium supplements may increase the risk of kidney stone recurrence, according to a new study.

While eating foods rich in calcium has protective effects against kidney stones, the effect of supplementation with calcium and vitamin D on the risk of kidney stone formation remains unclear. To investigate, Christopher Loftus, MD candidate (Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine) and his colleagues reviewed the 24-hour urine collections and CT imaging scans from patients at their institution who had a history of kidney stones.

They identified 6050 patients with a history of kidney stones by imaging scans, 2061 of whom had 24-hour urine collections before and after starting supplementation. A total of 1486 patients were supplemented with calcium, 417 with vitamin D only, and 158 with no supplementation.

Patients who took calcium supplements had lower total calcium and oxalate (which are components of kidney stones) in their urine while blood levels were unaffected. However, these patients also had a faster rate of kidney stone growth suggesting that the mechanism of calcium supplementation on stone formation may not be straightforward. Vitamin D supplementation also decreased urinary calcium excretion as well as stone growth, suggesting that it may help prevent the risk of stone formation.

"While taking supplemental calcium has associated positive effects, these results suggest that supplemental, as compared with dietary, calcium may worsen stone disease for patients who are known to form kidney stones," said Loftus.

Published on Leave a comment on Vegetables and Fruits Linked to Eye Health

A new study that tracked people more than 20 years found that a diet high in carotenoids - found in brightly colored fruits and vegetables (such as carrots, orange peppers, spinach, broccoli) - is linked to lower levels of macular degenaration (an age linked vision ailment).

Note that the link is found with real foods and not supplements (the researchers did not look at supplements). From Medical Xpress:

Carrots do help aging eyes, study shows

Your parents may have told you, "Eat your carrots, they're good for your eyes," and a new study suggests they were on to something. Pigments called carotenoids—which give red or orange hues to carrots, sweet potatoes and orange peppers, or deep greens to produce like spinach, broccoli and kale—may help ward off the age-linked vision ailment known as macular degeneration, researchers said.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the most common causes of vision loss, especially in the elderly. It affects the macula, the center part of the retina, and can lead to declines in sharp central vision and even blindness, experts say. 

Scientists have already linked a variety of factors to the condition including genetics, smoking and nutrition, said Bernstein, who was not involved in the new study. Prior research has produced mixed findings about links between carotenoids and macular degeneration, the researchers said. 

In the new study, Wu's team looked at data from health surveys that tracked people aged 50 and older—more than 63,000 women and almost 39,000 men—from 1984 or 1986 until 2010. Participants were all nurses and other health professionals. Overall, about 2.5 percent of study participants developed either intermediate or advanced forms of the eye condition during the years of the study.

Wu's team found that people who consumed the very highest levels of carotenoids known as lutein and zeaxanthin had a 40 percent lower risk of the advanced form of AMD compared to those who ate the veryleast. " Other carotenoids, including beta cryptoxanthin, alpha carotene and beta carotene, may also play protective roles," Wu added. People who consumed the very highest amount of these carotenoids—found in foods such as carrots and sweet potato—had a 25 to 35 percent lower risk of the advanced form of the illness, the findings showed.

Researchers did not find any link between the carotenoids and the intermediate form of macular degeneration, however. Lutein is found in eggs and dark leafy vegetables including broccoli, kale and spinach, Bernstein said. Zeaxanthin is harder to find in the diet, he said, but you can get it from corn, orange peppers and goji berries. Wu noted that both lutein and zeaxanthin concentrate in the macula, where they are thought to protect it from damage from oxygen and light.

Bernstein cautioned that the study has some weaknesses. It's based on people's recollections of their diets, he said, and doesn't examine the levels of the carotenoids that actually made it into their bodies and eyes. Still, he praised the research.... However, he said, a diet high in fruits and vegetables is important, especially colorful vegetables. Consume several servings a day, he advised.

Published on Leave a comment on Don’t Feed Melanoma

This study, even though done on mice, reinforces previous research that taking antioxidant supplements are linked to higher rates of cancer or the spread of cancer (metastases). Here it is linked to the spread of metastatic skin cancer. The researchers say that the overall conclusion from the various studies is that antioxidants protect healthy cells from free radicals that can turn them into malignancies, but may also protect a tumor once it has developed. They also suggest that suntan lotions and skin lotions containing vitamin E and beta-carotene may have the same negative effect and are now studying that possibility. However, note that many, many studies find that eating foods does NOT find negative effects, but only beneficial ones for health. The October 5, 2015 post also discussed why supplements containing large doses of antioxidants (such as beta-carotene) don't work, and can even cause harm. Bottom line: Eat fruits and vegetables daily for numerous health benefits, but skip the antioxidant supplements. From Science Daily:

Antioxidants cause malignant melanoma to metastasize faster

Antioxidants can double the rate of melanoma metastasis in mice, new research shows. The results reinforce previous findings that antioxidants hasten the progression of lung cancer. People with cancer or an elevated risk of developing the disease should avoid nutritional supplements that contain antioxidants, the researchers say.

Researchers at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, demonstrated in January 2014 that antioxidants hastened and aggravated the progression of lung cancer. Mice that were given antioxidants developed additional and more aggressive tumors. Experiments on human lung cancer cells confirmed the results. Given well-established evidence that free radicals can cause cancer, the research community had simply assumed that antioxidants, which destroy them, provide protection against the disease. Found in many nutritional supplements, antioxidants are widely marketed as a means of preventing cancer. Because the lung cancer studies called the collective wisdom into question, they attracted a great deal of attention.

The follow-up studies at Sahlgrenska Academy have now found that antioxidants double the rate of metastasis in malignant melanoma, the most perilous type of skin cancer. Science Translational Medicine published the findings on October 7. "As opposed to the lung cancer studies, the primary melanoma tumor was not affected," Professor Bergö says. "But the antioxidant boosted the ability of the tumor cells to metastasize, an even more serious problem because metastasis is the cause of death in the case of melanoma. The primary tumor is not dangerous per se and is usually removed."

Experiments on cell cultures from patients with malignant melanoma confirmed the new results. "We have demonstrated that antioxidants promote the progression of cancer in at least two different ways," Professor Bergö says. The overall conclusion from the various studies is that antioxidants protect healthy cells from free radicals that can turn them into malignancies but may also protect a tumor once it has developed.

Avoid supplements: Taking nutritional supplements containing antioxidants may unintentionally hasten the progression of a small tumor or premalignant lesion, neither of which is possible to detect. "Previous research at Sahlgrenska Academy has indicated that cancer patients are particularly prone to take supplements containing antioxidants," Dr. Bergö says. Our current research combined with information from large clinical trials with antioxidants suggests that people who have been recently diagnosed with cancer should avoid such supplements."

The role of antioxidants is particularly relevant in the case of melanoma, not only because melanoma cells are known to be sensitive to free radicals but because the cells can be exposed to antioxidants by non-dietary means as well. "Skin and suntan lotions sometimes contain beta carotene or vitamin E, both of which could potentially affect malignant melanoma cells in the same way as antioxidants in nutritional supplements," Professor Bergö says. How antioxidants in lotions affect the course of malignant melanoma is currently being explored. "We are testing whether antioxidants applied directly to malignant melanoma cells in mice hasten the progression of cancer in the same way as their dietary counterparts," Professor Bergö says.