Skip to content

Category: nutrition

Published on

Note that both eggs and high-fat dairy products were basically considered evil by the medical establishment for many years. Remember egg white omelettes?And now both are thought to have health benefits, especially reducing the risk of diabetes. From Science Daily:

Eating eggs reduces risk of type 2 diabetes, study indicates

Egg consumption may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to new research...Research has shown that lifestyle habits, such as exercise and nutrition, play a crucial role in the development of the disease. A new study has found that egg consumption was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes as well as with lower blood glucose levels. Men who ate approximately four eggs per week had a 37 per cent lower risk of type 2 diabetes than men who only ate approximately one egg per week. This association persisted even after possible confounding factors such as physical activity, body mass index, smoking and consumption of fruits and vegetables were taken into consideration. The consumption of more than four eggs did not bring any significant additional benefits.

The dietary habits of 2,332 men aged between 42 and 60 years were assessed at the baseline of the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, KIHD, at the University of Eastern Finland in 1984-1989. During a follow-up of 19.3 years, 432 men were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Also note that high meat consumption is linked to higher risk of diabetes. From Science Daily:

High-fat dairy products linked to reduced type 2 diabetes risk

Consumption of high-fat yoghurt and cheese are linked to a reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes by as much as a fifth, according to new research. High meat consumption, on the other hand, is linked to a higher risk.

However, the new study indicates that it is high-fat dairy products specifically that are associated with reduced risk."Those who ate the most high-fat dairy products had a 23 per cent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who ate the least. High meat consumption was linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes regardless of the fat content of the meat," said Ulrika Ericson, who conducted the study.

The researchers studied the eating habits of 27,000 individuals aged 45 to 74. The participants took part in the Malmö Diet and Cancer study in the early 1990s, in which they provided details of their eating habits. Twenty years on, over ten per cent -- 2 860 people -- had developed type 2 diabetes.

Published on

After reading this article, I looked over my last year's posts and realized that the recent studies posted all found that eating fish showed health benefits (and they did not look at supplements). Once again, a food shows benefits while the supplement is debatable. Current advice: try to eat fish at least twice a week. From the NY Times:

Fish Oil Claims Not Supported by Research

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health. But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

From 2005 to 2012, at least two dozen rigorous studies of fish oil were published in leading medical journals, most of which looked at whether fish oil could prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. These were people who had a history of heart disease or strong risk factors for it, like high cholesterol, hypertension or Type 2 diabetes. All but two of these studies found that compared with a placebo, fish oil showed no benefit.

In theory at least, there are good reasons that fish oil should improve cardiovascular health. Most fish oil supplements are rich in two omega-3 fatty acids — eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — that can have a blood-thinning effect, much like aspirin, that may reduce the likelihood of clots. Omega-3s can also reduce inflammation, which plays a role in atherosclerosis. And the Food and Drug Administration has approved at least three prescription types of fish oil — Vascepa, Lovaza and a generic form — for the treatment of very high triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease. But these properties of omega-3 fatty acids have not translated into notable benefits in most large clinical trials.

Like many cardiologists, Dr. Stein encourages his patients to avoid fish oil supplements and focus instead on eating fatty fish at least twice a week, in line with federal guidelines on safe fish intake, because fish contains a variety of healthful nutrients other than just EPA and DHA. “We don’t recommend fish oil unless someone gets absolutely no fish in their diets,” Dr. Stein said.

But some experts say the case for fish oil remains open. Dr. JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the large clinical trials of fish oil focused only on people who already had heart disease or were at very high risk. Fish oil has also been promoted for the prevention of a variety of other conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and depression. Dr. Manson is leading a five-year clinical trial, called the Vital study, of 26,000 people who are more representative of the general population. Set to be completed next year, it will determine whether fish oil and vitamin D, separately or combined, have any effect on the long-term prevention of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in people who do not have many strong risk factors.

Dr. Manson says that although she recommends eating fatty fish first, she usually does not stop people from taking fish oil, in part because it does not seem to have major side effects in generally healthy people. “But I do think people should realize that the jury is still out,” she said, “and that they may be spending a lot of money on these supplements without getting any benefit.”

Published on

The research finding that eating fruits and vegetables with high pesticide residues has a negative effect on sperm is disturbing. It wasn't the amount of fruits and vegetables eaten, it was eating fruits and vegetables with high levels of pesticide residues. Yes, the study does have some limitations (for example, a one time analysis, looked at men at a fertility clinic and not the general population), but...even with these limitations, the results are disturbing.

Earlier studies of children showed that switching to an organic diet has almost immediate results of reducing pesticide residues in the body (OP Pesticides in Children’s Bodies: The Effects of a Conventional versus Organic Diet). So the advice here is try to increase the amounts of organic fruits and vegetables in the diet, especially those with high pesticide residue levels.

Fruit or vegetables that were low in pesticide residues included peas, beans, grapefruit and onions. Those that had highest pesticide residues included peppers, spinach, strawberries, celery,blueberries, potatoes, peaches, plums, apples and pears.

From Time: A Diet High in Pesticides Is Linked to a Lower Sperm Count

The troubling link between pesticide exposure and fertility isn’t new; scientists have already established that people who work with pesticides tend to have lower fertility than people who don’t. But for the majority of us who don’t work with chemicals, diet is the biggest source of exposure, says Jorge Chavarro, MD, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health and senior author of a new study published in the journal Human Reproduction.

Chavarro and his colleagues wanted to see if pesticide residues left on fruits and vegetables might have a similar effect on sperm—and their findings suggest that they did. Men who ate fruits and vegetables with a lot of pesticides had lower sperm counts and more oddly shaped sperm than those who had lower levels of dietary pesticide exposure.

Over an 18-month period, the researchers used data from the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study, including semen samples from 155 men who were being treated at a Boston fertility clinic and a food frequency questionnaire they completed. The researchers determined pesticide exposure by comparing the questionnaire answers with government data about produce pesticide levels in the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program.

The study didn’t tease out individual foods, but the researchers classified produce according to whether it had high or low-to-moderate levels of pesticides. Men who ate the most high-pesticide fruits and vegetables had a 49% lower total sperm count and 32% fewer sperm that were shaped normally, compared to men who ate the least amount of the high-pesticide produce.

Researchers gave each piece of produce a score based on its level of detectable pesticides, its level of pesticides that exceeded the tolerance level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and whether the produce had three or more types of detectable pesticides. (The bigger the score, the more it hit all three measures.) Ranked from highest pesticide contamination to lowest, here were the top fruits and vegetables: Green, yellow and red peppers (6), Spinach (6), Strawberries (6), Celery (6), Blueberries (5), Potatoes (5), Peaches and plums (5), Apples or pears (5), Winter squash (4), Kale, mustard greens and chard greens (4), Grapes and raisins (4).

The team didn’t tease out associations with individual pesticides. But they believe that a mixture of pesticides—not just one particular pesticide—is responsible for the link. The strongest variable in their analysis were the proportion of fruits and vegetables consumed that use three or more pesticides. “The more pesticides are applied on any particular crop, that seems to be having a bigger impact,” Chavarro says...But for people who are concerned about their dietary exposure to pesticides, there are ways to lower it, he says, like eating organic and choosing produce not listed on the Environmental Working Group’s dirty dozen list.

From Science  Daily: Pesticides in fruit and vegetables linked to semen quality

Assistant Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston (USA), Jorge Chavarro, said: "These findings should not discourage the consumption of fruit and vegetables in general. In fact, we found that total intake of fruit and vegetables was completely unrelated to semen quality. This suggests that implementing strategies specifically targeted at avoiding pesticide residues, such as consuming organically-grown produce or avoiding produce known to have large amounts of residues, may be the way to go."

There were no differences seen between men in the four groups who consumed fruit and vegetables with low-to-moderate pesticide residues. In fact, there was a significant trend towards having a higher percentage of normally shaped sperm among men who consumed the most fruit and vegetables with low pesticide residues -- a relative increase of 37% from 5.7% to 7.8%...Note:Pesticide use varies from country to country, but in the USA those used on fruit and vegetables include Atrazine, Malathion, Chlorpyrifos and Carbendazim. 

Published on

More research showing health benefits of peanuts, including when eating them with a high fat meal. From Science Daily:

Adding peanuts to a meal benefits vascular health

A study of peanut consumption showed that including them as a part of a high fat meal improved the post-meal triglyceride response and preserved endothelial function.The purpose of this research was to evaluate vascular function after a high fat meal challenge.

Fifteen overweight males were randomized to either a peanut meal containing 3 oz. of ground peanuts (as a shake) or a control meal (a shake without peanuts) that were matched for energy and macronutrients...Flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) was measured to assess vascular function... The control meal decreased FMD by 1.2 percent compared to baseline. In contrast, there was no decrease in FMD after the peanut meal. These results demonstrate that the peanut meal maintained normal vascular function whereas the high fat-matched control meal impaired vascular function acutely.

Vascular dysfunction plays a major role in the development of atherosclerosis and the formation of coronary plaques and lesions that lead to coronary artery disease. Typically after a high fat meal, vascular function is reduced, albeit temporarily, until the fat that is in the blood (from the meal) is cleared. Strategies that can blunt this response to both dietary fat and its effect on vascular dysfunction may decrease the risk of coronary disease. Our finding demonstrated that that peanut consumption was shown to be atheroprotective as a part of high fat meal.

"Previous studies have shown that individuals who consume peanuts more than two times a week have a lower risk of coronary heart disease," said Liu. "This study indicates that the protective effect of peanut consumption could be due, in part, to its beneficial effect on artery health."

Published on

The American diet with its emphasis on highly processed foods is linked to chronic diseases. It's also not healthy when you look at the microbiome (community of microbes living in your body). With all the health research out there showing health benefits of real whole foods (especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, legumes), then the finding that highly processed foods dominate U.S. food purchases are just plain sad. But I'm not surprised. From Science Daily:

Highly processed foods dominate U. S. grocery purchases

A nation-wide analysis of U.S. grocery purchases reveals that highly processed foods make up more than 60 percent of the calories in food we buy, and these items tend to have more fat, sugar and salt than less-processed foods.

From 2000 to 2012, the researchers asked 157,142 households to use UPC barcode scanners to record all foods and beverages they purchased from grocery stores for at least 1 year. Although items without barcodes were not included, Poti points out that packaged produce such bagged lettuce or pints of berries can be scanned. Households participated in the study for an average of four years and collectively purchased 1.2 million items. The research team then linked each item to its nutrition information, product description and ingredient list, allowing them to rank each product's degree of food processing.

The researchers classified products as highly processed if they contained multi-ingredient, industrially formulated mixtures. They labeled foods such as soda, cookies, chips, white bread, candy and prepared meals as highly processed foods and categorized fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, milk, eggs, dried beans and fresh meat as unprocessed or minimally processed. The investigators also examined convenience, distinguishing between foods that are ready to eat, ready to heat or require cooking and/or preparation. Candy and chips are examples of ready-to-eat foods, and frozen meals are a ready-to-heat food.

"Overall, we found that not only are highly processed foods a dominant, stable part of U.S. purchasing patterns, but also that the highly-processed foods that households are purchasing are higher in fat, sugar, and salt, on average, compared to the less-processed foods that they buy," said Poti, who will present these findings at the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) Annual Meeting during Experimental Biology 2015."

The analysis revealed that from 2000 to 2012, the proportion of calories in highly processed food and beverage purchases by U.S. households remained stable at 61.0 to 62.5 percent. The researchers noted a significant increase in the proportion of calories purchased in ready-to-heat foods, which reached 15.2 percent in 2012. More than 80 percent of calories were purchased in ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat form in 2012, and these tended to be higher in fat, sugar and salt than food purchases that required preparation.

Published on

Discussions of the benefits of dietary fiber seem to be everywhere this week.

From Forbes: Eat Whole Grains For A Long Life, New Study Says

Eating lots of whole grains – especially those high in cereal fiber – may help people live longer, according to new research. The study out in BMC Medicine this week suggests that eating hefty amounts of cereal fibers can help reduce the risk of death from a number of causes, including cancer and diabetes, by almost 20%. Previous research has certainly linked whole grains to the reduction of certain chronic diseases and to reduced mortality, but this one is the largest of its kind to show a reduction in death from a number of different causes. So if you want to live longer, grab a bowl of cereal. The less refined, the better.

Whole grains are grains in their most unadulterated form, still containing the endosperm, bran, and germ – most of the plant’s nutritional value lies in the bran and germ. When grains go through milling to become processed or refined, they’re typically stripped of the bran and germ parts, along with a number of B vitamins, fiber, and iron.

In the new study, the Harvard Medical School team tracked over 367,000 healthy people who were taking part in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, for an average of 14 years. ..It turned out that people who ate more whole grains – 1.2 ounces of per day, on average – had a 17% reduced risk of death, compared to those who ate much less, around 0.13 ounces per day. And when it came to the cereal fiber itself, people who ate the most had a 19% reduced risk of death from any cause, compared to those who ate the least.

The researchers even broke it down by disease: People who ate the highest amounts of whole grains had a 48% reduced risk of death from diabetes, and an 11% reduced risk of dying from respiratory diseases. And people who ate the most cereal fiber had 15% and 34% reduced risk of death from cancer and diabetes, respectively. 

The study cannot of course determine causation, since it’s just observational...Still, a number of studies have pointed to a strong connection between whole grains and improved health and longevity in recent years. It may be the anti-inflammatory properties of fiber per se – and its effect of reducing c-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor – that are responsible for their health benefits. If you’re going to up your grain intake, make sure to choose whole ones, like steel cut oats, quinoa, or even whole grain bread, over refined ones like cereal flakes or white bread. 

From Scientific American: Fiber-Famished Gut Microbes Linked to Poor Health

Your gut is the site of constant turf wars. Hundreds of bacterial species—along with fungi, archaea and viruses—do battle daily, competing for resources. Some companies advocate for consuming more probiotics, live beneficial bacteria, to improve microbial communities in our gut, but more and more research supports the idea that the most powerful approach might be to better feed the good bacteria we already harbor. Their meal of choice? Fiber.  

Fiber has long been linked to better health, but new research shows how the gut microbiota might play a role in this pattern. One investigation discovered that adding more fiber to the diet can trigger a shift from a microbial profile linked to obesity to one correlated with a leaner physique. Another recent study shows that when microbes are starved of fiber, they can start to feed on the protective mucus lining of the gut, possibly triggering inflammation and disease.

"Diet is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing the microbiota," Justin Sonnenburg, a biologist at Stanford University, said earlier this month at a Keystone Symposia conference on the gut microbiome. "Dietary fiber and diversity of the microbiota complement each other for better health outcomes." In particular, beneficial microbes feast on fermentable fibers—which can come from various vegetables, whole grains and other foods—that resist digestion by human-made enzymes as they travel down the digestive tract. These fibers arrive in the large intestine relatively intact, ready to be devoured by our microbial multitudes. Microbes can extract the fiber's extra energy, nutrients, vitamins and other compounds for us. Short-chain fatty acids obtained from fiber are of particular interest, as they have been linked to improved immune function, decreased inflammation and protection against obesity.

Today's Western diet, however, is exceedingly fiber-poor by historical standards. It contains roughly 15 grams of fiber daily, Sonnenburg noted. For most of our early history as hunter-gatherers, we were likely eating close to 10 times that amount of fiber each day. "Imagine the effect that has on our microbiota over the course of our evolution," he said.

Not all helpful fiber, however, needs to come from the roots and roughage for which our ancestors foraged, new research suggests. Kelly Swanson, a professor of comparative nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and his team found that simply adding a fiber-enriched snack bar to subjects' daily diets could swing microbial profiles in a matter of weeks... The findings were published in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

As gut microbes are starved of fermentable fiber, some do die off. Others, however, are able to switch to another food source in the gut: the mucus lining that helps keep the gut wall intact and free from infection. In a recent study presented at the Keystone meeting, Eric Martens of the University of Michigan Medical School, postdoctoral researcher Mahesh Desai and their colleagues found that this fuel switch had striking consequences in rodents. A group of mice fed a high-fiber diet had healthy gut lining, but for mice on a fiber-free diet, "the mucus layer becomes dramatically diminished," he explained at the meeting. This shift might sometimes have severe health consequences. Research by a Swedish team, published last year in the journal Gut, showed a link between bacteria penetrating the mucus layer and ulcerative colitis, a painful chronic bowel disease.

A third group of mice received high-fiber chow and fiber-free chow on alternating days—"like what we would do if we were being bad and eating McDonald's one day and eating our whole grains the next," Martens joked. Even the part-time high-fiber diet was not enough to keep guts healthy: these mice had a mucus layer about half the thickness of mice on the consistently high-fiber diet. If we can extend these results to humans, he said, it "tells us that even eating your whole fiber foods every other day is still not enough to protect you. You need to eat a high-fiber diet every day to keep a healthy gut." Along the same lines, Swanson's group found that the gut microbiomes of his adult subjects reverted back to initial profiles as soon as the high-fiber bars were discontinued.

Published on

How much fiber is there in the different foods we eat? And how much should we eat? Recent posts (Where Do I Get That Beneficial Gut Bacteria? and A Special Gut Microbe) stressed the importance of eating dietary fiber for various health benefits and to feed the beneficial bacteria (such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii) in our gut. Are there different types of fiber and does it matter?

Currently the average American adult eats about 12 to 18 grams of dietary fiber daily. But the latest advice (from both National Academy of Sciences and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) is to eat over 20 grams of dietary fiber daily to about 35 grams daily, depending on weight. So a person eating a 2000 calorie daily diet should have about 25 grams of fiber daily. Their recommendation for children is that intake should equal age in years plus 5 g/day (e.g., a 4 year old should consume 9 g/day). 

Good fiber foods are: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), nuts, and seeds. But people eating a typical westernized diet are instead eating a high fat, high meat, highly processed food diet which neglects plant-based foods. Go look at the ingredient labels of favorite American foods and see that many don't have fiber or are low in dietary fiber (e.g., hot dogs, salami, candy, cookies, potato chips).

Dietary fiber or roughage is the indigestible portion of food derived from plants. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble, and both should be eaten for good health because they benefit health in a number of ways.

Insoluble fiber doesn't dissolve in water and passes through the intestines (it provides bulking), while soluble fiber dissolves in water, and becomes a gel. Plant foods contain both types of fiber in varying degrees, depending on the plant's characteristics. For example, plums and prunes have a thick skin covering a juicy pulp. The skin is a source of insoluble fiber, whereas soluble fiber is in the pulp.

One can also take fiber supplements, but actual real foods have many more health benefits to them, and also provide a variety of fiber sources. Eating a variety of whole plant-based foods is beneficial in many ways, including feeding the variety of bacteria species in your gut. Remember that different bacteria need different foods, and so eating a variety of foods is best.

To increase your daily dietary fiber intake, first take a look at the amount of fiber in different foods. And then eat lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), seeds, and nuts.

The following tables give approximate fiber amounts in some high fiber foods (NOTE: different sources give slightly different numbers):

Fresh & Dried Fruit  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Apples with skin  1 medium 5.0
 Apricot  3 medium 1.0
 Apricots, dried  4 pieces 2.9
 Banana  1 medium 3.9
 Blueberries  1 cup 4.2
 Cantaloupe, cubes  1 cup 1.3
 Figs, dried  2 medium 3.7
 Grapefruit  1/2 medium 3.1
 Orange, navel  1 medium 3.4
 Peach  1 medium 2.0
 Peaches, dried  3 pieces 3.2
 Pear  1 medium 5.1
 Plum  1 medium 1.1
 Raisins  1.5 oz box 1.6
 Raspberries  1 cup 8.0
 Strawberries  1 cup 4.4
Grains, Beans (Legumes), Nuts, Seeds  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Almonds  1 oz 4.2
 Black beans, cooked  1 cup 13.9
 Bran cereal  1 cup 19.9
 Bread, whole wheat  1 slice 2.0
 Brown rice, dry  1 cup 7.9
 Cashews  1 oz 1.0
 Flax seeds  3 Tbsp. 6.9
 Garbanzo beans, cooked  1 cup 5.8
 Kidney beans, cooked  1 cup 11.6
 Lentils, red cooked  1 cup 13.6
 Lima beans, cooked  1 cup 8.6
 Oats, rolled dry  1 cup 12.0
 Quinoa (seeds) dry  1/4 cup 6.2
 Quinoa, cooked  1 cup 8.4
 Pasta, whole wheat  1 cup 6.3
 Peanuts  1 oz 2.3
 Pistachio nuts  1 oz 3.1
 Pumpkin seeds  1/4 cup 4.1
 Soybeans, cooked  1 cup 8.6
 Sunflower seeds  1/4 cup 3.0
 Walnuts  1 cup 5.0
 Vegetables  Serving Size Fiber (g)
 Avocado (fruit)  1 medium 11.8
 Beets, cooked  1 cup 2.8
 Beet greens  1 cup 4.2
 Bok choy, cooked  1 cup 2.8
 Broccoli, cooked  1 cup 4.5
 Brussels sprouts, cooked  1 cup 3.6
 Cabbage, cooked  1 cup 4.2
 Carrot  1 medium 2.6
 Carrot, cooked  1 cup 5.2
 Cauliflower, cooked  1 cup 3.4
 Cole slaw  1 cup 4.0
 Collard greens, cooked  1 cup 2.6
 Corn, sweet  1 cup 4.6
 Green beans  1 cup 4.0
 Celery  1 stalk 1.1
 Kale, cooked  1 cup 7.2
 Onions, raw  1 cup 2.9
 Peas, cooked  1 cup 8.8
 Peppers, sweet  1 cup 2.6
 Pop corn, air-popped  3 cups 3.6
 Potato, baked w/ skin  1 medium 4.8
 Spinach, cooked  1 cup 4.3
 Summer squash, cooked  1 cup 2.5
 Sweet potato, cooked  1 medium 4.9
 Swiss chard, cooked  1 cup 3.7
 Tomato  1 medium 1.5
 Winter squash, cooked  1 cup 6.2
 Zucchini, cooked  1 cup 2.6

The tables were from http://commonsensehealth.com/high-fiber-foods-list-for-a-high-fiber-diet/

Published on

My last post A Special Gut Microbe was on the very essential and beneficial microbe Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. It is one of the most abundant  bacteria in the gut of healthy individuals, but low or depleted levels are associated with inflammation and found in a number of diseases, including intestinal bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease. It is a butyrate producing bacteria (beneficial).

F. prausnitzii is viewed as so essential that it has been called a "keystone species" in the gut. A question I've been asked is: how can one increase the numbers of this bacteria in the gut and where can one buy some to take as a probiotic? (Probiotics are live bacteria that are beneficial to health when consumed.)

The typical bacteria added to yogurts or sold as supplements are able to survive when exposed to air (oxygen). However, F. prausnitzii are "oxygen sensitive" and they die within minutes upon exposure to air. Researchers view this beneficial bacteria as a "probiotic of the future" and currently there is research going on to figure out ways it can be easily stored and be exposed to air a few hours and not die. Currently there is NO way to take a probiotic F. prausnitzii supplement. So what else can one do?

After reviewing the scientific literature, it seems that the current ways to get F. prausnitzii into the gut or increase its numbers are: fecal microbiota transplant or FMT (currently only done with desperately ill individuals), drastically restricting calories for one week by obese individuals increases beneficial bacteria, and making changes to the diet. For example, a high animal meat, high animal fat, high sugar, highly processed foods, and low fiber diet (the typical westernized diet) lowers F. prausnitzii numbers, while a high-fiber, low meat diet increases F. prausnitzii numbers.

Repeat: the number one thing a person can do to increase numbers of F. prausnitzii is to increase fiber in the diet. By the way, increasing dietary fiber increases butyrate, and butyrate is involved with colon health, is anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer . See, it's all related.

High fiber is: whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, and legumes. Eat a varied plant-based diet, which means lots of plant based foods. It seems that Michael Pollan's emphasis on "Eat real foods. Mostly plants. Not too much." is just right. And variety seems important - with different types of fiber feeding different bacteria.

While F. prausnitzii may be an important beneficial bacteria in the gut, it is not the only beneficial one. So a food labeled "with added fiber" may not be the right fiber for bacteria, This is even true for enteral formula supplementation, for example, one formula containing fiber used pea fiber and this did not feed the F. prausnitzii.

In the first paragraph I mentioned that research has consistently shown F. prausnitzii depletion in adults sick with IBDs such as Crohn's disease. So it was interesting to find that one recent study found that even people sick with Crohn's disease showed significant improvement and remission (92% remission at 2 years) on a semi-vegetarian diet, namely a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet (daily 32.4 g of dietary fiber in 2000 calories). [High Amount of Dietary Fiber Not Harmful But Favorable for Crohn Disease ]This is totally opposite from the current prevailing medical view which currently encourages people with IBD to "rest the intestine" with a fiber-restricted diet.

Published on

In the past year I keep coming across one special gut microbe: Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. This bacteria is considered beneficial and is one of the most prevalent intestinal bacterial species in healthy adults. The reduction of this bacteria in the gut (as measured by analyzing bacteria in fecal samples) is seen in several diseases, including Intestinal Bowel Disease (IBD). This bacteria has also been found to be anti-inflammatory. In other words, you really, really want a healthy population in your gut.

But now the question is: how does the bacteria get there? And how can you increase it if you have a low population in your gut? It certainly isn't found in any probiotic supplement that I know of.  Part of the answer seems to be eating foods with fiber, lots of it, to feed the good microbes. Eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, legumes, and nuts.

The following lengthy article discusses the importance of keystone species (F. prausnitzii is one). From Scientific American:

Among Trillions of Microbes in the Gut, a Few Are Special

In the mid-2000s Harry Sokol, a gastroenterologist at Saint Antoine Hospital in Paris, was surprised by what he found when he ran some laboratory tests on tissue samples from his patients with Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gut.. But when Sokol did a comparative DNA analysis of diseased sections of intestine surgically removed from the patients, he observed a relative depletion of just one common bacterium, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Rather than “bad” microbes prompting disease, he wondered, could a single “good” microbe prevent disease?

Sokol transferred the bacterium to mice and found it protected them against experimentally induced intestinal inflammation. And when he subsequently mixed F. prausnitzii with human immune cells in a test tube, he noted a strong anti-inflammatory response. Sokol seemed to have identified a powerfully anti-inflammatory member of the human microbiota.

Each of us harbors a teeming ecosystem of microbes that outnumbers the total number of cells in the human body by a factor of 10 to one and whose collective genome is at least 150 times larger than our own... The microbiome varies dramatically from one individual to the next and can change quickly over time in a single individual. The great majority of the microbes live in the gut, particularly the large intestine, which serves as an anaerobic digestion chamber. 

Independent researchers around the world have identified a select group of microbes that seem important for gut health and a balanced immune system. They belong to several clustered branches of the clostridial group. Dubbed “clostridial clusters,” these microbes are distantly related to Clostridium difficile, a scourge of hospitals and an all too frequent cause of death by diarrhea. But where C. difficile prompts endless inflammation, bleeding and potentially catastrophic loss of fluids, the clostridial clusters do just the opposite—they keep the gut barrier tight and healthy, and they soothe the immune system. Scientists are now exploring whether these microbes can be used to treat a bevy of the autoimmune, allergic and inflammatory disorders that have increased in recent decades, including Crohn's and maybe even obesity.

F. prausnitzii was one of the first clostridial microbes to be identified. In Sokol's patients those with higher counts of F. prausnitzii consistently fared best six months after surgery. After he published his initial findings in 2008, scientists in India and Japan also found F. prausnitzii to be depleted in patients with inflammatory bowel disease... This suggested that whereas different genetic vulnerabilities might underlie the disorder, the path to disease was similar: a loss of anti-inflammatory microbes from the gut. And although Sokol suspects that other good bacteria besides F. prausnitzii exist, this similarity hinted at a potential one-size-fits-all remedy for Crohn's and possibly other inflammatory disorders: restoration of peacekeeping microbes.

One of the questions central to microbiome research is why people in modern society, who are relatively free of infectious diseases, a major cause of inflammation, are so prone to inflammatory, autoimmune and allergic diseases. Many now suspect that society-wide shifts in our microbial communities have contributed to our seemingly hyperreactive immune systems. Drivers of these changes might include antibiotics; sanitary practices that are aimed at limiting infectious disease but that also hinder the transmission of symbiotic microbes; and, of course, our high-sugar, high-fat modern diet. Our microbes eat what we eat, after all. Moreover, our particular surroundings may seed us with unique microbes, “localizing” our microbiota.

A number of studies have found a small but significant correlation between the early-life use of antibiotics and the later development of inflammatory disorders, including asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and, more recently, colorectal cancer and childhood obesity. One explanation for this association might be that sickly people take more antibiotics. Antibiotics are not the cause, in other words, but the result of preexisting ill health. Honda's studies suggest another explanation: antibiotics may deplete the very bacteria that favorably calibrate the immune system, leaving it prone to overreaction. 

A number of studies over the years have linked having fewer sanitary amenities in childhood with a lower risk of inflammatory bowel disease in adulthood. And a 2014 study from Aarhus University in Denmark found that among northern Europeans, growing up on a farm with livestock—another microbially enriched environment—halved the risk of being stricken with inflammatory bowel disease in adulthood.

These patterns suggest that perhaps by seeding the gut microbiota early in life or by direct modification of the immune system the environment can affect our risk of inflammatory bowel disease despite the genes we carry. And they raise the question of what proactive steps those of us who do not live on farms can take to increase our chances of harboring a healthy mix of microbes.

One of the more surprising discoveries in recent years is how much the gut microbiota of people living in North America differs from those of people living in rural conditions in Africa and South America. The microbial mix in North America is geared to digesting protein, simple sugars and fats, whereas the mix in rural African and Amazonian environments is far more diverse and geared to fermenting plant fiber. Some think that our hunter-gatherer ancestors harbored even greater microbial diversity in their guts.

What troubles Sonnenburg about this shift is that the bacteria that seem most anti-inflammatory—including the clostridial clusters—often specialize in fermenting soluble fiber...Some hunter-gatherers consumed up to 10 times as much soluble fiber as modern populations, and their bodies likely were flooded with far more fermentation by-products. Our fiber-poor modern diet may have weakened that signal, producing a state of “simmering hyperreactivity,” Sonnenburg says, and predisposing us to the “plagues” of civilization. He calls this problem “starving our microbial self.” We may not be adequately feeding some of the most important members of our microbiota.

Mouse experiments support the idea. Diets high in certain fats and sugars deplete anti-inflammatory bacteria, thin the mucous layer and foster systemic inflammation. ...In rodents, adding fermentable fiber to a diet otherwise high in fat keeps the “good” microbes happy, the mucous layer healthy and the gut barrier intact, and it prevents systemic inflammation. Taken together, these studies suggest that it is not only what is in your food that matters for your health but also what is missing.

The human studies are even more intriguing... Scientists at Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium recently showed that adding inulin, a fermentable fiber, to the diet of obese women increased counts of F. prausnitzii and other clostridial bacteria and reduced that dangerous systemic inflammation...Those without the bacteria did not benefit, which suggests that once species disappear from the “microbial organ,” the associated functions might also vanish. These individuals might not require ecosystem engineering so much as an ecosystem restoration.

Published on

This is the latest study raising health concerns about energy drinks, which include popular brands Red Bull and Monster. (See review article Energy Beverages: Content and Safety and from Time What’s In Your Energy Drink? ). And remember, they are not a "real food" when you look at the ingredients (e.g., caffeine, taurine and glucuronolactone, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, colors). From Live Science:

Energy Drinks Raise Blood Pressure, Study Finds

Energy drinks might give you some pep — but they might also be priming you for heart problems, a new study finds. Researchers found that energy drinks can raise blood pressure to potentially unhealthy levels. The effect was far more prominent in young adults who did not consume caffeine regularly, according to the study, presented March 14 at an American College of Cardiology meeting in San Diego.

In this study, the research team — led by Dr. Anna Svatikova, a cardiovascular-diseases fellow at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota — gave a can of a commercially available energy drink to 25 healthy volunteers, whose ages ranged from 19 to 40. On a different day, the participants drank the same amount of a placebo drink. The researchers measured the participants' heart rate and blood pressure before and after the drinks.

The participants experienced a more marked rise in blood pressure after consuming the energy drink than after drinking the placebo, according to the findings. The participants' average systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) increased by 3 percent more after they drank an energy drink, compared with after they drank the placebo drink. [5 Health Problems Linked to Energy Drinks]

The effect was most dramatic in people who did not typically consume more than a small cup of coffee or other caffeinated drink daily. In this so-called "caffeine-naive" group, the blood pressure increase was twice as high as the increase seen in the people who drank at least the equivalent of a cup of coffee on a daily basis, the researchers said in a statement...Scientists do not know whether it is the caffeine, taurine or other ingredients found in energy drinks — or a combination of ingredients — that can adversely affect the heart.

In a separate study, presented last year at an American Heart Association meeting by Maj. Emily Fletcher of the David Grant Air Force Medical Center, healthy volunteers experienced a greater increase in blood pressure after they consumed an energy drink compared to after they drank a coffee drink that had an equal amount of caffeine. This result, Fletcher said, suggests that ingredients in the energy drink other than caffeine were conspiring to raise blood pressure.