Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Published on

This article describes results of a research review showing cancer prevention benefits from eating fatty fish and fish oil. From Science News:

Marked benefits found for cancer prevention with a higher intake of fatty fish

A new research review will once again have people asking for a second helping of wild Alaskan salmon at the dinner table. While several other studies have recently challenged the long-held belief of the benefits of a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids, this new study cites compelling evidence that eating the right kinds of fatty fish, in the right quantity, and prepared the right way, can in fact help prevent the body’s development of adenocarcinomas, a common type of cancerous tumor. A high proportion of the cancers arising in the breast, prostate, pancreas, colon, and the rest of the gastrointestinal tracts are adenocarcinomas.

The authors first cite evidence that the recently-demonstrated ability of daily low-dose aspirin to decrease risk for adenocarcinomas is attributable to its ability to modestly decrease the activity of cyclooxygenase-2 (cox-2), an enzyme which contributes importantly to the genesis and progression of adenocarcinomas. They then propose that an ample dietary intake of omega-3 fats -- the type prominent in fatty fish -- could also be expected to oppose cox-2 activity, and thereby reduce risk for adenocarcinomas.

The authors emphasize that it is not only the amount of fish consumed daily, but also the nature of this fish, and how it is preserved or cooked, that can have a major impact on the potential of dietary fish to lower cancer risk. "An easy way to see the benefit of omega-3 is to look at Italy," Dr. DiNicolantonio said. "The staple oil used in cooking and as a salad dressing in Italy is olive oil, which is quite low in omega-6. Meanwhile, fish -- high in omega-3 -- is a staple food in the Italian diet, and this fish is rarely salt-preserved or fried. In Italians studies, subjects who consumed fish at least twice weekly as compared to those who ate fish less than once a week, were found to be at a significantly lower risk for a number of cancers, including ovarian, endometrial, pharyngeal, esophageal, gastric, colonic, rectal, and pancreatic."

The authors also focus on several recent studies in which regular consumption of fish oil is correlated with lower subsequent cancer risk. These studies have reported lower risks for colorectal, breast, and advanced prostate cancer in those taking such supplements. And a recent study from the University of Washington, which estimated total omega-3 intakes of its subjects from both fish and from supplements, found that a high omega-3 intake was associated with a 23 percent reduction in total cancer mortality. Indeed, mortality from all causes was significantly lower in those with higher omega-3 intakes. The authors also noted that cox-2 is significantly expressed in pre-malignant and early stage adenocarcinomas, but expression is sometimes lost as cancers mature. This may be why cox-2 inhibition (via increased omega-3 intake) seems to have greater potential for cancer prevention, than for cancer therapy.

Published on

The latest results on this hotly debated subject. The researchers suggest that people instead use "hands free phones with the loud speaker feature". From Medscape:

Long-Term Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumor Risk

Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

The recent worldwide increase in use of wireless communications has resulted in greater exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The brain is the main target of RF-EMF when these phones are used, with the highest exposure being on the same side of the brain where the phone is placed.

The analysis included 1498 cases of malignant brain tumors; the mean age was 52 years. Most patients (92%) had a diagnosis of glioma, and just over half of the gliomas (50.3%) were the most malignant variety — astrocytoma  grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Also included were 3530 controls, with a mean age of 54 years.

The analysis showed an increased risk for glioma associated with use for more than 1 year of both mobile and cordless phones after adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, socioeconomic index, and year of diagnosis. The highest risk was for those with the longest latency for mobile phone use over 25 years.

The risk was increased the more that wireless phones were used. The odds ratios steadily rose with increasing hours of use...Further, the risk was highest among participants who first used a mobile phone (odds ratio, 1.8) or cordless phone (odds ratio, 2.3) before age 20 years, although the number of cases and controls was relatively small.

As Dr Hardell explained, children and adolescents are more exposed to RF-EMF than adults because of their thinner skull bone and smaller head and the higher conductivity in their brain tissue. The brain is still developing up to about the age of 20 and until that time it is relatively vulnerable, he said.

There was a higher risk for third-generation (3G) mobile phone use compared with other types, but this was based on short latency and rather low numbers of exposed participants, said the authors. 3G universal global telecommunications system mobile phones emit wide band microwave signals, which "hypothetically" may result in higher biological effects compared to other signals, they write. 

Numerous studies have looked at the link between use of wireless phones and brain tumors. Studies by Dr Hardell and his colleagues dating back to the late 1990s have found a connection with mobile and cordless phones. But the INTERPHONE study (Int J Epidemiol 2011;39:675-694; Cancer Epidemiol 2011;32:453-464) failed to find strong evidence that mobile phones increase the risk for brain tumors.

In addition, a large prospective study (Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:792-802) found that mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma or of meningioma or non–central nervous system cancers in middle-aged British women.

Pathophysiology. Published online October 28, 2014. Abstract

Published on

Yes! An approach to ADHD that makes sense. Nice piece from Richard A. Friedman, professor of clinical psychiatry and director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College. From NY Times:

A Natural Fix for A.D.H.D.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is now the most prevalent psychiatric illness of young people in America, affecting 11 percent of them at some point between the ages of 4 and 17. The rates of both diagnosis and treatment have increased so much in the past decade that you may wonder whether something that affects so many people can really be a disease.

And for a good reason. Recent neuroscience research shows that people with A.D.H.D. are actually hard-wired for novelty-seeking — a trait that had, until relatively recently, a distinct evolutionary advantage. Compared with the rest of us, they have sluggish and underfed brain reward circuits, so much of everyday life feels routine and understimulating.

To compensate, they are drawn to new and exciting experiences and get famously impatient and restless with the regimented structure that characterizes our modern world. In short, people with A.D.H.D. may not have a disease, so much as a set of behavioral traits that don’t match the expectations of our contemporary culture.

From the standpoint of teachers, parents and the world at large, the problem with people with A.D.H.D. looks like a lack of focus and attention and impulsive behavior. But if you have the “illness,” the real problem is that, to your brain, the world that you live in essentially feels not very interesting.The more novel and unpredictable the experience, the greater the activity in your reward center. But what is stimulating to one person may be dull — or even unbearably exciting — to another. There is great variability in the sensitivity of this reward circuit.

These findings suggest that people with A.D.H.D are walking around with reward circuits that are less sensitive at baseline than those of the rest of us. Having a sluggish reward circuit makes normally interesting activities seem dull and would explain, in part, why people with A.D.H.D. find repetitive and routine tasks unrewarding and even painfully boring.

Another patient of mine, a 28-year-old man, was having a lot of trouble at his desk job in an advertising firm. Having to sit at a desk for long hours and focus his attention on one task was nearly impossible. He would multitask, listening to music and texting, while “working” to prevent activities from becoming routine. Eventually he quit his job and threw himself into a start-up company, which has him on the road in constantly changing environments. He is much happier and — little surprise — has lost his symptoms of A.D.H.D.

My patient “treated” his A.D.H.D simply by changing the conditions of his work environment from one that was highly routine to one that was varied and unpredictable. All of a sudden, his greatest liabilities — his impatience, short attention span and restlessness — became assets. And this, I think, gets to the heart of what is happening in A.D.H.D.

Consider that humans evolved over millions of years as nomadic hunter-gatherers. It was not until we invented agriculture, about 10,000 years ago, that we settled down and started living more sedentary — and boring — lives. As hunters, we had to adapt to an ever-changing environment where the dangers were as unpredictable as our next meal. In such a context, having a rapidly shifting but intense attention span and a taste for novelty would have proved highly advantageous in locating and securing rewards — like a mate and a nice chunk of mastodon. In short, having the profile of what we now call A.D.H.D. would have made you a Paleolithic success story.

So if you are nomadic, having a gene that promotes A.D.H.D.-like behavior is clearly advantageous (you are better nourished), but the same trait is a disadvantage if you live in a settled context.

You may wonder what accounts for the recent explosive increase in the rates of A.D.H.D. diagnosis and its treatment through medication. The lifetime prevalence in children has increased to 11 percent in 2011 from 7.8 percent in 2003 — a whopping 41 percent increase — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And 6.1 percent of young people were taking some A.D.H.D. medication in 2011, a 28 percent increase since 2007. Most alarmingly, more than 10,000 toddlers at ages 2 and 3 were found to be taking these drugs, far outside any established pediatric guidelines.

Some of the rising prevalence of A.D.H.D. is doubtless driven by the pharmaceutical industry, whose profitable drugs are the mainstay of treatment. Others blame burdensome levels of homework, but the data show otherwise. Studies consistently show that the number of hours of homework for high school students has remained steady for the past 30 years.

I think another social factor that, in part, may be driving the “epidemic” of A.D.H.D. has gone unnoticed: the increasingly stark contrast between the regimented and demanding school environment and the highly stimulating digital world, where young people spend their time outside school. Digital life, with its vivid gaming and exciting social media, is a world of immediate gratification where practically any desire or fantasy can be realized in the blink of an eye. By comparison, school would seem even duller to a novelty-seeking kid living in the early 21st century than in previous decades, and the comparatively boring school environment might accentuate students’ inattentive behavior, making their teachers more likely to see it and driving up the number of diagnoses.

Perhaps one explanation is that adults have far more freedom to choose the environment in which they live and the kind of work they do so that it better matches their cognitive style and reward preferences. If you were a restless kid who couldn’t sit still in school, you might choose to be an entrepreneur or carpenter, but you would be unlikely to become an accountant. 

1

Published on 1 Comment on Vegan Diet May Be Best For Weight Loss

I think many will say: Oh no! Totally vegan is best for weight loss?? From Science Daily:

Vegan diet best for weight loss even with carbohydrate consumption, study finds

People shed more weight on an entirely plant based diet, even if carbohydrates are also included, a study has concluded. Other benefits of eating a vegan diet include decreased levels of saturated and unsaturated fat, lower BMIs, and improved macro nutrients.

The study, conducted by the university's Arnold School of Public Health and published in The International Journal of Applied and Basic Nutritional Sciences, compared the amount of weight lost by those on vegan diets to those on a mostly plant-based diet, and those eating an omnivorous diet with a mix of animal products and plant based foods. At the end of six months, individuals on the vegan diet lost more weight than the other two groups by an average of 4.3%, or 16.5 pounds.

The study followed participants who were randomly assigned to one of five diets on the dietary spectrum: vegan which excludes all animal products, semi-vegetarian with occasional meat intake; pesco-vegetarian which excludes all meat except seafood; vegetarian which excludes all meat and seafood but includes animal products, and omnivorous, which excludes no foods.

Participants followed their assigned dietary restrictions for six months, with all groups except the omnivorous participating in weekly group meetings. Those who stuck to the vegan diet showed the greatest weight loss at the two and six month marks.The lead author on this study, Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy notes that the diet consumed by vegan participants was high in carbohydrates that rate low on the glycemic index. 

Published on

Link between Vitamin D levels and asthma.From Science Daily:

Breathe easier: Get your vitamin D

Asthma, which inflames and narrows the airways, has become more common in recent years. While there is no known cure, asthma can be managed with medication and by avoiding allergens and other triggers. A new study points to a convenient, free way to manage acute asthmatic episodes -- catching some rays outside.

"Vitamin D has significant immunomodulatory effects and, as such, was believed to have an effect on asthma -- an immunologically mediated disease," said Dr. Confino-Cohen.

Dr. Confino-Cohen and her team of researchers analyzed the medical records of nearly four million members of Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health care provider. The Vitamin D levels of 307,900 people were measured between 2008 and 2012. Researchers also took into account key predictors of asthma, such as obesity, smoking, and other chronic diseases. Of some 21,000 asthma patients in Israel studied, those with a Vitamin D deficiency were 25 percent more likely than other asthmatics to have had at least one flare-up in the recent past.

The researchers found that Vitamin D-deficient asthmatics were at a higher risk of an asthma attack. "Uncontrolled asthma" was defined as being prescribed at least five rescue inhalers, one prescription of oral corticosteroids, or visiting the doctor for asthma at least four times in a single year.

While most of the Vitamin D in people's bodies comes from exposure to the sun, dermatologists recommend obtaining the ingredient from other sources -- fish, eggs, cod liver oil, fortified milk, or a dietary supplement -- due to the dangers of overexposure to the sun.

Based on the findings, the researchers recommend that people whose asthma cannot be controlled with existing treatments have their Vitamin D levels tested. For those with a vitamin D deficiency, supplements may make sense.

Published on

Chocolate lovers are rejoicing! From the NY Times:

To Improve a Memory, Consider Chocolate

Science edged closer on Sunday to showing that an antioxidant in chocolate appears to improve some memory skills that people lose with age. In a small study in the journal Nature Neuroscience, healthy people, ages 50 to 69, who drank a mixture high in antioxidants called cocoa flavanols for three months performed better on a memory test than people who drank a low-flavanol mixture.

On average, the improvement of high-flavanol drinkers meant they performed like people two to three decades younger on the study’s memory task, said Dr. Scott A. Small,a neurologist at Columbia University Medical Center and the study’s senior author. They performed about 25 percent better than the low-flavanol group.

The findings support recent research linking flavanols, especially epicatechin, to improved blood circulation, heart health and memory in mice, snails and humans. But experts said the new study, although involving only 37 participants and partly funded by Mars Inc.,the chocolate company, goes further and was a well-controlled, randomized trial led by experienced researchers.

Besides improvements on the memory test — a pattern recognition test involving the kind of skill used in remembering where you parked the car or recalling the face of someone you just met — researchers found increased function in an area of the brain’s hippocampus called the dentate gyrus, which has been linked to this type of memory.

To consume the high-flavanol group’s daily dose of epicatechin, 138 milligrams, would take eating at least 300 grams of dark chocolate a day — about seven average-sized bars. Or possibly about 100 grams of baking chocolate or unsweetened cocoa powder, but concentrations vary widely depending on the processing. Milk chocolate has most epicatechin processed out of it.

More extensive research is planned. As for why flavanols would help memory, one theory is that they improve brain blood flow; another, favored by Dr. Small, is that they cause dendrites, message-receiving branches of neurons, to grow.

Published on

The following medical article (actually an interview with Prof. Cedric F Garland, Department of Family & Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine) is strongly in favor of Americans getting their Vitamin D levels tested, and taking vitamin D3 (if needed) to raise serum levels of vitamin D's metabolite 25(OH)D to at least 30 ng/mL and preferably more.

It is suggested that taking 1000 IU of vitamin D3 daily would achieve these levels in most people. From Medscape:

Vitamin D and Mortality Risk: Should Clinical Practice Change?

Traditionally associated with skeletal disease including osteoporosis and fractures, low levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), the metabolite usually measured as a mark of vitamin D status, more recently have been linked to a wide range of nonskeletal diseases, including some cancers and autoimmune, cardiometabolic, and neurologic diseases. A number of studies also have reported an inverse association between 25(OH)D concentration and all-cause mortality.

To explore this association more, Medscape reached out to Dr. Cedric Garland, a well-known expert on vitamin D. Dr. Garland is a professor in the Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, and a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology. He has a Doctor of Public Health degree from University of California San Diego and studied epidemiology at Johns Hopkins. His research has focused on vitamin D status in health and the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased risk for disease, including some common cancers (breast cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, and melanoma) and diabetes. He is active in seeking to reduce the risk for cancer and diabetes by improving vitamin D status among the US population.

To examine the relation between serum 25(OH)D and mortality, Dr. Garland and colleagues at the University of California San Diego and others in the United States pooled data from 32 studies published between 1966 and 2013.[6] They found an overall relative risk of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-1.8; P <.001) comparing the lowest (0-9 ng/mL) with the highest (>30 ng/mL) category of 25(OH)D for all-cause mortality. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations ≤30 ng/mL were associated with higher all-cause mortality than concentrations >30 ng/mL (P <.01).

The investigators noted that these findings confirmed observations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that 25(OH)D levels of <20 ng/mL are too low for safety,[8] but they suggested a cut-off point of >30 ng/mL rather than >20 ng/mL for all-cause mortality reduction. This level "could be achieved in most individuals by intake of 1000 IU per day of vitamin D3," the investigators said, noting that this is described as a safe dose in almost all adults by both the IOM[8] and Endocrine Society[9] clinical guidelines on dietary intake of vitamin D.

In particular, a randomized clinical trial by Lappe et al[12] had demonstrated a reduced risk for all cancers with vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women.... Only one third of the US population is below 20 ng/mL,[15] but two thirds of the population is below 30 ng/mL.[16]

We decided to look at what would happen if we put together all the existing studies that have looked at the survival of "ordinary" people; that is, mostly people in general practices who did not, for the most part, have illnesses. Studies that only included people who were already ill were not eligible for inclusion in our analysis. We found 88 relevant studies, of which 32 presented their data by quartiles of intake, allowing us to see a dose response

The incidence of colon cancer is very high in countries like Iceland and Sweden, and other countries nearer the North Pole, and in countries like New Zealand, which is closer to the South Pole, and intermediate in countries at intermediate latitudes such as the United States, which is, on average, 38º north of the Equator. By the time you get down within the tropics, which is 23º from the Equator, it begins to decrease, and within 5º of the Equator there are vanishingly low incidence rates of colon cancer. In the past, some scientists theorized that the low incidence rates near the equator were due to intake of a high-fiber diet, but now my group believes -- and many others are leaning more in this direction -- that it is the high UVB irradiance and high circulating 25(OH)D year-around nearer the equator rather than a high-fiber diet that best explains the inverse association with solar UVB irradiance

Raising the serum 25(OH)D from 30 to 40 ng/mL reduces the incidence of breast, bowel, and lung cancer by 80%, as reported by Lappe and colleagues in their clinical trial.[12]On the other hand, if you lump all cancers together, in both sexes, and include countries where there is a whole lot of cigarette smoking, then you may obscure the effect of the vitamin D. Vitamin D is not able to overcome the effect of heavy smoking, and the CHANCES analysis[7] included data from people in countries like the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania, where there is a huge amount of smoking. Although the effects are still there, they are weakened.

Studies such as our meta-analysis have provided us an opportunity to not just be locked into the present but to predict mortality on the basis of vitamin D levels in the present. I had expected our results to be convincing, but we were shocked at the persistence of the belief that very low levels of vitamin D, such as approximately 20 ng/mL, are safe. They are not safe with regard to breast and colon cancer, several other cancers, diabetes in youth and adulthood, fractures, and other complications of 25(OH)D <30 ng/mL. Even higher levels, such as 40-60 ng/mL, would be even safer, according to a letter of consensus of expert vitamin D scientists and physicians.

In addition, 2 ongoing trials, the CAPS study[23] (aiming to replicate the findings of Lappe et al[12]) and the VITAL study,[22] are both using a vitamin D3 dose of 2000 international units (IU)/day. I think that if I were to design a trial, knowing what we know today, I would use 4000-5000 IU/day. It seems as though each time we do a clinical trial, by the time the trial is completed, we know that the doses were too small to elicit an effect.

I am also concerned that there may be not enough calcium to see an effect. In CAPS, the women are being given 1500 mg of calcium, which was done in the original randomized controlled trial in which 80% of the cancers in postmenopausal women were prevented. I would have stayed with this design and dose for the VITAL trial. We know that it helps because in their original trial, Lappe and colleagues[12]examined the effects of vitamin D alone vs vitamin D plus calcium, and the effects were stronger when the calcium was included.

Testing should be universal. And ideally it should be done in March when the vitamin D is at its lowest levels. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of serious diseases worldwide annually, beginning with postmenopausal breast cancer and including colon cancer and types 1 and 2 diabetes. Skipping this test would be equivalent to not measuring blood pressure, serum lipids, or weight at an annual exam.

No one should run a serum 25(OH)D less than 30 ng/mL. This means that two thirds of the US population needs supplementation. You may have noticed that President Obama was recently tested for his vitamin D, and it was 22.9 ng/mL.[35] His physicians wisely decided to treat him, and he is now taking vitamin D.

Published on

An assortment of vitamin and health articles from the past year. (Note: Some other major Vitamin D study results were posted earlier this year, as well as today - search Vitamin D). Whether one should take vitamins is still being debated, with the most support being for supplementation with Vitamin D (specifically D3).The first summary is from pubmed.gov:

Taking vitamin D with the largest meal improves absorptioncally D3) and results in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Many patients treated for vitamin D deficiency fail to achieve an adequate serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] despite high doses of ergo- or cholecalciferol. The objective of this study was to determine whether administration of vitamin D supplement with the largest meal of the day would improve absorption and increase serum levels of 25(OH)D.... it is concluded that taking vitamin D with the largest meal improves absorption and results in about a 50% increase in serum levels of 25(OH)D levels achieved. Similar increases were observed in a wide range of vitamin D doses taken for a variety of medical conditions.

 The following are all from Science Daily:

Long-term daily multivitamin supplement use decreases cataract risk in men, study finds

Long-term daily multivitamin supplement use may lower cataract risk in men, according to a study of nearly 15,000 male physicians. Half took a common daily multivitamin, as well as vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene supplements. The other half took a placebo. The researchers followed the participants to identify how many participants in each group developed new cases of two common eye diseases: cataract and age-related macular degeneration. Results showed a 9 percent decrease in risk for those that took the supplements.

Taking B vitamins won't prevent Alzheimer's disease, researchers conclude

Taking B vitamins doesn't slow mental decline as we age, nor is it likely to prevent Alzheimer's disease, conclude researchers who have assembled all the best clinical trial data involving 22,000 people to offer a final answer on this debate. When looking at measures of global cognitive function -- or scores for specific mental processes such as memory, speed or executive function -- there was no difference between those on B vitamins and those receiving placebo to a high degree of accuracy.

Children who drink non-cow's milk are twice as likely to have low vitamin D

Children who drink non-cow's milk such as rice, almond, soy or goat's milk, have lower levels of vitamin D in their blood than those who drink cow's milk, according to a new study. In North America, every 100 millilitres of cow's milk is required to be fortified with 40 units of vitamin D. Adding vitamin D to non-cow's milk, however, is voluntary.

Vitamin E intake critical during 'the first 1,000 days'

Amid conflicting reports about the need for vitamin E and how much is enough, a new analysis published today suggests that adequate levels of this essential micronutrient are especially critical for the very young, the elderly, and women who are or may become pregnant... "It's important all of your life, but the most compelling evidence about vitamin E is about a 1000-day window that begins at conception," Traber said. "Vitamin E is critical to neurologic and brain development that can only happen during that period. It's not something you can make up for later." Some of the best dietary sources of vitamin E -- nuts, seeds, spinach, wheat germ and sunflower oil -- don't generally make the highlight list of an average American diet. 

Vitamin D deficiency linked to higher risk of cardiovascular, cancer death

Analysis of pooled data showed a strong association between low vitamin D levels and risk of death in general death from cardiovascular diseases, death in from cancer, at least in older people with a history of cancer. "Going into our study, the effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of death was not clear," said the lead investigator. "Our analysis confirms the protective nature of this substance especially in elderly patients."

High-dose vitamin D for ICU patients who are vitamin D deficient does not improve outcomes

Administration of high-dose vitamin D3 compared with placebo did not reduce hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital mortality, or the risk of death at 6 months among patients with vitamin D deficiency who were critically ill, according to a study.

Published on

What do these substances do to our health? And our gut microbiome (microbial community)? Pay attention to the ingredient list on food labels. And consider buying more organic foods (which ban routine use of antibiotics and hormones,etc.). From Medical Daily:

Foods To Avoid? 10 Things In Americans' Favorite Foods That Are Banned In Other Countries

In a country so consumed with counting calories, the gluten-free fad, and fast food, the ingredients section on the back of packages are widely overlooked and riddled with internationally banned foods... Americans Still Eat These 10 Foods & Ingredients Banned Around The World:

 1. Farm-Raised Salmon Banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Russia...Farmed salmon don’t have a lot of room to swim, don’t follow their natural migration patterns, and have an unnatural diet of grains, which is why they’re fattier than wild salmon and contain 50 percent less omega-3 fats and protein. They’re grown with a mix of antibiotics, vitamins, drugs, and chemicals and don’t have wild salmon’s natural color, so they’re fed a synthetic astaxanthin to achieve the pinkish-red shade.

2. Ractopamine-Tainted Meat Banned in Russia, Mainland China, Taiwan, and 160 countries across Europe.... Ractopamine, also known as Paylean and Optaflexx, is a drug fed to livestock to reduce the fat content and enhance muscle, making the meat more profitable per animal. It was originally used to treat asthma and is found in 45 percent of pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys. 

3. Genetically-Engineered Papaya   Banned in the European Union... 4. Flame Retardant in Drinks Banned in Japan and 18 European countries. In 1977, the FDA itself approved brominated vegetable oil (BVO), a patented flame retardant used in sodas and sports drinks in the U.S. Recently Coca-Cola and PepsiCo announced they’re working on removing the controversial BVO from their drinks as a result of petitions.

5. Processed Foods with Artificial Food Colors and Dyes  Banned Norway and Austria. If it’s not banned in a country outside of the U.S., it requires a warning label. Red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, and blue 2 weave their way into the American ingredients list of a wide variety of foods. They’re the most commonly used dyes in the U.S., found in mac-and-cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O, and children’s cereals. 

6. Arsenic-Laced Chicken  Banned in the European Union..  Since the 1940s, farmers have been feeding livestock arsenic to fight off disease; however, they now use it to make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker and fresher....7. Bread with Potassium Bromate  Banned in the European Union, Canada, and China... 8. Olestra/Olean  Banned in the United Kingdom and Canada. Procter & Gamble created this cholesterol-free fat substitute for their fat-free snacks....  9. Preservatives BHA and BHT  Banned in Japan and the European Union. It’s found in anything from meat, to butter, beer, and breakfast cereals.

10. Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH  Banned in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, and the European Union. In order to increase a cow’s milk production, scientists invented a rBGH, a synthetic version that mimics a natural hormone produced in their pituitary glands, known as bovine somatotropin. When rBGH came onto the market, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse it in 1999, and eventually U.S. milk was internationally banned from being imported into their countries. In the U.S., approximately one in six dairy cows are injected with growth hormones on a regular basis, causing pus and antibiotic contamination and 16 other adverse health effects.  

Published on

To celebrate National Nut Day, two articles about health benefits of nuts. From Medical Daily:

National Nut Day 2014: Peanuts, Tree Nuts, And How Each Helps Your Health

“For people who already eat plenty of meat and dairy products…nuts and ‘nutty’ legumes, like Brazil nuts, cashews, peanuts and walnuts, are a good nutritional alternative to meat,” Dr. Donal Murphy-Bokern, independent agri-environmental scientist and author of several studies on food system impacts, said in a statement. Heeding this advice means people can reap the benefits that come with eating nuts — Protein! Fiber! Omega-3 fatty acids! 

Nuts fall into two categories: peanuts (which are really legumes) and tree nuts. The latter includes Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios, walnuts and America’s beloved almonds. ...” And existing research generalizes that eating nuts does everything from reduce risk for a slew of diseases, maintains weight, boosts gastrointestinal and bone health, even adds years to a person’s life.

As previously mentioned, nuts are pretty much equal in terms of calories. There are, however, some nuts that have more heart-healthy nutrients and fats than others. See: pistachios. This particular tree nut is high in healthy fats called monounsaturated fats (MUFA). MUFAs are often associated with belly fat.

One study published in the journal Nutrition found that when middle-aged adults at risk for heart disease and diabetes incorporated more pistachios into their diet, they weighed less and lessened their cholesterol and blood sugar levels after just six months. And a separate study from UCLA found people who regularly ate pistachios lost an average of 10 to 12 pounds. Almonds and cashews are additional nuts high in MUFAs. 

The Harvard School of Public Health reported, “several of the largest cohort studies, including the Adventist Study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Physicians’ Health Study have shown a consistent 30 percent to 50 percent lower risk of myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, or cardiovascular disease associated with eating nuts several times a week.”

Though almonds tend to be associated most with heart health, it’s actually walnuts that take the number one spot. ...Health reported a 2006 Spanish study, which “suggested that walnuts were as effective as olive oil at reducing inflammation and oxidation in the arteries after eating a fatty meal.”

Folate, as defined by Harvard Medical School, is “the naturally occurring form of the vitamin that is in foods or in the blood.” It’s also the vitamin that staves off brain atrophy, or the progressive loss of brain cells over time... A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found folate may ward off depression, too. And which nut is super rich in folate? Unsalted peanuts...peanuts are also high in vitamin E and niacin, both of which boost brain health. Hazelnuts and almonds are known to have concentrated amounts of E, too, so either nut is bound to help your noggin.

Study done in mice, but shows benefits of walnuts to brain. From Science Daily:

Fight against Alzheimer's disease: New research on walnuts

A new animal study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease indicates that a diet including walnuts may have a beneficial effect in reducing the risk, delaying the onset, slowing the progression of, or preventing Alzheimer's disease. Research led by Abha Chauhan, PhD, head of the Developmental Neuroscience Laboratory at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities (IBR), found significant improvement in learning skills, memory, reducing anxiety, and motor development in mice fed a walnut-enriched diet.

The researchers suggest that the high antioxidant content of walnuts (3.7 mmol/ounce) may have been a contributing factor in protecting the mouse brain from the degeneration typically seen in Alzheimer's disease. Oxidative stress and inflammation are prominent features in this disease, which affects more than five million Americans.

Walnuts have other nutritional benefits as they contain numerous vitamins and minerals and are the only nut that contains a significant source of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (2.5 grams per ounce), an omega-3 fatty acid with heart and brain-health benefits. The researchers also suggest that ALA may have played a role in improving the behavioral symptoms seen in the study.