Skip to content

Published on

These results go against the medical advice we've been hearing for years (why am I not surprised?). The new advice: High-fat dairy  yes, low-fat dairy no. I also think processed meat (with nitrates) should not be lumped together with unprocessed meat. From Science Daily:

Consumption of high-fat dairy products associated with lower risk of developing diabetes

People with the highest consumption of high-fat dairy products -- eight or more portions per day -- have a 23 percent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) than those with the lowest consumption -- one or less per day, a new study shows.

The study included 26 930 individuals (60% women), aged 45-74 years, from the population-based Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. Dietary data was collected with a modified diet history method. During 14 years of follow up, 2860 incident T2D cases were identified. 

The researchers found that high intake of high-fat dairy products was associated with a 23% lower incidence of T2D for the highest consuming 20% of participants (or quintile) (median=8 portions/day) compared with the lowest consuming 20% (median=1 portion/day).

In contrast to these findings, there was no association found between intakes of low-fat dairy products and risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

High intakes of meat and meat products were, regardless of fat content, associated with increased risk, but the increased risk was higher for lower fat meats (increased risk of type 2 diabetes for high fat meats 9%, for low fat 24%), both referring to the risk in the highest-consuming versus lowest-consuming 20%). The highest consuming group for the high-fat meat had 90g or more per day, and for the low-fat meat 80g per day.

Same research, some extra details in write-up. From Medscape:

Big Intake of High-Fat Dairy May Be Protective for Diabetes

Previous research led by Nita Forouhi, MD, program leader and public-health physician at the MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, published in August this year, suggested that molecules with odd numbers of carbon atoms (15 and 17), which are found in dairy products such as yogurt, cheese, and milk, appeared to have a protective effect.

This contrasts with evidence suggesting that even-chain saturated fatty acids, as found in alcohol or margarine, are associated with a greater risk for type 2 diabetes.

Published on

This exciting new research is just the beginning knowledge about our virome (the virus community within us). Note that they only looked at viruses in a few areas of our bodies - the rest is still a mystery. But note that it is normal for healthy individuals to carry viruses, and that we have "distinct viral fingerprints". We don't know if the viruses are beneficial or not to us at this time. From Science Daily:

Healthy humans make nice homes for viruses

The same viruses that make us sick can take up residence in and on the human body without provoking a sneeze, cough or other troublesome symptom, according to new research. On average, healthy individuals carry about five types of viruses on their bodies, the researchers report. The study is the first comprehensive analysis to describe the diversity of viruses in healthy people.

The research was conducted as part of the Human Microbiome Project, a major initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that largely has focused on cataloging the body's bacterial ecosystems. ..."Lots of people have asked whether there is a viral counterpart, and we haven't had a clear answer. But now we know there is a normal viral flora, and it's rich and complex."

In 102 healthy young adults ages 18 to 40, the researchers sampled up to five body habitats: nose, skin, mouth, stool and vagina. The study's subjects were nearly evenly split by gender.

At least one virus was detected in 92 percent of the people sampled, and some individuals harbored 10 to 15 viruses...."We only sampled up to five body sites in each person and would expect to see many more viruses if we had sampled the entire body."

Scientists led by George Weinstock, PhD, at Washington University's Genome Institute, sequenced the DNA of the viruses recovered from the body, finding that each individual had a distinct viral fingerprint. (Weinstock is now at The Jackson Laboratory in Connecticut.) About half of people were sampled at two or three points in time, and the researchers noted that some of the viruses established stable, low-level infections.

The researchers don't know yet whether the viruses have a positive or negative effect on overall health but speculate that in some cases, they may keep the immune system primed to respond to dangerous pathogens while in others, lingering viruses increase the risk of disease.

Study volunteers were screened carefully to confirm they were healthy and did not have symptoms of acute infection. They also could not have been diagnosed in the past two years with human papillomavirus infection (HPV), which can cause cervical and throat cancer, or have an active genital herpes infection.

Analyzing the samples, the scientists found seven families of viruses, including strains of herpes viruses that are not sexually transmitted. For example, herpesvirus 6 or herpesvirus 7 was found in 98 percent of individuals sampled from the mouth. Certain strains of papillomaviruses were found in about 75 percent of skin samples and 50 percent of samples from the nose. Novel strains of the virus were found in both sites.

Not surprisingly, the vagina was dominated by papillomaviruses, with 38 percent of female subjects carrying such strains. Some of the women harbored certain high-risk strains that increase the risk of cervical cancer. These strains were more common in women with communities of vaginal bacteria that had lower levels of Lactobacillus and an increase in bacteria such as Gardnerella, which is associated with bacterial vaginosis.

Adenoviruses, the viruses that cause the common cold and pneumonia, also were common at many sites in the body.

Published on

Excerpts from an article by Jane Brody in the NY Times:

Beating Back the Risk of Diabetes

This year, nearly two million American adults and more than 5,000 children and adolescents will learn they have a potentially devastating, life-shortening, yet largely preventable disease: Type 2 diabetes. They will join 29.1 million Americans who already have diabetes.

Diabetes and its complications are responsible for nearly 200,000 deaths a year; the fatality rate among affected adults is 50 percent higher than among similar people without diabetes. Alarmingly, recent studies even have linked diabetes to an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Even people with above-average blood glucose levels, but not diabetes, have an elevated risk.

The Diabetes Prevention Program study, conducted among about 3,800 people who had pre-diabetes, found that moderate weight loss — an average of 12 pounds —  reduced the odds of progression to diabetes by nearly 50 percent.

An excellent discussion of what is known about the effect on diabetes of various foods and supplements appeared recently in Nutrition Action Healthletter at cspinet.org/iceberg.pdf. Some highlights:

Carbohydrates - breads, grains, cereals, sugary drinks and sweets of all kinds — are most problematic for people with diabetes or at risk of developing it. Carbohydrates are eventually metabolized to glucose, which raises the body’s demand for insulin. Consume less of them in general, and choose whole-grain versions whenever possible.

If you must have sweet drinks, select artificially sweetened ones. In two huge studies of nurses and other health professionals who were followed for 22 years, those who drank one or more sugary soft drinks a day had about a 30 percent higher risk of developing diabetes than those who rarely drank them, even after their weight was taken into account.

But there’s good news about coffee. Two or three cups of coffee (but not tea) a day, with or without caffeine, have been consistently linked to a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. 

For protein, limit consumption of red meat, especially processed meats like sausages, hot dogs and luncheon meats, which are linked to a higher diabetes risk. Instead, choose fish, lean poultry (skinless and not fried), beans and nuts. Low-fat dairy products, including yogurt, and even fatty ones may lower the risk of diabetes; the reason is unclear.

Most protective are green, leafy vegetables — spinach, chard, kale, collards, mustard greens and even lettuce — as well as cruciferous vegetables like cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower. But all vegetables are good and should fill at least two-thirds of your dinner plate.

The nutrients magnesium and vitamin D are also potentially protective. In fact, the preventive value of leafy greens, whole grains, beans and nuts may lie in their high magnesium content. In a well-designed clinical trial of 32 overweight people with insulin resistance, the prelude to diabetes, blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity improved in those who took a daily magnesium supplement for six months. Don’t go overboard: More than 350 milligrams of magnesium daily can cause diarrhea. 

Vitamin D, long known to be crucial to healthy bones, may also be helpful. In one study of 92 overweight or obese adults with prediabetes, those who took a supplement of 2,000 international units of vitamin D daily had better function of the pancreatic cells that produce insulin..

Of course, how much you weigh and what you eat are not the only concerns. Regular, preferably daily, physical exercise is a vital component of any prevention and treatment program for Type 2 diabetes, or most any chronic ailment. Weight loss can reduce diabetes risk by about 50 percent, but adding exercise to that can lower the odds by 70 percent, compared with people who remain overweight and inactive, according to a study that followed nearly 85,000 female nurses for 16 years. Women who were active for seven or more hours weekly had half the risk of developing diabetes as did women who exercised only a half-hour a week.

Published on

From Science Daily:

High protein diets lead to lower blood pressure, study finds

Adults who consume a high-protein diet may be at a lower risk for developing high blood pressure, concludes a study that found participants consuming the highest amount of protein -- an average of 100 g protein/day -- had a 40 percent lower risk of having high blood pressure compared to the lowest intake level.

One of three U.S. adults has hypertension and 78.6 million are clinically obese, a risk factor for the development of hypertension. Because of the strain that it puts on blood vessel walls, HBP is one of the most common risk factors of stroke and an accelerator of multiple forms of heart disease, especially when paired with excess body weight.

The researchers analyzed protein intakes of healthy participants from the Framingham Offspring Study and followed them for development of high blood pressure over an 11-year period. They found that adults who consumed more protein, whether from animal or plant sources, had statistically significantly lower systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure levels after four years of follow-up. In general, these beneficial effects were evident for both overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) and normal weight (BMI <25 kg/m2) individuals. They also found that consuming more dietary protein also was associated with lower long-term risks for HBP. When the diet also was characterized by higher intakes of fiber, higher protein intakes led to 40-60 percent reductions in risk of HBP.

Published on

Two studies about blood pressure and how it can be easily changed without medications. From Science Daily:

Small weight gain can raise blood pressure in healthy adults

Gaining a few pounds can increase blood pressure in healthy adults, researchers report. Increased fat inside the abdomen led to even larger increases in blood pressure, their study results showed. Many people understand the health dangers of large amounts of extra body weight, but researchers in this study wanted to see the impact of a small weight gain of about five to 11 pounds.

At the beginning of the eight-week study, a 24-hour monitor tested the blood pressure of 16 normal weight people. Their results were compared to 10 normal weight, healthy people who maintained the same weight over the eight weeks. Researchers found: -Those who gained weight had a systolic blood pressure (top number) increase from an average 114 mm Hg to an average 118 mm Hg. -Those who gained more weight inside their abdomen had a greater blood pressure increase. -A five to 11 pound weight gain didn't change cholesterol, insulin or blood sugar levels. The study was conducted in healthy people ages 18-48. 

From Science Daily:

Restricting calories may improve sleep apnea, blood pressure in obese people

Restricting calories may improve sleep apnea and reduce blood pressure in obese adults. Those who restricted their calories had higher levels of oxygen in their blood and a greater reduction in body weight, a study has demonstrated.

 "Losing weight was most likely the key to all the benefits observed in the calorie-restricted group. A greater reduction in systolic blood pressure can be explained, at least partially, by the reduction in body weight that was associated with reduction in obstructive sleep apnea severity and sympathetic nervous system activity." Systolic blood pressure is the top number in a blood pressure reading, which measures the force of the blood in the arteries when the heart is contracted.

Published on

Amazing possibilities, but more studies needed. The key finding: A diversity of the bacterial community in the gut is good, and perhaps can be altered through diet, and so perhaps alter the future risk of developing breast cancer.From Science Daily:

Diverse gut bacteria associated with favorable ratio of estrogen metabolites

Postmenopausal women with diverse gut bacteria exhibit a more favorable ratio of estrogen metabolites, which is associated with reduced risk for breast cancer, compared to women with less microbial variation, according to a new study.

Since the 1970s, it has been known that in addition to supporting digestion, the intestinal bacteria that make up the gut microbiome influence how women's bodies process estrogen, the primary female sex hormone. The colonies of bacteria determine whether estrogen and the fragments left behind after the hormone is processed continue circulating through the body or are expelled through urine and feces. Previous studies have shown that levels of estrogen and estrogen metabolites circulating in the body are associated with risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer.

"In women who had more diverse communities of gut bacteria, higher levels of estrogen fragments were left after the body metabolized the hormone, compared to women with less diverse intestinal bacteria," said one of the study's authors, James Goedert, MD, of the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, MD. "This pattern suggests that these women may have a lower risk of developing breast cancer."

As part of the cross-sectional study, researchers analyzed fecal and urine samples from 60 postmenopausal women enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Colorado. .

"Our findings suggest a relationship between the diversity of the bacterial community in the gut, which theoretically can be altered with changes in diet or some medications, and future risk of developing breast cancer," Goedert said. 

Published on

Good news! From Science Daily:

Taking short walking breaks found to reverse negative effects of prolonged sitting

Three easy -- one could even say slow -- 5-minute walks can reverse harm caused to leg arteries during three hours of prolonged sitting, researchers report. Sitting for long periods of time is associated with risk factors such as higher cholesterol levels and greater waist circumference that can lead to cardiovascular and metabolic disease. When people sit, slack muscles do not contract to effectively pump blood to the heart. Blood can pool in the legs and affect the endothelial function of arteries, or the ability of blood vessels to expand from increased blood flow.

The researchers were able to demonstrate that during a three-hour period, the flow-mediated dilation, or the expansion of the arteries as a result of increased blood flow, of the main artery in the legs was impaired by as much as 50 percent after just one hour. The study participants who walked for 5 minutes each hour of sitting saw their arterial function stay the same -- it did not drop throughout the three-hour period. Thosar says it is likely that the increase in muscle activity and blood flow accounts for this.

Published on

An opinion piece from Dr. David Johnson, Prof. of Medicine and Chief of Gastroenterology at Eastern Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia but an interesting one that points out the limitations of current probiotic knowledge and that we shouldn't blindly take probiotics (with only a few bacteria strains) after antibiotic use thinking that they're all good, all the time. I'm including this article to show what many medical professionals think about probiotic use and why.

He discusses 2 large studies, but unfortunately both studies only looked at hospitalized patients - and the large PLACIDE study looked at over-65 year old patients. And in the second large study he discusses the benefits of the antibiotic metronidazole.

I agree with his need for caution and the need for more large studies, but I wish he had discussed children, people NOT hospitalized, people who just had a round of antibiotics without life threatening complications, and not dismissed small studies. Hospitalized vs non-hospitalized people are very, very different groups. Small studies are finding benefits of various bacteria, but yes, the research is in its infancy, especially what are "normal microbial communities" in the gut and in other parts of the body. He does not discuss fecal transplants of entire microbial communities for C. difficile and their over 90% success rate. Dr. S. Lynch has theorized that some bacteria act as "keystone species" that could help repopulate a biome after an insult (such as antibiotics). From Medscape:

Probiotics: Help or Harm in Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea?

Today I want to discuss the issue of probiotics, and whether probiotics are doing an element of benefit or an element of harm. With access to over-the-counter products, use of probiotics has dramatically increased. Physicians recommend probiotics routinely to patients when they are taking antibiotics to prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea. I would like to take a time-out and reevaluate what we are doing for these patients.

Not infrequently, antibiotics are associated with Clostridium difficile infections, which occur in up to one third of patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

In 2012, highly publicized meta-analyses were published in JAMA [1] and Annals of Internal Medicine. [2]These studies, and a Cochrane review,[3] suggest that not only can probiotics prevent or diminish antibiotic-associated diarrhea, but probiotics may also be helpful in avoiding C difficile infection.

Enter the most recent study, which is called the PLACIDE study, from the United Kingdom[4] It involved 5 hospitals, 68 different medical and surgical units, and more than 17,000 patients aged 65 years or older. All patients were hospitalized and taking an antibiotic.

These patients were randomly assigned, if they met eligibility criteria, to receive either a microbial preparation (which is the term they used for "probiotic") or an identical placebo. The microbial preparation had 2 strains of Lactobacillus and 2 strains of bifidobacteria, which patients received for 21 days.... Even with evaluation for intention to treat, there was no difference in the outcomes for C difficile infection or antibiotic-associated diarrhea between the microbial preparation (probiotic) and placebo group. Of interest, there was an increase in flatus in the microbial preparation group, and patients with C difficile diarrhea who received the microbial preparation reported a 3-fold increase in bloating. 

Although intended to restore good health, we are seeing a dysbiosis. We have disrupted the microflora in the gut, and are trying to jam it back with strains of bacteria that we think are good bacteria, and it may not be the correct answer. We don't know the right answer. When you alter the microflora, you change some of the metabolism of carbohydrates, bile salts, and complex sugars. We are not clear whether jamming the gut with another strain of bacteria is going to be of benefit.

I want to posit an element of potential harm, and not rush in to recommend probiotics routinely in patients to whom you prescribe antibiotics. I would also caution you not to use probiotics in patients in the intensive care unit, or in any patient with an indwelling prosthesis, particularly an intravascular prosthesis. 

Published on

Reading this is almost guaranteed to make you want to wash your hands. From Science Daily:

How quickly viruses can contaminate buildings -- from just a single doorknob

Using tracer viruses, researchers found that contamination of just a single doorknob or table top results in the spread of viruses throughout office buildings, hotels, and health care facilities. Within 2 to 4 hours, the virus could be detected on 40 to 60 percent of workers and visitors in the facilities and commonly touched objects.

There is a simple solution, though, says Charles Gerba of the University of Arizona, Tucson, who presented the study. "Using disinfecting wipes containing quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATS) registered by EPA as effective against viruses like norovirus and flu, along with hand hygiene, reduced virus spread by 80 to 99 percent," he says.

Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Each year, it causes an estimated 19-21 million illnesses and contributes to 56,000-71,000 hospitalizations and 570-800 deaths. Touching surfaces or objects contaminated with norovirus then putting your fingers in your mouth is a common source of infection.

In the study, Gerba and his colleagues used bacteriophage MS-2 as a surrogate for the human norovirus, as it is similar in shape, size and resistance to disinfectants. The phage was placed on 1 to 2 commonly touched surfaces (door knob or table top) at the beginning of the day in office buildings, conference room and a health care facility. After various periods of time (2 to 8 hours) they sampled 60 to 100 fomites, surfaces capable of carrying infectious organisms (light switches, bed rails, table tops, countertops, push buttons, coffee pots handles, sink tap handles, door knobs, phones and computer equipment), for the phages.

"Within 2 to 4 hours between 40 to 60% of the fomites sampled were contaminated with virus," says Gerba.

In the intervention phase cleaning personal and employees were provided with QUATS disinfectant containing wipes and instructed on proper use (use of at least once daily). The number of fomites on which virus was detected was reduced by 80% or greater and the concentration of virus reduced by 99% or more.

Published on

A banana a day keeps the doctor away? A recent large study found that older women who eat foods with higher amounts of potassium may be at lower risk of stroke and death, when compared to women who eat fewer potassium rich foods. The association was with ischemic stroke (caused by clot) and not hemorrhagic stroke.

Some good food sources of potassium are: bananas, cantaloupe, grapefruit, oranges, white and sweet potatoes, and white beans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that women eat at least 4700 mg of potassium daily, but in this study the average intake of the postmenopausal women was 2611 mg per day.

This study followed  90,137 postmenopausal women (aged 50 to 79 years at baseline), and followed them an average of 11 years. Now this same study needs to be done with men and women of all ages. From Science Daily:

Potassium-rich foods cut stroke, death risks among older women

Older women who eat foods with higher amounts of potassium may be at lower risk of stroke and death than women who consume less potassium-rich foods. The health benefits from potassium-rich foods are greater among older women who do not have high blood pressure. Most older American women do not eat the recommended amounts of potassium from foods.

"Our findings give women another reason to eat their fruits and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables are good sources of potassium, and potassium not only lowers postmenopausal women's risk of stroke, but also death."

Researchers studied 90,137 postmenopausal women, ages 50 to 79, for an average 11 years. They looked at how much potassium the women consumed, as well as if they had strokes, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, or died during the study period. Women in the study were stroke-free at the start and their average dietary potassium intake was 2,611 mg/day. Results of this study are based on potassium from food, not supplements.

The researchers found: -Women who ate the most potassium were 12 percent less likely to suffer stroke in general and 16 percent less likely to suffer an ischemic stroke than women who ate the least. -Women who ate the most potassium were 10 percent less likely to die than those who ate the least. They also said there was no evidence of any association between potassium intake and hemorrhagic stroke, which could be related to the low number of hemorrhagic strokes in the study.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that women eat at least 4,700 mg of potassium daily. "Only 2.8 percent of women in our study met or exceeded this level. "Our findings suggest that women need to eat more potassium-rich foods. You won't find high potassium in junk food. Some foods high in potassium include white and sweet potatoes, bananas and white beans."