Skip to content

Published on Leave a comment on Common Chemicals and Endometriosis

Endocrine disruptors are in the news frequently nowadays. These are chemicals that interfere with the body's endocrine (or hormone) systems and can produce all sorts of negative health effects, including all sorts of reproductive problems in both males and females. Phthalates and parabens (both used in common everyday products) are examples of endocrine disruptors.

The latest is that a study conducted in Pakistan found that women with endometriosis had high levels of a common endocrine disruptor - a phthalate known as diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), which is used in many everyday products. Healthy women without endometriosis did not have detectable levels of DEHP in their serum (blood) in this study. The researchers say that these results suggest that the phthalate DEHP, which is used in plastics, has a contributing role in the development of endometriosis.

Endometriosis is an often painful condition in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus (the endometrium) grows outside the uterus. Symptoms may include abdominal pain, heavy periods, and infertility.

Phthalates are used as plasticizers -  substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity. They are used in many consumer products, including in household furnishings, soft vinyl toys, flooring,medical equipment, air fresheners, cosmetics, perfumes, food packaging, medicine, and insecticides. Some ways humans are exposed to DEHP is from eating processed food (which contains some DEHP that has leached from food processing machines and packaging materials) and from applying personal care and cosmetic products to the skin.

Other studies have also found that DEHP levels are significantly higher in women with endometriosis compared to women without endometriosis. Interestingly, in this study - those with more advanced stages of endometriosis also tended to have the highest levels of DEHP. Excerpts from the study by  Sadia Nazir et al from the Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences:

Women Diagnosed with Endometriosis Show High Serum Levels of Diethyl Hexyl Phthalate

Abstract: Endometriosis is one of the common causes of infertility with very diverse etiology. In modern lifestyle, humans are exposed to several endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which may lead to reproductive disturbances. Diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP) is one of the common EDCs to which women are exposed by the use of cosmetics, perfumes, food packaging, medicine, and insecticides.

...continue reading "Common Chemicals and Endometriosis"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Will All Men Eventually Be Infertile?

The following article in a popular magazine follows up on research that came out last year about the alarming steep decline in male sperm counts and sperm concentration over the past few decades. This is true for the U.S., Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and it is thought world wide. The article discusses the causes: environmental chemicals and plastics, especially those that are endocrine disruptors (they disrupt a person's hormones!). These chemicals are all around us, and we all have some in our bodies (but the amounts and types vary from person to person). Some examples of such chemicals are parabens, phthalates, BPA and BPA substitutes.

Even though there are effects from these chemicals throughout life, some of the worst effects from these chemicals seem to be during pregnancy - with a big effect on the developing male fetus. Testosterone levels in men are also dropping. Bottom line: males are becoming "less male", especially due to their exposure to all these chemicals when they are developing before birth (fetal exposure). Since it is getting worse with every generation of males, the concern is that soon males may be unable to father children because their sperm count will be too low - infertility. Dogs are experiencing the same decline in fertility!

Why isn't there more concern over this? What can we do? We all use and need plastic products, but we need to use safer chemicals in products, ones that won't mimic hormones and have endocrine disrupting effects. Remember, these chemicals have more effects on humans than just sperm quality (here and here). While you can't totally avoid plastics and endocrine disrupting chemicals, you can definitely lower your exposure. And it's most important before conception (levels of these chemicals in both parents), during pregnancy, and during childhood.

Do go read the whole article. Excerpts from Daniel Noah Halpern's article in GQ: Sperm Count Zero

A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We’ve become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely. What’s causing this mysterious drop in sperm counts—and is there any way to reverse it before it’s too late? 

Last summer a group of researchers from Hebrew University and Mount Sinai medical school published a study showing that sperm counts in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have fallen by more than 50 percent over the past four decades. (They judged data from the rest of the world to be insufficient to draw conclusions from, but there are studies suggesting that the trend could be worldwide.) That is to say: We are producing half the sperm our grandfathers did. We are half as fertile.

The Hebrew University/Mount Sinai paper was a meta-analysis by a team of epidemiologists, clinicians, and researchers that culled data from 185 studies, which examined semen from almost 43,000 men. It showed that the human race is apparently on a trend line toward becoming unable to reproduce itself. Sperm counts went from 99 million sperm per milliliter of semen in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011, and the decline has been accelerating. Would 40 more years—or fewer—bring us all the way to zero? 

I called Shanna H. Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist at Mount Sinai and one of the lead authors of the study, to ask if there was any good news hiding behind those brutal numbers. Were we really at risk of extinction? She failed to comfort me. “The What Does It Mean question means extrapolating beyond your data,” Swan said, “which is always a tricky thing. But you can ask, ‘What does it take? When is a species in danger? When is a species threatened?’ And we are definitely on that path.” That path, in its darkest reaches, leads to no more naturally conceived babies and potentially to no babies at all—and the final generation of Homo sapiens will roam the earth knowing they will be the last of their kind.

...continue reading "Will All Men Eventually Be Infertile?"

Published on Leave a comment on Increasing the Length of the Nighttime Fast May Have Health Benefits

Lately there has been discussion about "intermittent fasting" (on some days or time periods) and possible health benefits. Now an interesting small study has been published that found health benefits to eating as usual, but only within a restricted time frame.

Thirteen healthy, but overweight individuals were either assigned to an "eat normally as usual" group or a group that "ate only within a restricted time frame" - that is, they ate breakfast 1.5 hours or more later and supper 1.5 hours earlier (this was their last food of the day). After 10 weeks those eating only within the restricted time frame had lost body fat ( a health benefit), but not weight. However, there were complaints that eating within a restricted time frame was hard to do because it interfered with social events and family meals. Bottom line: lengthening the daily fast (from dinner to breakfast) without changing foods eaten appears to have health benefits. (Posts on "minifasting", Fasting Mimic Diet, fasting, 5 day calorie restriction). From Science Daily:

Changes in breakfast and dinner timings can reduce body fat

Modest changes to breakfast and dinner times can reduce body fat, a new pilot study in the Journal of Nutritional Sciences reports. During a 10-week study on 'time-restricted feeding' (a form of intermittent fasting), researchers led by Dr Jonathan Johnston from the University of Surrey investigated the impact changing meal times has on dietary intake, body composition and blood risk markers for diabetes and heart disease.  ...continue reading "Increasing the Length of the Nighttime Fast May Have Health Benefits"

Published on Leave a comment on We Are Eating and Breathing In Tiny Plastic Particles?

Most people have heard about the three huge "garbage patches" in the ocean - where tiny pieces of plastic are floating and unfortunately also being eaten by fish and birds. But the story doesn't end there - we, all humans, are also ingesting tiny pieces of plastic, for example when we breathe and eat food (e.g tiny pieces are now in fish and shellfish, so we're also eating tiny pieces of plastic). How much are we inadvertently ingesting?  What is it doing to us? 

These tiny pieces of plastic less than 5 mm in size are called microplastics. As we know, plastic doesn't break down like food and wood (into compost, soil), but it does break apart into tiny particles (from friction, heat, and light). Right now research suggests that we are exposed to more microplastic particles in indoor air then outdoor air - for example, it's in the dust from breakdown of textiles used in our furniture and synthetic fabrics in the clothing we wear and wash. (Fleece especially sheds a lot into the air when worn and into our water when washed.)

There are plastic microparticles in the air, in the wind, in our street dust. Examples of microplastics in outdoor air are from the use of vehicles, such as tire abrasion, construction activities, from artificial turf, and plastic litter. It's in our water - in rivers and lakes (and our drinking water), oceans, and in our soil.

Right now no one knows what the effects of ingesting these plastic microparticles are to humans (as pointed out in a 2017 study of urban dust by  Sharareh Dehghani et al) and whether we get rid of them or whether they persist in the body. Or even how much we're ingesting and breathing in. Another concern is whether there is an effect on developing children. Some research finds that microparticles can persist in the lungs.

The good news is that there are things one can do to lower the microplastic amounts in indoor air. Can do: open up your windows to vent the air (outdoor air is less polluted generally than indoor air), vacuum frequently, use a good filter on forced air heating systems and central air conditioning systems. Perhaps use a good air purifier.

Also do: reduce the amount of plastics in your indoor environment by buying fewer items made from plastics (from furniture to ordinary household goods to toys to synthetic clothing, especially fleece). Try to buy "natural" as much as possible - especially natural fibers such as cotton, wool, linen, hemp.

Recently there have been a number of articles written about this issue for the general public. Well worth reading is: C. Joyce's article for NPR: Beer, Drinking Water And Fish: Tiny Plastic Is Everywhere  ...continue reading "We Are Eating and Breathing In Tiny Plastic Particles?"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Sitting For Long Periods and Reduced Blood Flow To the Brain

Nice study that explains why sitting for long periods is so unhealthy - it reduces blood flow to the brain (cerebral blood flow) . The results from a study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) found that prolonged, uninterrupted sitting (4 hours in the study) in healthy office workers reduced cerebral blood flow. However this was offset when frequent, short-duration walking breaks were taken - about 2 minutes of walking every 30 minutes. However, taking a 8 minute walking break every 2 hours did not have the same positive effect - even though that was the same amount of walking over the 4 hour period.

Maintaining good blood flow to the brain is a great reason to stretch your legs and walk a few minutes whenever possible, preferably at least every 30 minutes - whether at work or at home. From Medical Xpress:

Sitting for long hours found to reduce blood flow to the brain

A team of researchers with Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. has found evidence of reduced blood flow to the brain in people who sit for long periods of time. In their paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, the group outlines the experiments they carried out with volunteers and what they found.  ...continue reading "Sitting For Long Periods and Reduced Blood Flow To the Brain"

Published on Leave a comment on Is Glyphosate In Oat Cereals A Concern?

The controversy over the pesticide Roundup and glyphosate (which is the active ingredient in Roundup) rages on. This week the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published results of independent laboratory tests (commissioned by them) that looked at glyphosate levels in common oat based foods (cereals, oatmeal, granola, and snack bars). Not surprisingly, they found glyphosate in almost all conventional cereals and at much higher levels than the little they found in some organic cereals (it was felt this was from cross-contamination or "pesticide drift" from conventional farms onto organic farms).

The main questions are: Why is this pesticide found in foods? What, if anything, does this mean for our health? Are these levels safe?

The main thing to know: Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide (a type of pesticide) in the world. Over 250 million pounds were applied in the U.S. in 2015, with much of the application in the Midwest. Incredibly huge amounts of glyphosate are used in the midwest on farmland - greater than 88.6 pounds per square mile! Top crops it's used on are corn, soybeans, canola - especially genetically modified Roundup Ready crops.

It is also used as a dessicant right before harvest ("preharvest") on many crops, such as wheat and oats (see Monsanto's guide for preharvest use). This is why harvested crops have glyphosate residues on them, and the foods we eat. Note that glyphosate (Roundup) can not be used on organic crops.

The herbicide has been linked to a number of health problems, including cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems. (Posts on glyphosate.)  There are currently hundreds of lawsuits from farmers and others claiming that Roundup gave them cancer. This past week a California jury awarded $289. millions dollars to a man who said his cancer was due to repeated glyphosate weed killer (including Roundup) exposure as part of his job.

A new concern is that glyphosate has an effect on our gut bacteria - that it messes with the human gut microbiome. Also, that Roundup has more of an effect than glyphosate alone (what's in all those hiddden inert ingredients?) At this point we just don't have all the answers, but there is cause for concern.

Whether these government allowed levels of pesticide residue in our foods are "safe" is also being hotly debated. The chemical industry and EPA say it's safe, while a number of researchers are saying no. It has been pointed out by many that the chemical industry (Monsanto - the makers of Roundup) and the EPA have worked hand in hand to make sure that Roundup is considered "safe".

Also, government allowable levels of glyphosate in foods (called tolerance for pesticide residue) were raised when the pesticide industry lobbied for that (which happened when Roundup Ready crops were introduced and as preharvest use increased). The EPA for years deliberately did not look at how much glyphosate residue is in our foods - if you don't know, how can you be concerned?

Research now shows that MOST people have detectable glyphosate residues in them, including most pregnant women. [See all glyphosate posts.]

Both Quaker Foods and General Mills (their product Cheerios was among those with higher levels of glyphosate residues) responded to the EWG report by saying that their products are safe because the glyphosate residue levels in their products are within the EPA’s acceptable levels. Yes, but are these levels really safe? Especially if a person eats many foods with multiple pesticide residues daily.

Bottom line: We just don't know what these small, but increasing levels of glyphosate residues in our food and our bodies means for our health. If you are concerned, and I am, then try to eat organic foods when possible, especially organic corn, soybean, canola, wheat, and oats in order to try to minimize glyphosate levels in your body. Glyphosate and Roundup is not allowed to be used on organic crops. 

Published on Leave a comment on Does Diet Play a Role in Intestinal Bowel Disease?

Two recent studies caught my eye – both reviews of scientific research that looked at the issue of diet and whether it contributes to the development of Intestinal Bowel Disease (IBD), specifically Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. These are chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and which are rapidly increasing in developed countries (over 1 million individuals in the US). The main question is: Does a person’s diet contribute to the development of IBD?

Both articles (one in the journal Nature Reviews and one in Immunology) said: YES, there is growing evidence that a person’s diet has a role in the development of IBD. Both articles stated that the current view is that some individuals may be genetically susceptible, and their diet (which feeds the microbes in the gut) then makes them more prone to the disease due to the mucosal lining becoming permeable and inflamed. Studies have shown that people with IBD have gut microbial communities that are imbalanced or out of whack (dysbiosis).

What does this mean? A person’s diet has a key role in what microbes live in the gut (human gut microbiome) – what one eats feeds the microbes in the gut, and a person’s general dietary pattern feeds some types of microbes and not others. So what one eats determines what lives in the gut microbial community. Unfortunately a fiber-deficient diet (typical Western diet) is both linked to increased mucosal inflammation (the mucus layer of the intestines) and it makes it leaky. In other words, a fiber deficient diet impairs the mucus layer of the intestines. Animal studies also support this (that the diet regulates mucosal barrier function).

People in developed countries such as the US typically eat a Western style diet. A Western diet is characterized by high amounts of red meat, processed food, high-fat foods, refined grains, sugary desserts, and low intakes of dietary fiber. However, the Western style diet has been linked to increased mucosal inflammation of the intestines, and to a higher incidence of a number of diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.

What diet is best? A diet rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, legumes (beans), and fish. Low in red meat, but moderate amounts of poultry. High in vitamin D, and high in omega-3 fatty acids. High in dietary potassium and zinc. Eat the foods, not supplements. One good example to follow is the Mediterranean diet. Think of it this way: high fiber diets lower inflammation in the gut, low fiber diets increase inflammation.

Both articles had similar diagrams showing that diet has an effect on the microbes in the gut (the microbiome), which results in either 1) a healthy mucosal lining of the intestines, or 2) a disturbed mucosal lining, disturbed permeability, and inflammation. The one article calls it the “mucinous layer” and the other calls it the gut “barrier” in the diagrams, but both are talking about the mucosal lining of the intestines.

The following image contrasts the effects on the intestines of the two types of diet - the intestines on the left have "homeostasis" (balance) from a healthy dietary pattern (lots of fiber, fruits& vegetables, etc) , and the one on the right has inflammation from a Western dietary pattern.  To see it more clearly, go to the original Figure 1. in the article by L. Celiberto et al: Inflammatory bowel disease and immunonutrition: novel therapeutic approaches through modulation of diet and the gut microbiome

The other review:  The role of diet in the aetiopathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease

1

Published on 1 Comment on Type 2 Diabetes May Be Reversed With Weight Loss

Another study finds that substantial weight loss can frequently reverse type 2 diabetes -  in 46% of people who had the disease 6 years or less. In the study (which was conducted in the United Kingdom) individuals were randomly assigned to different groups - either standard medical care for diabetes group or intense weight loss group (intense dieting in the first 4 months of the study), and then all were followed for 8 months (maintenance period). Those whose diabetes was reversed were all in the weight loss group and lost an average of 35 pounds during the weight loss (dieting) phase.

According to the researchers some of the non-responders (their diabetes did not reverse itself) just hadn't lost enough weight, but also tended to have diabetes a little longer (3.8 years) than the responder group (2.7 years).

Another similar earlier study also found that type 2 diabetes can be reversed in many after losing weight of about 31 pounds (600 to 700 calories a day) during an 8 week period. 40% of study participants overall reversed their diabetes, but 60% of those with short-duration of diabetes (under 10 years) reversed their diabetes. IN SUMMARY: Both of these studies had fantastic results in reversing type 2 diabetes after a large weight loss, which may lead to doctors suggesting weight loss as the number one thing to do after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. From Science Daily:

Why weight loss produces remission of type 2 diabetes in some patients

A clinical trial recently showed that nearly half of individuals with type 2 diabetes achieved remission to a non-diabetic state after a weight-loss intervention delivered within 6 years of diagnosis. Now a study published August 2nd in the journal Cell Metabolism reveals that this successful response to weight loss is associated with the early and sustained improvement in the functioning of pancreatic beta cells. This finding challenges the previous paradigm that beta-cell function is irreversibly lost in patients with type 2 diabetes.  ...continue reading "Type 2 Diabetes May Be Reversed With Weight Loss"

Published on Leave a comment on Briefs, Boxers, and Sperm Counts

This latest research about the type of men's underwear (boxers vs briefs or other tight underwear) and sperm quantity was surprising. Didn't we all learn this years, even decades, ago? A  recent study of 656 men in Massachusetts found that boxers are  associated with better sperm concentrations and sperm counts than briefs or other tight underwear. The researchers pointed out that tight, skinny jeans or even fabric type - anything that has an effect on "scrotal heat" (increasing scrotal temperatures is viewed as having a negative effect) could also lower sperm numbers. From Science Daily:

Largest study yet shows type of underwear is linked to men's semen quality

Men who wear boxer shorts have higher sperm concentrations than men who wear tighter fitting underwear, according to new research published today (Wednesday) in Human Reproduction. The researchers also found that boxer shorts-wearing men had lower levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared to men who most frequently wore briefs, "bikinis" (very brief briefs), "jockeys" (underwear that finishes just above the knee) or other tight-fitting underwear. FSH stimulates sperm production and the researchers say that these findings suggest that it kicks into gear when it needs to compensate for testicular damage from increasing scrotal temperatures and decreasing sperm counts and concentration.  ...continue reading "Briefs, Boxers, and Sperm Counts"

1

Published on 1 Comment on What Do High Carbon Dioxide Levels In The Air Do To Thought Processes?

This is a topic that is totally neglected: What will it feel like when the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (the air) increase as our climate changes? What kinds of effects will it have on our thought processes (our cognition)? The reason I mention this is because research shows that as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase in rooms with people in them, it feels "stuffy" and people's thinking (cognitive processes) deteriorate. They don't think and work as effectively. Air starts to feel "stuffy" at about 600 ppm (parts per million). Our current CO2 levels in outside air are already above 400 ppm, and the levels are forecast to keep rising.

Indoor air typically has much higher CO2 concentrations than outdoor air because people are exhaling CO2 with every breath. (Note that research shows that urban city centers can already have outdoor CO2 levels above 500 ppm due to the “urban CO2 dome” effect, and elementary school classrooms are frequently above 1000 ppm, with some going as high as 3000 ppm at times). So as CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere with climate change, it will lead to even higher indoor CO2 levels in our workplaces, homes, and schools.

So... with increases in CO2 levels, what if it feels "stuffy" all the time? We won't be able to escape the "stuffiness" by going outside or opening a window. And remember, it will be worse in rooms with people in it, or in cars and aircraft. The research shows increasing CO2 levels make it harder to work and think effectively - think of it as an indoor air pollutant. Holy mackerel! This scary aspect of the effects of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere needs to be widely discussed and addressed.

The following 2 articles discuss the research showing the negative effects on cognition with increases in CO2 levels (what happens to people's mental processes in crowded classrooms, offices, etc.).  ...continue reading "What Do High Carbon Dioxide Levels In The Air Do To Thought Processes?"