nutritionfactsorg--2020-02-06--Vitamin D Put to the Test for Crohn’s Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) , “ a chronic inflammatory condition of the intestine that causes abdominal pain , diarrhea , and weight loss , ” includes Crohn ’ s disease and ulcerative colitis .
When we compare identical twins , even though they have the same genes , most of the time , if one twin has IBD , the other does not .
In that case , there must be some important , non-genetic trigger factors .
What might they be ?
Studies like the ones I discuss in my video Vitamin D for Inflammatory Bowel Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living in the southern United States have lower IBD rates than those living in the north ?
Maybe it ’ s because Southerners get more sun , which means more vitamin D and which may also mean less inflammation .
So , do people with Crohn ’ s and ulcerative colitis who have low vitamin D levels have worse disease ?
Apparently so .
Not only is there an increased risk of surgery and hospitalization , but those who normalize their vitamin D levels appear to reduce their risk of relapse .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading to better Crohn ’ s , maybe better control of Crohn ’ s led to better vitamin D. Indeed , perhaps they felt so good , they went outside more , “ increasing physical activity and outdoor sun exposure.
” We can ’ t tell if it ’ s cause and effect unless we put it to the test .
The first pilot study tried 1,000 units of vitamin D a day and saw no change in the Crohn ’ s disease activity index .
At six weeks , however , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IBD quality of life scores , but even that disappeared by year ’ s end , so the results were pretty disappointing overall .
Perhaps the researchers didn ’ t use enough vitamin D ?
How about 1,200 IU a day ?
At that level , the relapse rate appeared to be cut in half , as you can see at 1:45 in my video , though there were too few people in the study to reach statistical significance .
What happens with 2,000 IU of vitamin D a day ?
Gut leakiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worsen in the placebo group , but appeared to stabilize in the vitamin D group , though only those who reached blood levels over 75 nanomoles per liter appeared to have a significant drop in inflammation .
And , indeed , if Crohn ’ s patients are started on 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day and then the dose is ramped up until a target blood level is reached , it ’ s possible to get a significant boost in quality of life accompanying a significant drop in disease activity , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video .
Disease scores under 150 are considered remission , so “ the majority of patients achieved remission ” with improvements in disease activity in all but one person in the study .
This suggests that Crohn ’ s patients may want to take 5,000 IU of vitamin D a day , but that ’ s nearly ten times the Recommended Daily Allowance .
Why so much ?
Because that ’ s what it may take to get vitamin D levels that are normal for our species—that is , the kind of levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Africa , as we did for millions of years .
For more on the role diet can play in preventing and treating inflammatory bowel diseases , see : • Striking with the Root : Turmeric Curcumin and Ulcerative Colitis Interested in learning what else healthy vitamin D levels can do for you and your family ?
Check out : • Will You Live Longer If You Take Vitamin D Supplements ?
• Do Vitamin D Supplements Help with Diabetes , Weight Loss , and Blood Pressure ?
• How Much Vitamin D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dose of Vitamin D Based on Natural Levels • The Best Way to Get Vitamin D : Sun , Supplements , or Salons ?
• The Risks and Benefits of Sensible Sun Exposure PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), “a chronic inflammatory condition of the intestine that causes abdominal pain, diarrhea, and weight loss,” includes Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. When we compare identical twins, even though they have the same genes, most of the time, if one twin has IBD, the other does not. In that case, there must be some important, non-genetic trigger factors. What might they be?
Studies like the ones I discuss in my video Vitamin D for Inflammatory Bowel Disease offer a clue. Why do those living in the southern United States have lower IBD rates than those living in the north? Maybe it’s because Southerners get more sun, which means more vitamin D and which may also mean less inflammation.
So, do people with Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis who have low vitamin D levels have worse disease? Apparently so. Not only is there an increased risk of surgery and hospitalization, but those who normalize their vitamin D levels appear to reduce their risk of relapse. However, instead of better vitamin D levels leading to better Crohn’s, maybe better control of Crohn’s led to better vitamin D. Indeed, perhaps they felt so good, they went outside more, “increasing physical activity and outdoor sun exposure.” We can’t tell if it’s cause and effect unless we put it to the test.
The first pilot study tried 1,000 units of vitamin D a day and saw no change in the Crohn’s disease activity index. At six weeks, however, there may have been a slight increase in IBD quality of life scores, but even that disappeared by year’s end, so the results were pretty disappointing overall. Perhaps the researchers didn’t use enough vitamin D? How about 1,200 IU a day? At that level, the relapse rate appeared to be cut in half, as you can see at 1:45 in my video, though there were too few people in the study to reach statistical significance. What happens with 2,000 IU of vitamin D a day? Gut leakiness (so-called intestinal permeability) continued to worsen in the placebo group, but appeared to stabilize in the vitamin D group, though only those who reached blood levels over 75 nanomoles per liter appeared to have a significant drop in inflammation. And, indeed, if Crohn’s patients are started on 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day and then the dose is ramped up until a target blood level is reached, it’s possible to get a significant boost in quality of life accompanying a significant drop in disease activity, as you can see at 2:19 in my video. Disease scores under 150 are considered remission, so “the majority of patients achieved remission” with improvements in disease activity in all but one person in the study. This suggests that Crohn’s patients may want to take 5,000 IU of vitamin D a day, but that’s nearly ten times the Recommended Daily Allowance. Why so much? Because that’s what it may take to get vitamin D levels that are normal for our species—that is, the kind of levels one might get running around half naked in Africa, as we did for millions of years.
For more on the role diet can play in preventing and treating inflammatory bowel diseases, see:
Interested in learning what else healthy vitamin D levels can do for you and your family? Check out:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-02-04--A Supplement Shown to Improve Asthma

A Supplement Shown to Improve Asthma

Asthma , “ a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways , ” affects approximately 10 percent of children .
About half the risk is genetically determined , but we may have some control over the rest , which is the focus of my video Vitamin D for Asthma .
One reason asthma rates may be rising is because of our rising rates of vitamin D deficiency .
Kids just aren ’ t going out to play anymore , which , as you can see at 0:30 in my video , resulted in a doubling of vitamin D insufficiency levels in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quarter of U.S. teens hit the mark .
We can ’ t make vitamin D , known as the sunshine vitamin , from the light coming from our TV , phone , and computer screens .
“ The primary sources of this vitamin are natural production in the skin secondary to sun exposure , and secondarily from fortified foods and supplements.
” So , do kids with lower vitamin D levels in their blood have worse asthma ?
Apparently so .
One of more than a dozen observational studies suggests that vitamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Should we start giving kids with asthma vitamin D supplements if they ’ re not going to play outside ?
Correlation doesn ’ t mean causation .
Perhaps “ subjects with more severe asthma are likely to spend more time indoors , ” thereby leading to less vitamin D , instead of the other way around .
To prove cause and effect , we need to put it to the test .
How ?
Randomize kids with asthma into one of two groups , receiving either vitamin D or an identical-looking sugar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There had never been clinical trials like that…until now .
Asthmatic kids were given 500 to 1,000 international units ( IU ) of vitamin D3 a day , and their asthma exacerbations were cut by more than half .
Researchers suggest this may be due to decreasing the incidence of respiratory infections by boosting immunity , while , at the same time , diminishing inflammation .
If it helps with inflammation , what about inflammatory bowel disease ?
My video Vitamin D for Inflammatory Bowel Disease discusses exactly that .
For other videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , see : • Will You Live Longer If You Take Vitamin D Supplements ?
• Do Vitamin D Supplements Help with Diabetes , Weight Loss , and Blood Pressure ?
• How Much Vitamin D Should You Take ?
• The Optimal Dose of Vitamin D Based on Natural Levels • The Best Way to Get Vitamin D : Sun , Supplements , or Salons ?
• The Risks and Benefits of Sensible Sun Exposure • Should Vitamin D Supplements Be Taken to Prevent Falls in the Elderly ?
For more on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • How to Treat Asthma with a Low-Salt Diet PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Top 15 Killers

Asthma, “a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways,” affects approximately 10 percent of children. About half the risk is genetically determined, but we may have some control over the rest, which is the focus of my video Vitamin D for Asthma.
One reason asthma rates may be rising is because of our rising rates of vitamin D deficiency. Kids just aren’t going out to play anymore, which, as you can see at 0:30 in my video, resulted in a doubling of vitamin D insufficiency levels in recent years, such that less than a quarter of U.S. teens hit the mark.
We can’t make vitamin D, known as the sunshine vitamin, from the light coming from our TV, phone, and computer screens. “The primary sources of this vitamin are natural production in the skin secondary to sun exposure, and secondarily from fortified foods and supplements.” So, do kids with lower vitamin D levels in their blood have worse asthma? Apparently so. One of more than a dozen observational studies suggests that vitamin D is protective against “asthma exacerbations.”
Should we start giving kids with asthma vitamin D supplements if they’re not going to play outside? Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Perhaps “subjects with more severe asthma are likely to spend more time indoors,” thereby leading to less vitamin D, instead of the other way around. To prove cause and effect, we need to put it to the test. How? Randomize kids with asthma into one of two groups, receiving either vitamin D or an identical-looking sugar pill, and see what happens. There had never been clinical trials like that…until now.
Asthmatic kids were given 500 to 1,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 a day, and their asthma exacerbations were cut by more than half. Researchers suggest this may be due to decreasing the incidence of respiratory infections by boosting immunity, while, at the same time, diminishing inflammation.
If it helps with inflammation, what about inflammatory bowel disease? My video Vitamin D for Inflammatory Bowel Disease discusses exactly that.
For other videos in my extended series on vitamin D, see:
For more on preventing and treating asthma, check out:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-30--Should We Tax Meat and Dairy Like We Do Cigarettes?

One of the most effective ways to decrease the harms of smoking is by increasing the cost of cigarettes through tobacco taxes .
Indeed , an increase in the cost of cigarettes by only 10 percent could prevent millions of tobacco-related deaths .
What about taxing unhealthy food ?
In general , public health decision makers have had three main options : inform through labeling , nudge with incentives , or directly intervene in markets using more heavy-handed approaches like instituting regulations or taxes .
“ Policy approaches have proven crucial for other public health priorities , such as reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths from motor vehicle crashes.
” In fact , installing air bags , for example , helped more than either “ driver education alone or by labeling cars with information on crash risk.
” Given that heart disease kills more than ten times more people than injuries on the road , maybe the “ current epidemic of nutrition-related disease requires a similar multifaceted approach… [ E ] ven modest resulting dietary improvements could help reduce the burden of chronic disease significantly.
” Perhaps a national system of subsidies for good foods , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could “ facilitate more sensible dietary choices.
” Would they work ?
I discuss this in my video Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health ?
.
A systematic review of the available evidence suggests such taxes and subsidies would in fact work .
As I show in my video at 1:30 , it seems the more unhealthy foods are taxed , the more consumption drops .
Likewise , the more healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are subsidized and their prices drop , the more consumption increases .
A small price difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , succeeded in decreasing our exposure to lead .
What about a tax to decrease our exposure to saturated fat ?
As you can see from the data at 1:52 in my video , such a tax could potentially save thousands of lives .
Wouldn ’ t such a tax disproportionally affect the poor , though ?
Yes , it would benefit them the most—just like cigarette taxes .
The classic tobacco industry argument is that cigarette taxes are “ unfair ” and “ regressive , ” burdening the poor the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response ?
“ Cancer is unfair ” and “ [ c ] ancer is regressive , ” disproportionately burdening the poor such that a cigarette tax could result in the greatest health gains for the least well-off .
The so-called Committee Against Unfair Taxes was actually just a front , “ organised and funded by the tobacco industry , ” one front group among many , as you can see at 2:42 in my video .
This is a common tactic used by the industry to hide its role in fighting tobacco taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy off politicians .
The fact that the industry fights tooth and nail suggests that tobacco taxes can indeed affect consumption .
Much of the data on food taxes and subsidies , however , have been based on models or “ stated preferences ” to hypothetical scenarios where people merely say they ’ d change consumption patterns based on prices .
There hasn ’ t been as much real world data .
Researchers have put people through high-tech , 3D supermarket simulators , which you can see depicted at 3:15 in my video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discount on fruits and vegetables appears to boost produce purchases by 25 percent .
That ’ s nearly two pounds a week , but virtual fruits and veggies don ’ t do you any good .
Does this work out in the real world ?
Yes .
In fact , South Africa ’ s largest health insurance company started offering up to 25 percent cash back on healthy food purchases to hundreds of thousands of households—up to $ 500 USD a month .
Why would the insurance company do that ?
Why give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The healthy food cash-back program was associated with an increase in the consumption of fruits , vegetables , and whole grains , as well as a decrease in foods high in added sugar , salt , and fat , including processed meats and fast food .
Subsidies are more common than taxes , though , in Europe , where a number of countries have instituted taxes on foods that are sugary or salty .
Denmark was the first to introduce a tax on saturated fat , such as meat , dairy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food industry about a year to squash it , demonstrating that “ public health advocates are weak in tackling the issues of corporate power.
” There ’ s “ an enormous imbalance ” between the influence exerted by public health professionals compared to the political might of the food industry .
It brings to mind the fight over proposed “ traffic light labelling ” on food in the European Union .
Apparently , it was much too easy to understand , simple and straightforward , so the industry lost its mind and spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in favor of the confusing “ daily amount ” labeling guidelines that require a “ bring-your-calculator-to-the-grocery-store ” approach to make grocery shopping as confusing as possible , as you can see at 4:51 in my video .
Denmark ended up canceling the fat tax and shelving their sugar tax because the farming and food company interests claimed too many jobs would be lost if people ate healthier .
Apparently , a healthy economy was more important than a healthy population .
Ironically , it was abolished just when evidence of its effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ d ] that the introduction of the saturated fat tax contributed to reducing the intake of saturated fat among Danish consumers ” from some meat and dairy products—but not from sour cream , though .
The public ate so much more low-fat sour cream that it outweighed the smaller reduction in consumption of high-fat sour cream .
Indeed , we always have to think about the unintended consequences .
Swapping out sugary cookies for salty chips , for example , might not do the public ’ s health many favors .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that it may drop soft drink purchases , at least in the short term , but households may just end up buying more beer .
This idea is the flip side of sorts to my video Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods .
For more on how the food industry has borrowed from the tobacco industry playbook , see • Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease What about those who insist that sodium really isn ’ t bad for you ?
Check out : • Sodium Skeptics Try to Shake Up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Rubbing Salt in the Wound ?
And those who insist that saturated fat really isn ’ t bad for you ?
See The Saturated Fat Studies : Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies : Set Up to Fail .
What about those who insist that sugar really isn ’ t bad for you ?
Watch Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization and Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda ?
.
PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers

One of the most effective ways to decrease the harms of smoking is by increasing the cost of cigarettes through tobacco taxes. Indeed, an increase in the cost of cigarettes by only 10 percent could prevent millions of tobacco-related deaths. What about taxing unhealthy food? In general, public health decision makers have had three main options: inform through labeling, nudge with incentives, or directly intervene in markets using more heavy-handed approaches like instituting regulations or taxes.
“Policy approaches have proven crucial for other public health priorities, such as reducing tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and deaths from motor vehicle crashes.” In fact, installing air bags, for example, helped more than either “driver education alone or by labeling cars with information on crash risk.” Given that heart disease kills more than ten times more people than injuries on the road, maybe the “current epidemic of nutrition-related disease requires a similar multifaceted approach…[E]ven modest resulting dietary improvements could help reduce the burden of chronic disease significantly.” Perhaps a national system of subsidies for good foods, as well as taxes for bad ones, could “facilitate more sensible dietary choices.” Would they work? I discuss this in my video Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health?.
A systematic review of the available evidence suggests such taxes and subsidies would in fact work. As I show in my video at 1:30, it seems the more unhealthy foods are taxed, the more consumption drops. Likewise, the more healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are subsidized and their prices drop, the more consumption increases. A small price difference between leaded and unleaded gasoline, for example, succeeded in decreasing our exposure to lead. What about a tax to decrease our exposure to saturated fat? As you can see from the data at 1:52 in my video, such a tax could potentially save thousands of lives.
Wouldn’t such a tax disproportionally affect the poor, though? Yes, it would benefit them the most—just like cigarette taxes. The classic tobacco industry argument is that cigarette taxes are “unfair” and “regressive,” burdening the poor the most. The public health community’s response? “Cancer is unfair” and “[c]ancer is regressive,” disproportionately burdening the poor such that a cigarette tax could result in the greatest health gains for the least well-off. The so-called Committee Against Unfair Taxes was actually just a front, “organised and funded by the tobacco industry,” one front group among many, as you can see at 2:42 in my video. This is a common tactic used by the industry to hide its role in fighting tobacco taxes, in addition to trying to overtly buy off politicians. The fact that the industry fights tooth and nail suggests that tobacco taxes can indeed affect consumption. Much of the data on food taxes and subsidies, however, have been based on models or “stated preferences” to hypothetical scenarios where people merely say they’d change consumption patterns based on prices. There hasn’t been as much real world data.
Researchers have put people through high-tech, 3D supermarket simulators, which you can see depicted at 3:15 in my video, and found that a 25 percent discount on fruits and vegetables appears to boost produce purchases by 25 percent. That’s nearly two pounds a week, but virtual fruits and veggies don’t do you any good. Does this work out in the real world? Yes. In fact, South Africa’s largest health insurance company started offering up to 25 percent cash back on healthy food purchases to hundreds of thousands of households—up to $500 USD a month. Why would the insurance company do that? Why give money away? Because it works. The healthy food cash-back program was associated with an increase in the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, as well as a decrease in foods high in added sugar, salt, and fat, including processed meats and fast food.
Subsidies are more common than taxes, though, in Europe, where a number of countries have instituted taxes on foods that are sugary or salty. Denmark was the first to introduce a tax on saturated fat, such as meat, dairy, and eggs, but it only took the food industry about a year to squash it, demonstrating that “public health advocates are weak in tackling the issues of corporate power.”
There’s “an enormous imbalance” between the influence exerted by public health professionals compared to the political might of the food industry. It brings to mind the fight over proposed “traffic light labelling” on food in the European Union. Apparently, it was much too easy to understand, simple and straightforward, so the industry lost its mind and spent more than $1.4 billion USD killing it in favor of the confusing “daily amount” labeling guidelines that require a “bring-your-calculator-to-the-grocery-store” approach to make grocery shopping as confusing as possible, as you can see at 4:51 in my video.
Denmark ended up canceling the fat tax and shelving their sugar tax because the farming and food company interests claimed too many jobs would be lost if people ate healthier. Apparently, a healthy economy was more important than a healthy population. Ironically, it was abolished just when evidence of its effects started to appear. Researchers “conclude[d] that the introduction of the saturated fat tax contributed to reducing the intake of saturated fat among Danish consumers” from some meat and dairy products—but not from sour cream, though. The public ate so much more low-fat sour cream that it outweighed the smaller reduction in consumption of high-fat sour cream.
Indeed, we always have to think about the unintended consequences. Swapping out sugary cookies for salty chips, for example, might not do the public’s health many favors. One field study of a tax on soda found that it may drop soft drink purchases, at least in the short term, but households may just end up buying more beer.
This idea is the flip side of sorts to my video Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods.
For more on how the food industry has borrowed from the tobacco industry playbook, see
What about those who insist that sodium really isn’t bad for you? Check out:
And those who insist that saturated fat really isn’t bad for you? See The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.
What about those who insist that sugar really isn’t bad for you? Watch Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization and Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda?.
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-28--Do Poultry Viruses Cause Human Cancers?

Do Poultry Viruses Cause Human Cancers?

The incidence of cancers has been rising for the last half century , and the question is why ?
Up to 20 percent of all cancers are caused by infectious agents , chiefly viruses .
We ’ ve known this was possible for a century , when a cancer-causing virus was discovered in chickens .
The idea was considered such heresy that Dr. Peyton Rous , the man who made this landmark discovery , wouldn ’ t get his Nobel Prize until 55 years later .
If there are cancer-causing chicken viruses , might they have any effect on people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been raised about the potential infectivity of cancer-causing farm animal viruses for decades .
The first question was whether there was any evidence of human exposure , and , indeed , people do have antibodies to these cancer-causing chicken viruses in their bloodstream .
This indicates that the virus is no stranger to our immune systems .
Is there any evidence , though , that the virus itself can get into our blood ?
There wasn ’ t any such evidence…until 2001 .
As I explain in my video The Role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a cancer-causing herpesvirus in poultry , but does it pose a public health hazard ?
Researchers used DNA fingerprinting techniques to test the blood of 202 people and found that 20 percent , or one in five individuals , had viral DNA in their bloodstream .
Testing positive for avian herpesvirus doesn ’ t mean these diseases can necessarily infect human cells , however .
But , as it turns out , they can indeed .
But do they cause human disease ?
How can that be figured out ?
Since we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers looked at poultry workers , which is the way we figured out how other farm animal diseases , such as brucellosis and anthrax , jumped to humans .
In fact , studying workers is also how we discovered the carcinogenic nature of things like asbestos and benzene .
If the poultry workers , who are exposed day in and day out , don ’ t have higher cancer rates , then presumably the viruses are harmless .
Unfortunately , they do have higher rates .
In fact , those with high exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of dying from several cancers.
” As such , “ the relative ease ” with which some of the viruses can infect human cells , as well as infect and cause tumors in primates in laboratories , “ may be of public health significance , particularly because of the…increased risk of cancer in meat workers ” and the evidence that we may become infected with these viruses .
However , even if poultry workers are at risk , it doesn ’ t mean people who merely eat chicken or eggs are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were found to be six times more likely to die from brain cancer compared to workers who do not kill poultry , but the slaughterers have live birds flapping in their faces .
The “ intensity of exposure to these viruses in the general population can not be expected to be as high as those experienced by poultry workers… [ but ] the general population is nevertheless widely exposed ” to the viruses simply because we eat so many chickens and eggs .
This is supported by data showing that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at higher risk for brain tumors , but also butchers and meat cutters who have no exposure to live birds , particularly those who don ’ t wear gloves and frequently have cuts on their hands .
These workers are at higher risk for other cancers , as well .
Those who handle meat for a living also have higher rates of non-cancer mortality , such as increased death from heart disease and other health concerns outlined at 3:32 in my video .
Some of the poultry viruses not only cause cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , that cancer-causing poultry herpesvirus also triggers the buildup of cholesterol crystals in chickens .
But , what about in people ?
“ Because chickens infected with Marek disease virus , a herpesvirus , develop atherosclerotic lesions after infection , [ researchers ] looked for the presence of herpesvirus or parts thereof in human artery wall tissue… ” Evidence of the virus was found , though any role they play in human heart disease remains speculative .
“ Considerable attention has been paid to substances present in animal food before and after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as heart disease , diabetes , and various cancers… [ and ] exposures have included heme [ iron ] , fat or cholesterol , dioxins , ” and the cooked meat carcinogens .
We didn ’ t think , however , about the animal viruses , which “ are important not only for supermarket workers and other workers in the meat and poultry industries , but also because the general population is exposed.
” Indeed , the study that found chicken virus DNA circulating in people ’ s bloodstreams also found about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did in chicken slaughterhouse workers , which you can see at 4:42 in my video .
Other viruses may actually play a role in the obesity epidemic .
See , for example , Infectobesity : Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity For other potential microbiological hazards in poultry , check out : And , for potential chemical hazards in poultry , see : • Chicken Consumption and the Feminization of Male Genitalia • How Many Cancers Have Been Caused by Arsenic-Laced Chicken ?
• How Much Lead Is in Organic Chicken Soup ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arsenic in Chicken Come From ?
PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , @ @ @ @ @ @

The incidence of cancers has been rising for the last half century, and the question is why? Up to 20 percent of all cancers are caused by infectious agents, chiefly viruses. We’ve known this was possible for a century, when a cancer-causing virus was discovered in chickens. The idea was considered such heresy that Dr. Peyton Rous, the man who made this landmark discovery, wouldn’t get his Nobel Prize until 55 years later.
If there are cancer-causing chicken viruses, might they have any effect on people who handle or eat poultry? Concern has been raised about the potential infectivity of cancer-causing farm animal viruses for decades. The first question was whether there was any evidence of human exposure, and, indeed, people do have antibodies to these cancer-causing chicken viruses in their bloodstream. This indicates that the virus is no stranger to our immune systems. Is there any evidence, though, that the virus itself can get into our blood? There wasn’t any such evidence…until 2001.
As I explain in my video The Role of Poultry Viruses in Human Cancers, there is a cancer-causing herpesvirus in poultry, but does it pose a public health hazard? Researchers used DNA fingerprinting techniques to test the blood of 202 people and found that 20 percent, or one in five individuals, had viral DNA in their bloodstream. Testing positive for avian herpesvirus doesn’t mean these diseases can necessarily infect human cells, however. But, as it turns out, they can indeed.
But do they cause human disease? How can that be figured out? Since we can’t just inject people, researchers looked at poultry workers, which is the way we figured out how other farm animal diseases, such as brucellosis and anthrax, jumped to humans. In fact, studying workers is also how we discovered the carcinogenic nature of things like asbestos and benzene. If the poultry workers, who are exposed day in and day out, don’t have higher cancer rates, then presumably the viruses are harmless. Unfortunately, they do have higher rates. In fact, those with high exposure to cancer-causing poultry viruses have “increased risk of dying from several cancers.”
As such, “the relative ease” with which some of the viruses can infect human cells, as well as infect and cause tumors in primates in laboratories, “may be of public health significance, particularly because of the…increased risk of cancer in meat workers” and the evidence that we may become infected with these viruses. However, even if poultry workers are at risk, it doesn’t mean people who merely eat chicken or eggs are. For example, workers who kill chickens were found to be six times more likely to die from brain cancer compared to workers who do not kill poultry, but the slaughterers have live birds flapping in their faces. The “intensity of exposure to these viruses in the general population cannot be expected to be as high as those experienced by poultry workers…[but] the general population is nevertheless widely exposed” to the viruses simply because we eat so many chickens and eggs.
This is supported by data showing that it’s not only the factory farm workers who are at higher risk for brain tumors, but also butchers and meat cutters who have no exposure to live birds, particularly those who don’t wear gloves and frequently have cuts on their hands. These workers are at higher risk for other cancers, as well.
Those who handle meat for a living also have higher rates of non-cancer mortality, such as increased death from heart disease and other health concerns outlined at 3:32 in my video. Some of the poultry viruses not only cause cancer in chickens, but also atherosclerosis. Indeed, that cancer-causing poultry herpesvirus also triggers the buildup of cholesterol crystals in chickens. But, what about in people? “Because chickens infected with Marek disease virus, a herpesvirus, develop atherosclerotic lesions after infection, [researchers] looked for the presence of herpesvirus or parts thereof in human artery wall tissue…” Evidence of the virus was found, though any role they play in human heart disease remains speculative.
“Considerable attention has been paid to substances present in animal food before and after cooking as risk factors for human diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers…[and] exposures have included heme [iron], fat or cholesterol, dioxins,” and the cooked meat carcinogens. We didn’t think, however, about the animal viruses, which “are important not only for supermarket workers and other workers in the meat and poultry industries, but also because the general population is exposed.” Indeed, the study that found chicken virus DNA circulating in people’s bloodstreams also found about the same rates in office workers as they did in chicken slaughterhouse workers, which you can see at 4:42 in my video.
Other viruses may actually play a role in the obesity epidemic. See, for example, Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity
For other potential microbiological hazards in poultry, check out:
And, for potential chemical hazards in poultry, see:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-23--Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea

Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea

Green tea has been called nature ’ s defense against cancer .
Population studies linking green tea consumption with lower cancer risk have led some to advocate for the incorporation of green tea into the diet “ so as to fully benefit from its anticarcinogenic properties.
” What , after all , is the downside ?
But , population studies can ’ t prove cause and effect .
Indeed , “ it is not possible to determine from these population-based studies whether green tea actually prevents cancer in people ” …until it is put to the test .
Prostate cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as intraepithelial neoplasia .
You can see a graphic of the progression at 0:41 in my video Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea .
Within one year , about 30 percent of such lesions turn into cancer .
Because no treatment is given to patients until cancer is diagnosed , this presents a perfect opportunity to try green tea .
In the study , 60 men with precancerous prostate intraepithelial neoplasia were randomized into either a green tea group or a placebo group .
Since it ’ s hard to make a convincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tea pills that were roughly equivalent to about six cups of green tea a day and compared them to sugar pills .
Six months into the study , they took biopsies from everyone .
In the placebo group , 6 of the 30 men developed cancer by the halfway point and 3 of the remaining 24 developed it by the end of the year .
So , 9 out of 30 in the placebo group , about 30 percent , developed cancer within the first year , which is what normally happens without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , however , none of the 30 men developed cancer within the first six months and only one developed it by the end of the year .
Only 1 out of 30 is nearly ten times less than the placebo group .
This marked the first demonstration that green tea compounds could be “ very effective for treating premalignant lesions before [ prostate cancer ] develops.
” Even a year later , after the subjects stopped the green tea , nearly 90 percent of the original green tea group remained cancer-free , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group developed cancer , as you can see at 2:09 in my video .
This suggests that the benefits of the green tea may be “ long-lasting , ” with an overall nearly 80 percent reduction in prostate cancer .
What if you already have prostate cancer ?
A proprietary green tea extract supplement was given to 26 men with confirmed prostate cancer for an average of about a month before they had their prostates removed , and there was a significant reduction in a number of cancer biomarkers such as PSA levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , there was no control group , and the study was funded by the supplement company itself .
When an independent group of researchers tried to replicate the results in a randomized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial , they failed to find any statistically significant improvement .
Perhaps green tea is only effective in the precancerous state and not powerful enough “ to meaningfully impact overt prostate cancer ” ?
It certainly didn ’ t seem to help for advanced metastatic cancer in the two studies that tried it .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been cast on the precancerous results .
When researchers tried to replicate it , the green tea extract group only seemed to cut prostate cancer development about in half , which very well may have happened just by chance , given the small number of people in the study .
So where does that leave us ?
Unfortunately , green tea extract pills are not without risk .
There have been about a dozen case reports of liver damage associated with their use .
Until there ’ s more solid evidence of benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking the tea .
Green or black ?
A recent study that randomized about a hundred men with prostate cancer to consume six cups a day of green tea or black tea found a significant drop in PSA levels and NF-kB in the green tea group , but not in either the black tea or control groups , as you can see at 4:12 in my video .
NF-kB is thought to be a prognostic marker for prostate cancer progression , so the green tea did appear to work better than the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our diet with all sorts of plant foods ?
See my Cancer Reversal Through Diet ?
video .
Before and after : Learn about Preventing Prostate Cancer with Green Tea and Changing a Man ’ s Diet After a Prostate Cancer Diagnosis .
Similar studies were done with pomegranates .
I discuss the results in Pomegranate vs .
Placebo for Prostate Cancer .
Interested in other ways to prevent or treat prostate cancer ?
See : • The Role of Soy Foods in Prostate Cancer Prevention and Treatment What about green tea and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : For more on some of green tea ’ s other benefits , see : PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers

Green tea has been called nature’s defense against cancer. Population studies linking green tea consumption with lower cancer risk have led some to advocate for the incorporation of green tea into the diet “so as to fully benefit from its anticarcinogenic properties.” What, after all, is the downside?
But, population studies can’t prove cause and effect. Indeed, “it is not possible to determine from these population-based studies whether green tea actually prevents cancer in people”…until it is put to the test.
Prostate cancer is preceded by a precancerous condition known as intraepithelial neoplasia. You can see a graphic of the progression at 0:41 in my video Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea. Within one year, about 30 percent of such lesions turn into cancer. Because no treatment is given to patients until cancer is diagnosed, this presents a perfect opportunity to try green tea. In the study, 60 men with precancerous prostate intraepithelial neoplasia were randomized into either a green tea group or a placebo group. Since it’s hard to make a convincing placebo tea, the researchers used green tea pills that were roughly equivalent to about six cups of green tea a day and compared them to sugar pills. Six months into the study, they took biopsies from everyone. In the placebo group, 6 of the 30 men developed cancer by the halfway point and 3 of the remaining 24 developed it by the end of the year. So, 9 out of 30 in the placebo group, about 30 percent, developed cancer within the first year, which is what normally happens without any treatment. In the green tea group, however, none of the 30 men developed cancer within the first six months and only one developed it by the end of the year. Only 1 out of 30 is nearly ten times less than the placebo group. This marked the first demonstration that green tea compounds could be “very effective for treating premalignant lesions before [prostate cancer] develops.” Even a year later, after the subjects stopped the green tea, nearly 90 percent of the original green tea group remained cancer-free, while more than half of the placebo group developed cancer, as you can see at 2:09 in my video. This suggests that the benefits of the green tea may be “long-lasting,” with an overall nearly 80 percent reduction in prostate cancer.
What if you already have prostate cancer? A proprietary green tea extract supplement was given to 26 men with confirmed prostate cancer for an average of about a month before they had their prostates removed, and there was a significant reduction in a number of cancer biomarkers such as PSA levels, suggesting a shrinkage of the tumor. However, there was no control group, and the study was funded by the supplement company itself. When an independent group of researchers tried to replicate the results in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, they failed to find any statistically significant improvement. Perhaps green tea is only effective in the precancerous state and not powerful enough “to meaningfully impact overt prostate cancer”?
It certainly didn’t seem to help for advanced metastatic cancer in the two studies that tried it. What’s more, doubt has recently been cast on the precancerous results. When researchers tried to replicate it, the green tea extract group only seemed to cut prostate cancer development about in half, which very well may have happened just by chance, given the small number of people in the study. So where does that leave us?
Unfortunately, green tea extract pills are not without risk. There have been about a dozen case reports of liver damage associated with their use. Until there’s more solid evidence of benefit, I’d stick with just drinking the tea. Green or black? A recent study that randomized about a hundred men with prostate cancer to consume six cups a day of green tea or black tea found a significant drop in PSA levels and NF-kB in the green tea group, but not in either the black tea or control groups, as you can see at 4:12 in my video. NF-kB is thought to be a prognostic marker for prostate cancer progression, so the green tea did appear to work better than the black tea.
What happens if we pack our diet with all sorts of plant foods? See my Cancer Reversal Through Diet? video.
Before and after: Learn about Preventing Prostate Cancer with Green Tea and Changing a Man’s Diet After a Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Similar studies were done with pomegranates. I discuss the results in Pomegranate vs. Placebo for Prostate Cancer.
Interested in other ways to prevent or treat prostate cancer? See:
What about green tea and other types of cancer? Check out:
For more on some of green tea’s other benefits, see:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-21--Does Green Tea Help Prevent Prostate Cancer?

“ Prostate cancer is a leading cause of illness and death among men in the United States and Western Europe , ” but rates in Asia can be as much as ten times lower .
Perhaps Asians are genetically less likely to get prostate cancer ?
No .
Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans have high prostate cancer rates as well , as you can see at 0:22 in my video Preventing Prostate Cancer with Green Tea .
In the United States , up to nearly one in three men in their 30s already has small prostate cancers brewing and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men by their 60s .
On autopsy , most older men were found to have unknown cancerous tumors in their prostates .
What ’ s remarkable is that Asian men seem to have the same prevalence of these hidden , latent prostate cancers on autopsy , but they don ’ t tend to grow enough to cause problems .
In Japan , men tend to die with their tumors rather than from their tumors .
Of course , that ’ s changing as Asian populations continue to Westernize their diets .
What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth ?
It could be carcinogens in the diet accelerating the growth of cancer .
Indeed , the typical American diet is rich in animal fats and meats , but it could also be something protective in Asian diets that is slowing the cancer growth , such as fruits , vegetables , soy foods , or green tea .
How might we determine if there is a link between tea consumption and the risk and progression of prostate cancer ?
Dozens of studies have examined whether tea drinkers tend to get less cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to have drunk less tea in the past .
Although the results have been mixed , overall , tea consumption was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer .
So , tea consumption might indeed play a protective role .
However , just because tea drinkers get less cancer doesn ’ t mean it ’ s necessarily because of the tea .
Perhaps drinking tea is just a sign of a more traditional lifestyle and maybe tea drinkers are less likely to be patrons of the thousand KFC fast-food restaurants now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a lab allow for as many factors to be controlled as possible .
When everything is removed from the equation except for green tea and prostate cancer , dripping green tea compounds directly on prostate cancer cells in a petri dish can cause them to self-destruct , as you can see at 2:31 in my video .
But we do not appear to absorb enough green tea compounds into our bloodstream to reach those kinds of levels .
This may explain why some studies failed to find an association between tea drinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not drinking enough ?
In the United States , for example , the “ high ” tea-drinking group may be defined as more than five cups of tea a week .
In Japan , however , the “ high ” tea-drinking group can consume five or more cups a day , which was associated with about halving the risk of aggressive prostate cancer .
How ?
Apparently , it was not by preventing the formation of the cancer in the first place , but perhaps by slowing or stopping the cancer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growth of prostate cancer , why not try giving green tea to prostate cancer patients to see if it will help ?
Green tea is actually put to the test in cancer patients in my video Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea .
For more on men ’ s health , check out : • The Role of Diet in Declining Sperm Counts • Survival of the Firmest : Erectile Dysfunction and Death Interested in more on tea ?
See : • Why Do Asian Women Have Less Breast Cancer ?
PS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers

“Prostate cancer is a leading cause of illness and death among men in the United States and Western Europe,” but rates in Asia can be as much as ten times lower. Perhaps Asians are genetically less likely to get prostate cancer? No. Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans have high prostate cancer rates as well, as you can see at 0:22 in my video Preventing Prostate Cancer with Green Tea. In the United States, up to nearly one in three men in their 30s already has small prostate cancers brewing and that grows to nearly two thirds of American men by their 60s. On autopsy, most older men were found to have unknown cancerous tumors in their prostates. What’s remarkable is that Asian men seem to have the same prevalence of these hidden, latent prostate cancers on autopsy, but they don’t tend to grow enough to cause problems. In Japan, men tend to die with their tumors rather than from their tumors. Of course, that’s changing as Asian populations continue to Westernize their diets.
What is it about Western diets that fuels cancer growth? It could be carcinogens in the diet accelerating the growth of cancer. Indeed, the typical American diet is rich in animal fats and meats, but it could also be something protective in Asian diets that is slowing the cancer growth, such as fruits, vegetables, soy foods, or green tea.
How might we determine if there is a link between tea consumption and the risk and progression of prostate cancer? Dozens of studies have examined whether tea drinkers tend to get less cancer in the future and if cancer victims tend to have drunk less tea in the past. Although the results have been mixed, overall, tea consumption was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer. So, tea consumption might indeed play a protective role. However, just because tea drinkers get less cancer doesn’t mean it’s necessarily because of the tea. Perhaps drinking tea is just a sign of a more traditional lifestyle and maybe tea drinkers are less likely to be patrons of the thousand KFC fast-food restaurants now in Japan.
In vitro studies performed in a lab allow for as many factors to be controlled as possible. When everything is removed from the equation except for green tea and prostate cancer, dripping green tea compounds directly on prostate cancer cells in a petri dish can cause them to self-destruct, as you can see at 2:31 in my video. But we do not appear to absorb enough green tea compounds into our bloodstream to reach those kinds of levels. This may explain why some studies failed to find an association between tea drinking and cancer. Maybe we’re not drinking enough? In the United States, for example, the “high” tea-drinking group may be defined as more than five cups of tea a week. In Japan, however, the “high” tea-drinking group can consume five or more cups a day, which was associated with about halving the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. How? Apparently, it was not by preventing the formation of the cancer in the first place, but perhaps by slowing or stopping the cancer’s growth. If green tea can stop the growth of prostate cancer, why not try giving green tea to prostate cancer patients to see if it will help? Green tea is actually put to the test in cancer patients in my video Treating Prostate Cancer with Green Tea.
For more on men’s health, check out:
Interested in more on tea? See:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-16--Last Day to Register for Obesity Webinar & New Stroke Risk Webinar

I ’ m excited to announce my next webinar , taking place on February 19 : Why Do Vegetarians Have Higher Stroke Risk ?
Unlike the obesity webinar , which was put together mostly just to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of fellow nutrition nerds ( more info below ! )
, my February webinar is going to be of a more practical nature .
Given that high blood pressure and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption are among the most important stroke risk factors , you would assume those eating plant-based diets would be at significantly lower risk , just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be surprised to learn that there had never been any studies on the incidence of stroke in vegetarians , though…until now .
And if you think that is surprising , wait until you hear the results .
Yes , they had lower heart disease risk as expected , but those eating meat-free diets appeared to have more stroke risk .
If that is indeed the case , what might be the cause , and what can we do about it ?
I hope you ’ ll join me for this important event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , go here .
Date and Time : February 19 , 2-4pm ET Last Day to Register : February 13 Today is the last day to register for my next webinar on January 24 at 2pm ET : The obesity epidemic exploded throughout the industrialized world in the late 1970s .
What happened ?
Any potential driver would have had to be global in nature and coincide with the upswing of the epidemic .
So how do the various theories stack up ?
Was it the fat , the sugar , our genes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are as curious as I was before I dived in , I hope you ’ ll join me as I sift through the possibilities and answer your questions in this 2-hour live webinar , which is ( *spoiler alert* ) based on the first part of my new book How Not to Diet .
Update : Get the download of this webinar here , and to be the first to see announcements of future webinars , be sure you subscribe to our newsletter .
And speaking of my new book , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly and Ryan and Fox Business to discuss it .
I ’ ve started my 200-city speaking tour .
This will take me all over the US and other parts of the world .
Here are a few of the upcoming events that are open to the public .
You can also see the full list here .
1/17/2020 Sedona , AZ L ’ Auberge de Sedona for Health and Nutrition Conference & Sedona Performing Arts Center for VegFest We ’ re currently seeking volunteers with experience in English-Chinese translation and editing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on nutrition to people in Chinese-speaking regions .
You can find the volunteer position descriptions and applications here .
Host a How Not to Die Screening Over 30 How Not to Die Screening events have taken place around the world since last April .
These events have brought communities together and have allowed this life-saving information to effectively reach wider audiences .
Consider hosting a free event in your area .
For more information and to apply , go here .
The international medical organization Physicians Association for Nutrition ( PAN International ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plant-based diet to add themselves to their latest website feature : an interactive map and list where patients around the globe can identify supportive practitioners near them .
If you are a physician , physician assistant , registered dietician , or a nurse practitioner , please visit their website and consider adding your practice to the list !
Are Pre-Cut Vegetables Just as Healthy ?
Endotoxins can build up on pre-chopped vegetables and undermine some of their benefits .
Why we may want to strive not to exceed the recommended intake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meal for Weight Loss ?
Is the link between breakfast skipping and obesity cause-and-effect ?
Every month now I do Q & As live from my treadmill , and January 23 is the day .
• Facebook Live : At 12:00 p.m .
ET go to our Facebook page to watch live and ask questions .
• YouTube Live Stream : At 1:00 p.m .
ET go here to watch live and ask even more questions !
You can now find links to all of my past live YouTube and Facebook Q & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not enough , remember I have an audio podcast to keep you company at http : //nutritionfacts.org/audio .
PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live , year-in-review presentations : • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2014 : From Table to Able : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : More Than an Apple a Day • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

I’m excited to announce my next webinar, taking place on February 19:
Why Do Vegetarians Have Higher Stroke Risk?
Unlike the obesity webinar, which was put together mostly just to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of fellow nutrition nerds (more info below!), my February webinar is going to be of a more practical nature. Given that high blood pressure and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption are among the most important stroke risk factors, you would assume those eating plant-based diets would be at significantly lower risk, just as they are with heart attacks. You might be surprised to learn that there had never been any studies on the incidence of stroke in vegetarians, though…until now. And if you think that is surprising, wait until you hear the results. Yes, they had lower heart disease risk as expected, but those eating meat-free diets appeared to have more stroke risk. If that is indeed the case, what might be the cause, and what can we do about it? I hope you’ll join me for this important event. For more information and to register, go here.
Date and Time: February 19, 2-4pm ET
Last Day to Register: February 13
Today is the last day to register for my next webinar on January 24 at 2pm ET:
What Triggered the Obesity Epidemic?
The obesity epidemic exploded throughout the industrialized world in the late 1970s. What happened? Any potential driver would have had to be global in nature and coincide with the upswing of the epidemic. So how do the various theories stack up? Was it the fat, the sugar, our genes, lack of exercise? If you are as curious as I was before I dived in, I hope you’ll join me as I sift through the possibilities and answer your questions in this 2-hour live webinar, which is (*spoiler alert*) based on the first part of my new book How Not to Diet.
Update: Get the download of this webinar here, and to be the first to see announcements of future webinars, be sure you subscribe to our newsletter.
And speaking of my new book, I was thrilled to be back on Live with Kelly and Ryan and Fox Business to discuss it.
Speaking Tour Kicking Off
I’ve started my 200-city speaking tour. This will take me all over the US and other parts of the world. Here are a few of the upcoming events that are open to the public. You can also see the full list here.
1/12/2020 Loma Linda, CA
Loma Linda University School of Medicine
1/17/2020 Sedona, AZ
L’Auberge de Sedona for Health and Nutrition Conference & Sedona Performing Arts Center for VegFest
2/7/2020 Boise, ID
Plant Based in Boise
2/16/2020 Camarillo, CA
Whole Conference
2/21-2/28/2020
Holistic Holiday at Sea
Seeking Chinese Translation Volunteers
We’re currently seeking volunteers with experience in English-Chinese translation and editing as we continue to bring the latest research on nutrition to people in Chinese-speaking regions. You can find the volunteer position descriptions and applications here.
Host a How Not to Die Screening
Over 30 How Not to Die Screening events have taken place around the world since last April. These events have brought communities together and have allowed this life-saving information to effectively reach wider audiences. Consider hosting a free event in your area. For more information and to apply, go here.
Physicians Association for Nutrition
The international medical organization Physicians Association for Nutrition (PAN International) is calling all health professionals supportive of a plant-based diet to add themselves to their latest website feature: an interactive map and list where patients around the globe can identify supportive practitioners near them. If you are a physician, physician assistant, registered dietician, or a nurse practitioner, please visit their website and consider adding your practice to the list!
Are Pre-Cut Vegetables Just as Healthy?
Endotoxins can build up on pre-chopped vegetables and undermine some of their benefits.
Are BCAA (Branched-Chain Amino Acids) Healthy?
Why we may want to strive not to exceed the recommended intake of protein.
Is Breakfast the Most Important Meal for Weight Loss?
Is the link between breakfast skipping and obesity cause-and-effect?
Live Q&As January 23
Every month now I do Q&As live from my treadmill, and January 23 is the day.
Facebook Live : At 12:00 p.m. ET go to our Facebook page to watch live and ask questions.
: At 12:00 p.m. ET go to our Facebook page to watch live and ask questions. YouTube Live Stream: At 1:00 p.m. ET go here to watch live and ask even more questions!
You can now find links to all of my past live YouTube and Facebook Q&As right here on NutritionFacts.org. If that’s not enough, remember I have an audio podcast to keep you company at http://nutritionfacts.org/audio.
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-14--Why Drinking Diet Soda Makes You Crave Sugar

Recommendations on limiting sugar consumption vary around the world , with guidelines ranging from “ [ l ] imit sweet desserts to one every other day ” to “ [ k ] eep sugar consumption to 4 or less occasions per day.
” In the United States , the American Heart Association is leading the charge , “ proposing dramatic reductions in the consumption of soft drinks and other sweetened products ” and recommending fewer than about 5 percent of calories a day from added sugars , which may not even allow for a single can of soda .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about sugar ?
“ Overconsumption of added sugars has long been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease , ” meaning heart disease and strokes .
We used to think added sugars were just a marker for an unhealthy diet .
At fast-food restaurants , for example , people may be more likely to order a cheeseburger with their super-sized soda than a salad .
However , the new thinking is that the added sugars in processed foods and drinks may be independent risk factors in and of themselves .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be actively disease-promoting calories , which I discuss in my video Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda ?
.
At 1:14 in my video , you can see a chart of how much added sugar the American public is consuming .
The data show that only about 1 percent meet the American Heart Association recommendation to keep added sugar intake down to 5 or 6 percent of daily caloric intake .
Most people are up around 15 percent , which is where cardiovascular disease risk starts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of risk at about 25 percent of calories and a quadrupling of risk for those getting one-third of their daily caloric intake from added sugar .
Two hundred years ago , we ate an estimated 7 pounds of sugar annually .
Today , we may consume dozens of pounds of sugar a year .
We ’ re hardwired to like sweet foods because we evolved surrounded by fruit , not Froot Loops , but this adaptation is “ terribly misused and abused ” today , “ hijacked ” by the food industry for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why are we consuming so much sugar despite knowing too much can harm us ?
” Yes , it may have an addictive quality and there ’ s the hardwiring , but the processed food industry isn ’ t helping .
Seventy five percent of packaged foods and beverages in the United States contain added sweeteners , mostly coming from sugar-sweetened beverages like soda , which are thought responsible for more than a 100,000 deaths worldwide and millions of years of healthy life lost .
Given this , can we just switch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can ’ t we get that sweet taste we crave without any of the downsides ?
Unfortunately , studies indicate that “ [ r ] outine consumption of diet soft drinks is linked to increases in the same risks that many seek to avoid by using artificial sweeteners—namely type 2 diabetes , metabolic syndrome heart disease , and stroke.
” At 3:15 in my video , you can see data showing the increased risks of cardiovascular disease associated with regular soft drinks and also diet soda .
They aren ’ t that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the belief that artificially sweetened diet beverages reduce long-term health risks is not supported by scientific evidence , and instead , scientific data indicate that diet soft drink consumption may contribute to the very health risks people have been seeking to avoid.
” But , why ?
It makes sense that drinking all that sugar in a regular soft drink might increase stroke risk , due to the extra inflammation and triglycerides , but why does a can of diet soda appear to increase stroke risk the same amount ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sodas like colas plays a role , but another possibility is that “ artificial sweeteners may increase the desire for sugar-sweetened , energy-dense beverages/foods.
” The problem with artificial sweeteners “ is that a disconnect ultimately develops between the amount of sweetness the brain tastes and how much glucose [ blood sugar ] ends up coming to the brain.
” The brain feels cheated and “ figures you have to eat more and more and more sweetness in order to get any calories out of it.
” So , “ [ a ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the day , your brain says , ‘ OK , at some point I need some glucose [ blood sugar ] here.
’ And then you eat an entire cake , because nobody can hold out in the end.
” If people are given Sprite , Sprite Zero ( a zero-calorie soda ) , or unsweetened , carbonated , lemon-lime water , but aren ’ t told which drink they ’ re getting or what the study is about , when they ’ re later offered a choice of M & M @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sugar-free gum , who do you think picks the M & M ’ s ?
Those who drank the artificially sweetened soda were nearly three times more likely to take the candy than those who consumed either the sugar-sweetened or unsweetened drinks .
So , it wasn ’ t a matter of sweet versus non-sweet or calories versus no-calories .
There ’ s something about non-caloric sweeteners that somehow tricks the brain .
The researchers did another study in which everyone was given Oreos and were then asked how satisfied the cookies made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who drank the artificially sweetened Sprite Zero reported feeling less satisfied than those who drank the regular Sprite or the sparkling water .
“ These results are consistent with recent [ brain imaging ] studies demonstrating that regular consumption of [ artificial sweeteners ] can alter the neural pathways responsible for the hedonic [ or pleasure ] response to food.
” Indeed , “ [ t ] he only way really to prevent this problem—to break the addiction—is to go completely cold turkey and go off all sweeteners—artificial as well as fructose [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
Eventually , the brain resets itself and you don ’ t crave it as much.
” We ’ ve always assumed the “ [ c ] onsumption of both sugar and artificial sweeteners may be changing our palates or taste preferences over time , increasing our desire for sweet foods .
Unfortunately , the data on this [ were ] lacking ” …until now .
Twenty people agreed to cut out all added sugars and artificial sweeteners for two weeks .
Afterwards , 95 percent “ found that sweet foods and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ said moving forward they would use less or even no sugar.
” What ’ s more , most stopped craving sugar within the first week—after only six days .
This suggests a two-week sugar challenge , or even a one-week challenge , may “ help to reset taste preferences and make consuming less or no sugar easier.
” Perhaps we should be recommending it to our patients .
“ Eating fewer processed foods and choosing more real , whole , and plant-based foods make it easy to consume less sugar.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my Chocolate and Stroke Risk video ?
For more on added sugars , see : • If Fructose Is Bad , What About Fruit ?
• How Much Fruit Is Too Much ?
• How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much ?
You may also be interested in my videos on artificial and low-calorie sweeteners : • Effect of Sucralose ( Splenda ) on the Microbiome PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers

Recommendations on limiting sugar consumption vary around the world, with guidelines ranging from “[l]imit sweet desserts to one every other day” to “[k]eep sugar consumption to 4 or less occasions per day.” In the United States, the American Heart Association is leading the charge, “proposing dramatic reductions in the consumption of soft drinks and other sweetened products” and recommending fewer than about 5 percent of calories a day from added sugars, which may not even allow for a single can of soda.
Why is the American Heart Association so concerned about sugar? “Overconsumption of added sugars has long been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” meaning heart disease and strokes. We used to think added sugars were just a marker for an unhealthy diet. At fast-food restaurants, for example, people may be more likely to order a cheeseburger with their super-sized soda than a salad. However, the new thinking is that the added sugars in processed foods and drinks may be independent risk factors in and of themselves. Indeed, worse than just empty calories, they may be actively disease-promoting calories, which I discuss in my video Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda?.
At 1:14 in my video, you can see a chart of how much added sugar the American public is consuming. The data show that only about 1 percent meet the American Heart Association recommendation to keep added sugar intake down to 5 or 6 percent of daily caloric intake. Most people are up around 15 percent, which is where cardiovascular disease risk starts to take off. There is a doubling of risk at about 25 percent of calories and a quadrupling of risk for those getting one-third of their daily caloric intake from added sugar.
Two hundred years ago, we ate an estimated 7 pounds of sugar annually. Today, we may consume dozens of pounds of sugar a year. We’re hardwired to like sweet foods because we evolved surrounded by fruit, not Froot Loops, but this adaptation is “terribly misused and abused” today, “hijacked” by the food industry for our pleasure and their profits. “Why are we consuming so much sugar despite knowing too much can harm us?” Yes, it may have an addictive quality and there’s the hardwiring, but the processed food industry isn’t helping. Seventy five percent of packaged foods and beverages in the United States contain added sweeteners, mostly coming from sugar-sweetened beverages like soda, which are thought responsible for more than a 100,000 deaths worldwide and millions of years of healthy life lost. Given this, can we just switch to diet sodas? By choosing diet drinks, can’t we get that sweet taste we crave without any of the downsides? Unfortunately, studies indicate that “[r]outine consumption of diet soft drinks is linked to increases in the same risks that many seek to avoid by using artificial sweeteners—namely type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome heart disease, and stroke.” At 3:15 in my video, you can see data showing the increased risks of cardiovascular disease associated with regular soft drinks and also diet soda. They aren’t that dissimilar.
“In other words, the belief that artificially sweetened diet beverages reduce long-term health risks is not supported by scientific evidence, and instead, scientific data indicate that diet soft drink consumption may contribute to the very health risks people have been seeking to avoid.” But, why? It makes sense that drinking all that sugar in a regular soft drink might increase stroke risk, due to the extra inflammation and triglycerides, but why does a can of diet soda appear to increase stroke risk the same amount? It’s possible that the caramel coloring in brown sodas like colas plays a role, but another possibility is that “artificial sweeteners may increase the desire for sugar-sweetened, energy-dense beverages/foods.”
The problem with artificial sweeteners “is that a disconnect ultimately develops between the amount of sweetness the brain tastes and how much glucose [blood sugar] ends up coming to the brain.” The brain feels cheated and “figures you have to eat more and more and more sweetness in order to get any calories out of it.” So, “[a]s a consequence, at the end of the day, your brain says, ‘OK, at some point I need some glucose [blood sugar] here.’ And then you eat an entire cake, because nobody can hold out in the end.”
If people are given Sprite, Sprite Zero (a zero-calorie soda), or unsweetened, carbonated, lemon-lime water, but aren’t told which drink they’re getting or what the study is about, when they’re later offered a choice of M&M’s, spring water, or sugar-free gum, who do you think picks the M&M’s? Those who drank the artificially sweetened soda were nearly three times more likely to take the candy than those who consumed either the sugar-sweetened or unsweetened drinks. So, it wasn’t a matter of sweet versus non-sweet or calories versus no-calories. There’s something about non-caloric sweeteners that somehow tricks the brain.
The researchers did another study in which everyone was given Oreos and were then asked how satisfied the cookies made them feel. Once again, those who drank the artificially sweetened Sprite Zero reported feeling less satisfied than those who drank the regular Sprite or the sparkling water. “These results are consistent with recent [brain imaging] studies demonstrating that regular consumption of [artificial sweeteners] can alter the neural pathways responsible for the hedonic [or pleasure] response to food.”
Indeed, “[t]he only way really to prevent this problem—to break the addiction—is to go completely cold turkey and go off all sweeteners—artificial as well as fructose [table sugar and high fructose corn syrup]. Eventually, the brain resets itself and you don’t crave it as much.”
We’ve always assumed the “[c]onsumption of both sugar and artificial sweeteners may be changing our palates or taste preferences over time, increasing our desire for sweet foods. Unfortunately, the data on this [were] lacking”…until now. Twenty people agreed to cut out all added sugars and artificial sweeteners for two weeks. Afterwards, 95 percent “found that sweet foods and drinks tasted sweeter or too sweet” and “said moving forward they would use less or even no sugar.” What’s more, most stopped craving sugar within the first week—after only six days. This suggests a two-week sugar challenge, or even a one-week challenge, may “help to reset taste preferences and make consuming less or no sugar easier.” Perhaps we should be recommending it to our patients. “Eating fewer processed foods and choosing more real, whole, and plant-based foods make it easy to consume less sugar.”
Speaking of stroke, did you see my Chocolate and Stroke Risk video?
For more on added sugars, see:
You may also be interested in my videos on artificial and low-calorie sweeteners:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-09--Dark Chocolate Put to the Test for Peripheral Artery Disease

One of the problems with publishing research on chocolate is that the press jumps on it , oversimplifying and sensationalizing the message , and then the money starts rolling in from candy companies and the message is muddied even more .
As a result , an important idea is lost in all the frenzy : The flavanol phytonutrients in cocoa appear to be beneficial , as I discuss in my video Chocolate and Stroke Risk .
Though the sugar , fat , and excess calories in chocolate aren ’ t good for us , “ natural cocoa powder can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocoa to a smoothie or oatmeal , for example , would be health-promoting .
Try to use unprocessed , undutched cocoa , though .
The beneficial flavanols are what give cocoa its bitterness , so manufacturers try to process cocoa with alkali to destroy them on purpose .
Thus , when it comes to cocoa , bitter appears to be better .
In my previous video Dark Chocolate and Artery Function , you can see how high-tech angiography showed that dark chocolate could improve the function of coronary arteries in the heart within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are some blood vessels you can visualize with your own eyes : the blood vessels in your eyes .
Two hours after eating dark chocolate , as I show at 1:18 in my Chocolate and Stroke Risk video , you can observe a significant improvement in the ability of the little veins in your eyes to dilate .
What about the blood vessels in our legs ?
Peripheral artery disease ( PAD ) is atherosclerosis in the arteries feeding our limbs , which leads to claudication , a crampy pain in our calf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to impaired blood flow .
So , maximal walking distance and time were studied in 20 PAD patients two hours after subjects ate either dark chocolate with at least 85 percent cocoa or milk chocolate with no more than 35 percent cocoa .
After eating the dark chocolate , the subjects could walk about a dozen more yards and about 17 seconds longer than before they had the dark chocolate .
In comparison , after the milk chocolate , they weren ’ t even able to walk as far as baseline and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , there does seem to be something in cocoa that ’ s helping , but a few seconds here and there isn ’ t much to write home about .
How about reversing the atherosclerosis , which we didn ’ t even think was even possible until 1977 .
1977 ?
Dean Ornish didn ’ t start publishing on heart disease reversal until 1979 .
In actuality , the first demonstration of atherosclerosis reversal with a cholesterol-lowering diet and drugs wasn ’ t on the coronary arteries going to the heart , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legs .
What have researchers observed regarding the arteries going to the brain ?
There is a noninvasive way to measure arterial function within the brain using transcranial ultrasound .
At 2:49 in my video , you can see a chart of what happens when we hold our breath .
Once we start , our brain starts opening up the arteries to increase blood flow to compensate .
If the arteries in our brain are stiffened and crippled by atherosclerosis , however , they ’ re unable to open as much and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so are said to have a smaller “ breath holding index , ” which can be a risk factor for stroke .
So , researchers designed an experiment in which they compared the results of a target food to something neutral , like oatmeal .
What target food did they choose ?
A spoonful of cocoa powder or something ?
No .
They chose a randomized crossover trial of oatmeal versus a deep-fried Mars bar .
Why a deep-fried Mars bar ?
The study was published in the Scottish Medical Journal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar ( DFMB ) is a snack…strongly associate [ d ] with Scotland.
” Really ?
Yes , really .
Researchers phoned a total of 627 fish and chips shops in Scotland “ to ascertain the delicacy ’ s availability.
” More than one in five shops said they did carry deep-fried Mars bars and sold up to 200 a week .
( Batter-dipped and deep-fried Snickers was evidently less popular . )
The researchers “ conclude [ d ] that Scotland ’ s deep-fried Mars bars is not just an urban myth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also find some evidence of the penetrance of the Mediterranean diet into Scotland , albeit in the form of deep-fried pizza.
” Could this be contributing to Scotland having among the highest stroke rates in Europe ?
Interestingly , there was a significant drop in men compared to women , which you can see at 4:29 in my video .
Maybe men are from Mars and women are from Snickers ?
Regardless , what about chocolate that ’ s not deep-fried ?
There have been a few population studies that have followed people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ate chocolate appeared to have lower stroke rates , which has since been confirmed by another study .
Is it possible , though , that chocolate consumption just happens to be related to other behaviors that are heart- and brain-healthy ?
Maybe people who exercise a lot have to eat more food , so maybe they eat more chocolate ?
Researchers didn ’ t see any evidence of that , but you can ’ t account for everything .
To prove cause and effect , people would need to be randomized into two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other half not , and then followed for a decade or two .
To this , one researcher replied that “ it would be hard to gain consent from most people to the possibility of being randomized to a ‘ no chocolate ’ arm .
How many people would agree to forego chocolate for a ‘ sufficiently long follow-up period ’ ?
” Ten to twenty years without chocolate is a pretty long time .
Want more chocolate ?
See : For more on stroke prevention , check out : • Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Regular Soda ?
PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations : • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2014 : From Table to Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing @ @ @ @

One of the problems with publishing research on chocolate is that the press jumps on it, oversimplifying and sensationalizing the message, and then the money starts rolling in from candy companies and the message is muddied even more. As a result, an important idea is lost in all the frenzy: The flavanol phytonutrients in cocoa appear to be beneficial, as I discuss in my video Chocolate and Stroke Risk. Though the sugar, fat, and excess calories in chocolate aren’t good for us, “natural cocoa powder can be a health food.” So, adding cocoa to a smoothie or oatmeal, for example, would be health-promoting. Try to use unprocessed, undutched cocoa, though. The beneficial flavanols are what give cocoa its bitterness, so manufacturers try to process cocoa with alkali to destroy them on purpose. Thus, when it comes to cocoa, bitter appears to be better.
In my previous video Dark Chocolate and Artery Function, you can see how high-tech angiography showed that dark chocolate could improve the function of coronary arteries in the heart within two hours of consumption, but there are some blood vessels you can visualize with your own eyes: the blood vessels in your eyes. Two hours after eating dark chocolate, as I show at 1:18 in my Chocolate and Stroke Risk video, you can observe a significant improvement in the ability of the little veins in your eyes to dilate.
What about the blood vessels in our legs? Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is atherosclerosis in the arteries feeding our limbs, which leads to claudication, a crampy pain in our calf muscles when we try to exercise, due to impaired blood flow. So, maximal walking distance and time were studied in 20 PAD patients two hours after subjects ate either dark chocolate with at least 85 percent cocoa or milk chocolate with no more than 35 percent cocoa. After eating the dark chocolate, the subjects could walk about a dozen more yards and about 17 seconds longer than before they had the dark chocolate. In comparison, after the milk chocolate, they weren’t even able to walk as far as baseline and not for a single second longer. So, there does seem to be something in cocoa that’s helping, but a few seconds here and there isn’t much to write home about. How about reversing the atherosclerosis, which we didn’t even think was even possible until 1977.
1977? Dean Ornish didn’t start publishing on heart disease reversal until 1979. In actuality, the first demonstration of atherosclerosis reversal with a cholesterol-lowering diet and drugs wasn’t on the coronary arteries going to the heart, but on the femoral arteries going to the legs.
What have researchers observed regarding the arteries going to the brain? There is a noninvasive way to measure arterial function within the brain using transcranial ultrasound. At 2:49 in my video, you can see a chart of what happens when we hold our breath. Once we start, our brain starts opening up the arteries to increase blood flow to compensate. If the arteries in our brain are stiffened and crippled by atherosclerosis, however, they’re unable to open as much and as fast as they should, and so are said to have a smaller “breath holding index,” which can be a risk factor for stroke. So, researchers designed an experiment in which they compared the results of a target food to something neutral, like oatmeal. What target food did they choose? A spoonful of cocoa powder or something? No. They chose a randomized crossover trial of oatmeal versus a deep-fried Mars bar.
Why a deep-fried Mars bar? The study was published in the Scottish Medical Journal, and, evidently, the “deep-fried Mars bar (DFMB) is a snack…strongly associate[d] with Scotland.” Really? Yes, really. Researchers phoned a total of 627 fish and chips shops in Scotland “to ascertain the delicacy’s availability.” More than one in five shops said they did carry deep-fried Mars bars and sold up to 200 a week. (Batter-dipped and deep-fried Snickers was evidently less popular.) The researchers “conclude[d] that Scotland’s deep-fried Mars bars is not just an urban myth. Encouragingly, [they] did also find some evidence of the penetrance of the Mediterranean diet into Scotland, albeit in the form of deep-fried pizza.”
Could this be contributing to Scotland having among the highest stroke rates in Europe? Interestingly, there was a significant drop in men compared to women, which you can see at 4:29 in my video. Maybe men are from Mars and women are from Snickers? Regardless, what about chocolate that’s not deep-fried? There have been a few population studies that have followed people over time that found that those who ate chocolate appeared to have lower stroke rates, which has since been confirmed by another study. Is it possible, though, that chocolate consumption just happens to be related to other behaviors that are heart- and brain-healthy? Maybe people who exercise a lot have to eat more food, so maybe they eat more chocolate? Researchers didn’t see any evidence of that, but you can’t account for everything. To prove cause and effect, people would need to be randomized into two groups, with half eating chocolate and the other half not, and then followed for a decade or two. To this, one researcher replied that “it would be hard to gain consent from most people to the possibility of being randomized to a ‘no chocolate’ arm. How many people would agree to forego chocolate for a ‘sufficiently long follow-up period’?” Ten to twenty years without chocolate is a pretty long time.
Want more chocolate? See:
For more on stroke prevention, check out:
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:


nutritionfactsorg--2020-01-07--Top 10 NutritionFacts.org Videos in 2019

NutritionFacts.org arises from my annual review of the medical literature .
With the help of a team of hundreds of volunteers , we churned through tens of thousands of papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific nutrition literature and are ramping up to break new records in 2020 .
How do I choose which studies to highlight ?
In general , I strive to focus on the most groundbreaking , interesting , and useful findings ; but which topics resonate the most ?
The practical ones , offering cooking or shopping tips ?
Or those that dissect the studies behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geeky science ones exploring the wonderfully weird world of human biology ?
As you can see from the below list , the answer seems to be a bit of all of the above : I was so excited to start to put all my intermittent fasting videos up .
This one was more of a backgrounder .
The thrilling conclusion can be found in The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating , a video that ended up changing my own family ’ s eating habits .
How few eggs should we eat to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colon , and breast cancer ?
This was part two of a three-part video series .
The others were Dietary Cholesterol & Cancer and Oxidized Cholesterol 27HC May Explain 3 Breast Cancer Mysteries .
# 8 Is It Best to Drink Tap , Filtered , or Bottled Water ?
When I was writing the hydration chapter in How Not to Diet I figured I should do a deep dive into the best water filtration system .
Given the disinfection byproducts in tap water , Brita , PUR , ZeroWater , and refrigerator water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # 7 Is Butter Really Back ?
What the Science Says Years ago I tried to put the controversy to rest with my videos The Saturated Fat Studies : Set Up to Fail and The Saturated Fat Studies : Buttering Up the Public but it keeps rearing it ’ s buttery head .
# 6 Kidney Stones and Spinach , Chard , and Beet Greens : Don ’ t Eat Too Much Given their oxalate content , how much is too much spinach , chard , beet greens , chaga mushroom powder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and instant tea ?
Wait , what are oxalates ?
You may want to also check out the prequel video Oxalates in Spinach and Kidney Stones : Should We Be Concerned ?
# 5 The Best Diet for Diabetes The case for using a plant-based diet to reduce the burden of diabetes has never been stronger and the good news is that finally the guidelines are starting to catch up : Plant-Based Diets Recognized by Diabetes Associations .
# 4 Which Is a Better Breakfast : Cereal or Oatmeal ?
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Diet was the importance of not just whole grains but intact whole grains , the remarkable impact of the structure of food beyond nutritional content or composition .
Dark green leafy vegetables are the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet .
What ’ s the best way to prepare them ?
What about other vegetables ?
Another popular video this year was Best Way to Cook Vegetables .
Multiple videos from my ketogenic diet series made the top 10 , but I decided to just list one , but you can find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just came out recently it ’ s already skyrocketed to the single most watched video of the year .
It offers a sneak peek into How Not to Diet .
If you want to watch the one I did on my last book check out How Not to Die .
In 2019 I did a series of webinars on fasting , which you can find here .
They were so popular I decided to do a whole series of webinars on a variety of topics in 2020 ( in between my 200-city speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explores the origin of the obesity epidemic .
Obesity exploded throughout the industrialized world in the late 1970s .
What happened ?
Any potential driver would have had to be global in nature and coincide with the upswing of the epidemic .
So how do the various explanations stack up ?
I hope you ’ ll join me as I sift through all competing theories and answer your questions in this 2-hour live webinar .
Check out the full list of topics here .
To join , make a donation with this form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and we will send you a link to register for the webinar as a donor reward .
Your support helps NutritionFacts.org undergo its own explosion in global growth !
PS : If you haven ’ t yet , you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live , year-in-review presentations : • 2016 : How Not To Die : The Role of Diet in Preventing , Arresting , and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers • 2015 : Food as Medicine : Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Able : Combating Disabling Diseases with Food • 2013 : More Than an Apple a Day • 2012 : Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

NutritionFacts.org arises from my annual review of the medical literature. With the help of a team of hundreds of volunteers, we churned through tens of thousands of papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific nutrition literature and are ramping up to break new records in 2020. How do I choose which studies to highlight? In general, I strive to focus on the most groundbreaking, interesting, and useful findings; but which topics resonate the most? The practical ones, offering cooking or shopping tips? Or those that dissect the studies behind the headlines? Maybe it’s the geeky science ones exploring the wonderfully weird world of human biology? As you can see from the below list, the answer seems to be a bit of all of the above:
I was so excited to start to put all my intermittent fasting videos up. This one was more of a backgrounder. The thrilling conclusion can be found in The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating, a video that ended up changing my own family’s eating habits.
How few eggs should we eat to reduce the risk of prostate, ovarian, colon, and breast cancer? This was part two of a three-part video series. The others were Dietary Cholesterol & Cancer and Oxidized Cholesterol 27HC May Explain 3 Breast Cancer Mysteries.
When I was writing the hydration chapter in How Not to Diet I figured I should do a deep dive into the best water filtration system. Given the disinfection byproducts in tap water, Brita, PUR, ZeroWater, and refrigerator water filters are put to the test.
Years ago I tried to put the controversy to rest with my videos The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail and The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public but it keeps rearing it’s buttery head.
Given their oxalate content, how much is too much spinach, chard, beet greens, chaga mushroom powder, almonds, cashews, star fruit, and instant tea? Wait, what are oxalates? You may want to also check out the prequel video Oxalates in Spinach and Kidney Stones: Should We Be Concerned?
The case for using a plant-based diet to reduce the burden of diabetes has never been stronger and the good news is that finally the guidelines are starting to catch up: Plant-Based Diets Recognized by Diabetes Associations.
One of the things I learned while writing How Not to Diet was the importance of not just whole grains but intact whole grains, the remarkable impact of the structure of food beyond nutritional content or composition.
Dark green leafy vegetables are the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet. What’s the best way to prepare them? What about other vegetables? Another popular video this year was Best Way to Cook Vegetables.
Multiple videos from my ketogenic diet series made the top 10, but I decided to just list one, but you can find the rest here!
Even though this just came out recently it’s already skyrocketed to the single most watched video of the year. It offers a sneak peek into How Not to Diet. If you want to watch the one I did on my last book check out How Not to Die.
In 2019 I did a series of webinars on fasting, which you can find here. They were so popular I decided to do a whole series of webinars on a variety of topics in 2020 (in between my 200-city speaking tour!). The first one explores the origin of the obesity epidemic. Obesity exploded throughout the industrialized world in the late 1970s. What happened? Any potential driver would have had to be global in nature and coincide with the upswing of the epidemic. So how do the various explanations stack up?
I hope you’ll join me as I sift through all competing theories and answer your questions in this 2-hour live webinar. Check out the full list of topics here.
To join, make a donation with this form ($20 is the suggested amount) and we will send you a link to register for the webinar as a donor reward. Your support helps NutritionFacts.org undergo its own explosion in global growth!
Webinar Date & Time: January 24, 2020, 2pm ET
Last Day to Register: January 16, 2020
In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: