Results:
1. Nut eaters had a lower body mass index (27 vs. 28)
2. Nut eaters had a lower mean weight (174 vs. 178)
3. Nut eaters had a lower systolic blood pressure (122 vs. 123)
4. Nut eaters had higher levels of HDL cholesterol (53 vs. 52)
5. Nut eaters had lower levels of homocysteine (8.6 vs. 8.9, homocysteine elevations are associated with atherosclerosis and increased risk of stroke, heart disease, and more.)
6. Nut eaters had lower levels of C-reactive protein (0.38 vs. 0.42, CRP is a marker of nonspecific inflammation.)
7. Nut eaters had a lower prevalence of excess weight/obesity (63% vs. 66%)
8. Nut eaters had less abdominal obesity (44% vs. 50%)
9. Nut eaters had less blood sugar elevations (12% vs. 15%)

These changes look small but do sound better expressed in percentages: Nut eaters had a 12% lower risk of being overweight or obese, a 13% lower risk of hypertension, and a 20% lower risk of low HDL levels. When they excluded peanut eaters and only looked at those eating tree nuts the effects on weight were better yet: Tree nuts lowered the risk of obesity by 22% and abdominal obesity by 17%.

Of course, the benefits may look small because they were looking at people who may not have eaten many nuts – 4 almonds is approximately a 1/4 ounce, enough nuts a day to qualify a person as a nut eater. The FDA allows claims that eating 1.5 ounces of nuts a day may be good for the heart and this study wanted to look at the potential benefits from yet smaller daily amounts. Its conclusion: Nut consumption should be encouraged by health professionals and dieticians. The study also suggested that we might create a nut category on the food pyramid/plate to encourage more nut consumption.

I believe nuts and seeds are very good for us and teach that, contrary to popular belief, eating nuts is not associated with weight gain. This study fits nicely with my understanding of nutrition. I do have to point out, however, that the study was “supported by the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.” As is so common in nutritional research, a potential for bias arises. Oh well. But biased or not, it is really interesting to learn how few people eat nuts. Think about it, only 18-21% of American adults eat nuts and peanuts and many in only teeny amounts. I suggest that should change.

Photo: “NUTS!”  by Silverfox09 (Stuart)

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

Historically, most cultures favored occasional fasting. Lent is one example. Likely these fasts were beneficial, providing a reprieve for the body from a diet that placed many demands on the body. Unfortunately (at least in some respects), we live in a very different world than our ancestors did. Each of us is walking around with a substantial load of persistent environmental toxins,  DDT, DDE, PCBs, PBDEs, and dioxins, to name just a few. These toxins are called persistent because the body’s detoxification systems cannot efficiently excrete these compounds once absorbed. Instead, these toxins eventually end up tucked away in our fat cells but we all have some floating around in our blood stream at all times because they are periodically released, recirculate, and end up put back in our fat cells. Plus we keep absorbing new ones. But, for the most part these chemicals are kept in a place where they do us the least harm. That is, they stay put in our fat cell until we begin releasing fat.

If we go on a calorie-restricted diet, a fast, a juice or smoothie fast, or a stringent detox regimen, we release fat to burn for energy. In the process, we increase our circulating levels of toxins and re-expose our bodies to chemicals that can disrupt our hormone systems (such as the thyroid system) and can suppress our immune system. These toxins may cause or promote cancer. For instance, sea lions have high levels of PCBs. Studies show the more PCBs present, the more likely the sea lion will develop aggressive bladder cancer. The PCBs do not directly trigger cancer. Instead, it appears that the PCBs suppress the sea lion’s immune system making it more susceptible to the cancer. These toxins do much of their damage by increasing our oxidative stress load, by generating free radicals.

So here you are: Trim and slim but wanting to “recover” from your inflammatory holiday food and drink. (By the way, environmental toxins increasingly accumulate as we age, whether trim or fat we all have our fair share.) You decide a fast is the way to rid yourself of all the “bad” things you have accumulated. As you fast, you break down the fats in your fat cells. In the process, you raise your circulating toxin load but you are not providing your body with the antioxidants or other nutrients needed to prevent free radical damage. Simply put: A fast in today’s world burdens the body and the liver. Moreover, your fast in no way makes your body better able to excrete those toxins. You simply increase their ability to do damage.

Nor are the cleanses and detoxifications sold at the health food store or online likely to help rid your body of these persistent toxins. Again, none of us (whether fish, grizzly bear, cow, or human) can efficiently detoxify these chemicals. Once in your body, these guys will remain no matter how often you fast, how much fiber you eat, or how many laxatives you take. The only thing that may – emphasis on may – help reduce this toxin load is a fat loading approach. One study looked at an Ayurvedic regimen where for a week a group of patients ate increasing amounts of clarified butter each morning while on a diet that excluded other fats, oils, meat, or cheese. On the last day of the butter phase, participants were “purged” using castor oil and triphala (an herbal preparation) before being sent home to rest for a week. In phase 2, each patient was given individualized treatments that included herbal oil massages, steam baths, nasal administration of herbal oils, and “other” unidentified treatments for a week. Each session ended with an herbal oil enema. Once back home, they were urged to self-administer a sesame oil massage before a daily bath.

Blood levels of PCB and Beta-HCH (hexachlorobenzene) of those treated dropped significantly compared to controls. There were differences in the make up of the two groups that may in part explain these differences but the big unanswered question remaining was whether the blood levels dropped because the toxins were excreted or whether they dropped because the regimen moved them more efficiently into the fat cells. The authors thought that it was unlikely that the treatment simply sped up storage, I am not so sure. I doubt that butter, itself a carrier of persistent toxins, improved the detoxification of these complicated chemicals. It seems very likely that the fat load sped up fat storage instead.

Ultimately, I think we need to take seriously our body burden of persistent toxins, such as PCBs, DDT, DDE, beta-HCH. Our toxin levels are high and may actually be increasing despite bans on many of these chemicals. Rather than fasting and cleansing, we need to simply work on eating to support our bodies. We need to eliminate sugars, chemicals, alcohol, animal products, and food triggers as often as possible and really load up on plant nutrients by eating dark leafy greens, vegetables, and other plant foods. We should avoid dramatic reductions in calories. And more than anything, I think we need to give up our belief that we without worry can eat toxin-laden foods when we feel like it in the belief that we later can “fix” any damage done by enduring a ritualistic fast or cleanse. In today’s world, the belief that colonics and a juice fast are going to get rid of our toxins is way too simplistic. Instead, we need to take to heart the importance of helping our bodies cope with the modern era by eating well.

Photo “Detox Pads”  by ttfnob (Robert Simpson)

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

A recent French study did a more in depth analysis of the risk-benefits of seafood and came up with some interesting and slightly different recommendations. In this study, they balanced seafood benefits (omega-3s, iodine, vitamin D) against its detriments. Those detriments included mercury but went further acknowledging that our seafood also is a source of inorganic arsenic, and a wide variety of persistent pollutants including dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE, flame retardants) to name a few. Thus, while eating seafood nutrients helps prevent heart disease, strokes, cancers, depression, and certain neurodegenerative diseases, its toxins are neurotoxic and place a substantial burden on the liver, kidney, and thyroid.

The French study evaluated seafood based on the beneficial components of the seafood. For instance, a fatty fish like herring is much richer in omega-3s and vitamin D than lean fish (such as sole), mollusks (such as squid), and crustaceans (such as lobster). Thus, herring got a higher “beneficial” rating than lobster. However, fat content is not the end-all-be-all given that two fish with the same fat content can have very different amounts of omega 3 fats. For instance, mackerel may have some 20 times as many omega-3s as an “equally fatty” cat shark.

The toxin content also factored into the creation of the seafood hierarchy because, depending on the size, habitat, longevity, and so on, different species of seafood contain different amounts of toxins.  This was a French study so naturally it looked mostly at seafood species eaten in France, and those are mostly Atlantic species. They looked at the data on these fish and then created a formula that balanced the benefits against the detriments. Thus, a fish with a goodly amount of vitamin D with some arsenic, PCBs, etc. might score better than another fish less rich in D but also less rich in arsenic and dioxins.

The results were interesting, if slightly depressing if you love seafood: Five clusters were created, three of which contained seafood where the detriments outweighed the benefits.  Fresh crab and sea bass are in this group. The good news is that the species of fish most favor belong in the “to eat” cluster: Salmon, canned sardine and mackerel, halibut, swordfish, and smoked salmon. Bad news: We should limit ourselves to 6 or 7 ounces of these foods a week. That means two small servings a week. The last cluster also included many species we like to eat: Shrimp, sole, canned tuna, oysters, mussels, lobster, and canned crab. Bad news: Only 1 or at most 2 ounces a week. That is not much at all. So eating 7 ounces of fish from the first group and 1 ounce of seafood from the second group will ensure that we get a maximum amount of vitamin D with a minimum of arsenic while meeting our needs for omega 3s but without exceeding the guide lines for cadmium, dioxins and PCB.

Of course, I immediately began wondering what the equivalent evaluations of other animal products are. What is the optimal amount of beef, dairy, lamb, and chicken to be eaten each week? Has anyone compared the toxins in a truly pastured chicken with a factory-farmed layer? I have yet to find those studies but I am looking. And, of course, I want to know whether eating more than 7 ounces of fish while eating less land animals is better than frequently eating chicken and cheese while carefully limiting crab. I am not sure there are studies that have looked closely at these questions. I would expect the nutritional benefit of beef to easily be outweighed by its toxin content. I would expect that to hold true for all factory-farmed food whether eggs, chicken, turkey, lamb, or cheese but some data would be nice.

Ultimately it does seem that, given the environmental toxins we now are awash in, we need to become more selective about which animal products we eat, choosing those that provide the most nutrients and consciously avoiding those most heavily laden with persistent toxins.

Photo: “Pez espada”  by FreeCat (Jose Antonio Gil Martinez)

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

I am just beginning to explore this world supplement manufacturing but I am already convinced that, while supplements may have their place, they are without question a poor substitute for real, whole food. To me it is definitional: To supplement means to “add to.” Supplements should always be an addition to a healthy diet, not a cure for an imbalanced diet.

For instance, consider lung cancer: As we discuss in class, smokers who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables are more protected from lung cancer than non-smokers who do not eat fruits and vegetables. People who eat lots of fruits and vegetables have less cardiovascular disease than people who do not. However, when science attempts to pinpoint why — what in the vegetables and fruits is conferring this incredible benefit — their studies fail to come up with the answer. Smokers taking a beta-carotene supplement (an antioxidant found in vegetables such as carrots) have a higher rate of lung cancer than those not taking a supplement. Men taking a vitamin E supplement, a heart protective antioxidant, have more heart problems than those not taking the supplement. Women taking a multi-vitamin reportedly have a higher mortality rate than those who do not.

The latest study showing the synergy of whole foods – meaning the value of real, whole foods is greater than the sum of the parts in that food – compared fish and fish oil capsules. Many of us take fish oil capsules to rebalance our ratio of omega 6:3 fats, a ratio thrown off by poor eating habits. Instead of moderating our grain and vegetable oil intake and making sure our diet includes omega 3–rich foods, we turn to fish oil capsules. Many, if not most, of these capsules contain fish oil made from small fish like Menhaden. While there is a serious debate about this, some say our fish oil use is rapidly depleting the stores of small fish that our wild fish need to survive. In other words, our fish oil consumption may be unsustainable.

Moreover, these capsules are not as effective as simply eating some fish now and again. We could achieve the same benefits using less fish if we ate fish rather than fish oil capsules. In a recent study, healthy adults were variously fed fish (about 3 ounces/day) or given fish oil capsules (1 or 3 capsules per day). Each capsule contained 150 mg EPA and 106 mg DHA. (EPA and DHA are two long chain omega-3 fats we want from fish.) The levels of these fats were also measured in the study volunteers two weeks before the treatment started, before beginning the regimen, and at week 6. Blood levels of the beneficial omega-3 fats quickly rose to much higher levels in those eating fish. Researchers estimated that it would take more than twice the amount of EPA (800 mg) and 9 times the amount of DHA (4500 mg) in the form of fish oil capsules to achieve the results seen in those eating fish. In other words, fish delivers the good omega-3 fats we want much, much more efficiently than fish oil does.

Ultimately, simply eating real fish, even infrequently and in small amounts, is much better than regularly taking fish capsules. (This is especially true as there are indications that taking more than 1 or 2 grams of fish oil per day begins to deplete vitamin E stores, creating a different set of problems that does not occur in those eating fish.) In fact, someone trying to raise their DHA levels could do so simply by eating no more than 2/3 of an ounce of salmon a day. Salmon filets are often available at $6.99/pound. That translates to about three weeks worth of omega 3 fats for $6.99, less expensive than fish oil and with the important side benefit: You are not participating in perhaps depleting important food sources for  our wild fish.

Photo “Shrimp shells”  by Lori Stone

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

1. Canola Oil
Dietician: As far as healthy nutrition goes, canola oil is probably the best.
Chef: Canola oil has a medium-high smoke point of about 425 degrees F. It is great for sautéing, baking, and stir-fry. Of all the oils, it can be used to create the most variety of recipes.
My opinion: I do not like canola oil. I would not even include in my top ten choices, let alone make it number 1. Canola oil contains erucic acid. While some debate how bad erucic acid really is, no one argues that it is good for us. Canola varieties containing less and less omega-3 fats are being selected to improve the oil’s shelf life and much of the crop is genetically modified. I see no reason whatsoever to use it. The chef seems to be saying that canola is easily used in cooking because it has a neutral flavor. I instead recommend using oils that add a flavor you like to whatever you are making.

2. Walnut Oil
Dietician: Walnut oil contains polyunsaturated fats, and is also a good source of omega-3 fatty acids. This is a very heart-healthy oil, and is a great cooking oil to use if you are diabetic.
Chef: Walnut oil has a very high smoke point of about 400 degrees F, which makes it a great oil to use for baking. It’s also great for sautéing at low-medium heat. It can also make your salad pop, simply by drizzling it over the top.
My opinion: Unrefined walnut oil actually has a yet lower smoke point (320 degrees F) but more importantly, it seems that the smoke point and the point at which you begin to damage the omega-3s in the oil are different. Drizzle walnut oil on your food, do not cook or bake with it. Finally, omega 3 fats are good for us all, diabetic or not.

3. Flaxseed Oil
Dietician: Flaxseed oil contains polyunsaturated fats, and has a good source of omega-3’s. Omega 3 fatty acids help improve brain function and promote heart health.
Chef: Flaxseed oil has a low smoke point of about 225 degrees F, so it should not be used for cooking over heat. Instead, it’s great for mixing into meals after heating, or it can be added to salad dressings or used in certain smoothies.
My opinion: Flaxseed oil is a good source of omega 3s. It is very fragile and once rancid loses all health benefits. I agree it should not be heated. In fact, the oil is so fragile that I prefer to grind flaxseeds and sprinkle them on my food. I am not a fan of smoothies.

4. Olive Oil
Dietician: Olive oil is healthy because it contains monounsaturated fats, which makes it very heart healthy.
Chef: Olive oil has a medium smoke point of about 350 degrees F. It’s a great, flavorful oil for foods like pesto sauce and salad dressings. It’s also great for sautéing vegetables, and is a great choice for cooking chicken.
My opinion: Extra virgin olive oil actually smokes at 400-410 degrees F. The oil has been used in many cultures to sauté all types of foods. It is a healthy, sturdy oil with a ton of data supporting its benefits. I recommend it as the best oil for every day use.

5. Almond Oil
Dietician: Almond oil also contains monounsaturated fats, which makes it good for your cholesterol. It’s also an ideal cooking choice if you are diabetic.
Chef: Almond oil has a high smoke point of about 495 degrees F, and is good for high heat cooking, like sautéing. It’s great flavor also works well as a healthier substitute in dessert recipes, like whipped cream.
My opinion: Other sources put almond oil’s smoke point at 430 degrees F but I agree that a well made almond oil is healthy. This dietician seems unduly obsessed with the effect of oils in diabetes. I agree with the chef that nut creams often make a good substitute for dairy but I make my nut cream from nuts, not nut oils.

6. Peanut Oil
Dietician: Peanut oil also contains monounsaturated fats, and is low in saturated fat, making it a heart healthy option.
Chef: Peanut oil has a medium smoke point of about 350 degrees F. This is a good oil for light sautéing and frying. It’s great to use in Thai and Asian recipes, and is a great addition to sauces and salad dressings.
My opinion: The problem with peanuts is that they are often contaminated with molds and are often treated with strong fungicides. While acceptable, it should not be favored as an oil. Olive oil is richer in monounsaturated fats.

7. Avocado Oil
Dietician: Avocado oil is high in monounsaturated fats, and vitamin E. It’s a great oil to use if you are on a diet, or if you are diabetic. In certain studies, monounsaturated fats have been shown to help control insulin levels and blood sugar.
Chef: Avocado oil also has a high smoke point of about 510 degrees F. This makes it a good oil for high heat cooking, like sautéing and frying. It’s great in salads, and can be used to add a little extra flavor to chicken, beef, pork or fish.
My opinion: Avocado oil is a healthy oil, good for the heart, whether you are on a diet or a diabetic or not. It is a great high heat oil. It has a lovely flavor that blends very well with a little walnut or pumpkin seed oil. The only problem with avocado oil: It is often solvent extracted so shop for a truly well made avocado oil.

8. Safflower Oil
Dietician: Also low in saturated fat, using safflower oil to cook with can help lower your cholesterol. A lower cholesterol also means a reduced risk of cardiovascular and heart diseases.
Chef: Safflower oil also has a high smoke point of about 450 degrees F. This makes it good for high-heat cooking, like sautéing or frying. It has such a distinct flavor and it’s great for cooking foods like chicken and pasta.
My opinion: Safflower is high in omega-6s and should be used sparingly, more as a flavor. For regular sautéing of vegetables olive oil’s smoke point of 400+ degrees F. is adequate and healthier.

9. Sunflower Oil
Dietician: Sunflower oil is also heart healthy, and contains polyunsaturated fats and is low in saturated fats. It’s definitely a good ‘all purpose’ oil.
Chef: Sunflower oil has a high smoke point of about 460 degrees F. This oil is great for high-heat cooking like sautéing. It’s actually great for sautéing vegetables.
My opinion: Sunflower seeds are high in omega 6s. This oil also should be sparingly, more as a flavor. For regular sautéing of vegetables olive oil’s tolerance of 400 degrees F. is adequate and healthier.

10. Grapeseed Oil
Dietician: This oil contains polyunsaturated fats, and is low in saturated fat, making it very heart healthy.
Chef: Grapeseed oil is very versatile, and can be used to add a very mild, nutty flavor to almost any dish. It’s great for salads, and can make for a nice drizzle over toasted bread.
My opinion: Grapeseed oil can be great but unfortunately most grapeseed oils are solvent extracted. If you want a mild nutty flavor in a dish, I recommend using nuts or nut oils.

My recommendations: Use olive oil for most of your cooking and baking although I sometimes prefer coconut oil in baking. For occasional high heat cooking, use a well-made avocado oil. Good quality walnut, pumpkin seed, coconut, and toasted sesame seed oils are my favorites to add and enhance flavor.

This looks like a good reference for the smoke point of various oils: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/collectedinfo/oilsmokepoints.htm

Photo “Olive oil”  by Advencap
NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

Thus, there are good reasons to avoid juices and juice fasts and instead go for whole fruits and vegetables. A study to be published in October adds yet another reason: Drinking juice is associated with an increased incidence of rectal cancer. This study looked at the diets of people diagnosed with colon cancer and compared their diets with a similar but cancer-free group of people. In the study, researchers for the first time also distinguished the specific types of colon cancer and learned some interesting facts in the process. Different fruits and vegetables had different effects on different parts of the colon. Thus, proximal colon cancer decreased the more brassica vegetables were consumed. Brassicas were defined as cabbage, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower (but usually also include rutabagas, turnips, kohlrabi, cabbage, kale, and mustard greens). Eating more brassicas, more dark yellow vegetables (carrots, pumpkin), and apples reduced the risk of distal colon cancer. Brassicas eaten along with green leafy vegetables (lettuce, endive, salad greens, silverbeet, or spinach) showed a strong trend toward decreasing the risk of distal colon cancer. Only apples reduced the risk of cancer; other fruits did not. Then the surprising facts: Those who drank more fruit juice had a much higher rate of rectal cancer. In addition, those eating a lot of fruit showed a trend toward an increased risk of rectal cancer but that trend did not reach statistical significance.

We do not know exactly why different vegetables benefit different parts of the intestines. Nor have we established exactly why juices are especially problematic for rectal tissue. Nonetheless, it is quite clear, and getting clearer, that we need a variety of whole vegetables for health, and that we should eat, rather than juice, our foods.

Photo: “Ryan’s Fruit Juice”  by ryanrocketship (Ryan Ruppe)

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

However, these recommendations and fears are not supported by clinical studies. In fact, soy’s image as a healthy food in the West was largely triggered by the much lower incidence of breast cancer in Asian women, where soy usually is eaten daily.

Instead, soy is avoided because of data from animal studies, and flawed animal studies at that. In these studies, scientists implanted breast cancers into mice without thymus glands and ovaries.  The mice were then fed different diets. The breast cancers grew in mice eating soy but shrank in mice on a soy-free diet.  Scary data but it appears to have been the result of using mice without thymus glands. Soy does not trigger tumor growth in mice with a more intact immune system (which requires a normal thymus gland).

We, of course, should instead pay greater attention to epidemiology and the human studies on soy and breast cancer: Asian women, eating traditional diets and daily soy foods, had a much lower incidence of breast cancer than women on a Western diet. This benefit was lost in women who emigrated and adopted a more Western diet.  And, unfortunately, the incidence of breast cancer in China is rising rapidly today, attributed to a move away from the traditional Asian diet and pollution.

There are no human studies showing that a diet rich in soy increases the incidence of cancer. In some soy studies, no benefit is seen on breast cancer prevention but there is no evidence of harm. Usually there is either a strong showing of benefit or at least a trend toward benefit. The latest review of all human studies again suggests that soy in fact helps prevent breast cancer. This protective effect is strongest in younger women. In fact, soy eaten early in life reduced the risk of getting breast cancer by 28 to 60 percent.

Moreover, clinical studies now show a benefit even in women diagnosed with breast cancer. A Chinese study of 5033 women found that those who ate the most soy had the lowest rate of breast cancer recurrence and a lower mortality. In fact, women eating more soy but not taking tamoxifen did better than women taking tamoxifen but eating little soy.

A recent German review of soy and breast cancer sums it up: Oncologists need no longer warn their patients against eating soy. And young women (teens) should be advised to eat soy foods because it has a significant ability to prevent breast cancer from forming later in life. There is no need to quit eating soy foods if you are at high risk for breast cancer, have breast cancer (in remission or under treatment), or are taking tamoxifen. There is every reason to include traditional soy foods in your daughter’s diet, if you have a daughter.

However, opinion is divided about the safety of soy as an isoflavone supplement, soy protein powder, or in the form of highly processed, chemicalized, and sweetened soy foods.  And even if those are safe, it is worth noting that traditional soy foods reduced the incidence of breast cancer where as a more Western diet of baked goods and processed soy foods did not.

Photo: “. . . and now there’s Soya”  by Wadem (Wade M)

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

My studies instead have taught me that humans are omnivores who can maintain their health on a wide variety of diets provided they understand their body’s needs and adapt their diet to satisfy those needs. This includes taking into account the fact that environmental toxins abound and have a dramatic, negative effect on our health. We cannot limit our exposure to these chemicals and eat a diet heavy in dairy, meat, fish, and poultry. As a result, we should not argue that people must eat animal products to be healthy without very strong supporting evidence. Ultimately, most studies show that a vegan diet can be a very healthy choice and even has the potential of being the healthiest choice. One of the few areas a bit in question is whether a vegan diet will tend to lead to osteoporosis. The most recent study on this topic says it will not.

This study followed nuns from some 20 temples and monasteries in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and matched them with a control group of women eating an average diet including animal products. All were healthy women over the age of 50 and were followed for two years. Ultimately, 181 women completed the study. Both groups of women were deficient in vitamin D with the nuns being almost twice as likely to be deficient as the controls (73% vs. 46% with 25(OH)-D less than 20 ng/ml). At the end of two years, bone mineral density did decrease in an age-dependent manner but this decrease occurred in both groups. The bone loss seen was similar to that seen in Caucasian women in other studies, about 1%/year.

In other words, the vegan diet did not speed up bone loss and did not increase the incidence of fractures. Instead, the study actually found that animal fats as well as the ratio of animal protein to vegetable protein in the omnivores’ diets correlated with significant bone loss at the femoral neck. This supports the theory that excess animal protein generates acidic waste that depletes the bones.

What was most interesting about this study was that it found NO correlation between dietary calcium, vitamin D levels, and bone loss. The nuns on their vegan diet only consumed 375 mg calcium per day and as mentioned 3/4ths were vitamin D deficient. The omnivores also ate a low calcium diet (683 mg/day) and almost half were vitamin D deficient. Nonetheless, these shortfalls did not have a negative effect on bone mineral density or bone loss in either group. Nor did they increase the incidence of bone fractures. This suggests that, contrary to current beliefs, vitamin D levels may at best only have a modest effect on the rate of bone loss in postmenopausal women.

This study, like most, was not perfect. It was small, it did not follow women for decades, and although it did not find an increase in fractures, it was looking at Vietnamese women who, unlike our population, do not suffer much in the way of fractures. But it does confirm that it is entirely possible to eat a vegan diet and have healthy bones; even on a low calcium diet.

Ho Chi Minh City – Saigon  by Bruno Ideriha

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

A recent Norwegian study decided to see if getting the same dose of antioxidants that proved harmful in supplement form also was harmful if eaten as food. They recruited a group of male smokers and divided them into three groups. One eating a typical Norwegian diet, one eating a regular diet plus three kiwis a day, and one eating an antioxidant-rich diet. They made the interesting observation that Norwegians get most of their antioxidants from coffee (as opposed to fruits and vegetables) so, in order to control the daily dose of antioxidants in these three diets, they limited all to 3 cups of coffee a day.

The volunteers were followed over the course of a year, taking a break over Christmas, Easter, and for summer vacation, periods when they might be tempted not to follow their assigned diet. The earlier antioxidant supplement studies tested daily dosages of 2 grams of vitamin C or 5 grams of vitamin E, so the antioxidant-rich arm of this study matched those doses. This antioxidant-rich diet also increased the participants’ calorie intake by close to 500 calories a day. This should, on average, have caused a weight gain of about 6.5 pounds in each of the men in this group. However, no weight gain was seen, indicating that healthy foods has a different effect on metabolism than not-so-healthy foods.

In the end, eating large amounts of antioxidant-rich foods did not have any negative health effects. In other words, unlike a beta-carotene supplement, an antioxidant-rich diet will not increase the incidence of cancer in male smokers. Of course, this study supports the earlier observation that antioxidant-rich foods reduces the incidence of lung cancer in male smokers. Those on the kiwi diet also ate much more vitamin C than did those on the typical Norwegian diet. Surprisingly though, the vitamin C levels in their blood did not increase. Smoking uses up vitamin C so the researchers theorized that the extra vitamin C balanced out needs created by smoking. This may be one of the ways that the antioxidant-rich diet protects: It overcomes deficits caused by poor life style or environmental challenges.

Modern science much prefers carefully constructed studies with strictly limited variables. As it result, it prefers to test isolated supplements such as vitamin E or beta-carotene rather than testing a diet composed of thousands of different antioxidants. However, it increasingly appears that it is going to be impossible to use this reigning paradigm of “evidence-based medicine” when it comes to nutrition and health. There are simply too many co-factors and other essential variables at play in the health effects of food and in understanding the importance of a healthy diet.

Finally, I should add that, in my opinion at least, this study does not show that supplements are bad. Instead, it shows that a steady diet of real food is needed for health. Supplements, if well made (e.g., bioidentical, without sugars, dyes and other chemicals) may then be added to fit the individual’s need. For instance, smokers may well benefit from both a very healthy diet and a vitamin C supplement to overcome the negative effects of smoking (of course, with the ultimate goal of quitting smoking). Supplements should simply not be used in the belief that they can make up for a poor diet nor should they be used in high doses without a well-defined individual need for that dose.

Photo “Drink to your health” by Fady Habib

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.

The history of soy in China and its spread through Asia date much further back in time. According to the James Beard website, soybeans have been cultivated in China since 1000 B.C. and soy sauce as we know it did not come about until the 6th century. Prior to that time, soy sauce apparently was a runny, whole bean sauce used as a preservative. Another source tacks on almost 2000 more years, reporting that first written record of soybean cultivation is from China in 2838 B.C. In contrast to Fallon, this source claims that Chinese farmers fed soy to their families as well as to their livestock rather than simply using it as a nitrogen-fixing crop. As botanical, archaeological, and linguistic research are integrated, it appears that the domestication of soy by trial-and-error began around 1600 BC and it was a successful agricultural crop by the eleventh century B.C.

Ultimately, the plant has such a long history with man that it no longer grows in the wild. In my opinion, a long history of use of a plant by man, especially as a food, provides significant evidence of safety and compatibility. I think it is something worth remembering as we go through these anti-soy positions.

The Fallon article claims that it took a long time for soy to become a food because it contains potent enzyme inhibitors that block enzymes needed for protein digestion. “They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.”

Soy certainly does contain trypsin inhibitors that are reduced by heat and fermentation but not entirely removed. They can act as anti-nutrients but also may provide an anti-cancer benefit. As one review concludes: “Whether there are adverse or beneficial effects of residual inhibitors in food is not known.”

But what about the risk of pancreatic cancer Fallon mentions? That comment is based on rodent studies. Rodents developed pancreatic issues when fed a diet of raw soybean flour. Of course, when we discuss soy in the human diet, we are not talking about people habitually eating raw, uncooked, ground soybeans. Moreover, raw soybean flour fed to monkeys for 4 years and baboons for 4 months (yes, a ridiculous, pathetic use of primates in research given that we have tens of millions if not billions of people voluntarily eating soy to study) developed no pancreatic problems. And no epidemiological data has surfaced suggesting that residual trypsin inhibitors are an issue in humans, let alone something as serious as a likely cause pancreatic cancer.

The biggest problem with soy is that it is a huge crop and is butting heads with some other big food giants: Dairy and meat. There are thousands and thousands of studies of varying quality and with varying indications of bias on both sides of this fence. I cannot provide the definitive word on the anti-trypsin effect of soy foods but I do have two studies that I believe should have the last word on the question of the dangers of soy trypsin inhibitors: The first reports that in areas of Japan where more soybean products are consumed, the incidence of cancer is low, a factor attributed to the anti-trypsin effects of soy. The people in the Okinawa Prefecture eat almost 83 grams (about 3 ounces) of soy a day, and eat trypsin inhibitors daily. The study noted that the local people have been ingesting a measurable amount of active trypsin inhibitor “for many years without adverse effects.” The second is a large dietary study on colorectal cancer. In this prefecture, eating patterns settled in to three types. One of those, “the prudent diet” came with a reduced risk of colon cancer. This diet contains large amounts of fruits and vegetables, soy, and seafood.

I am not a soy advocate and I think it is fine to live a life without soy. At the same time, I am absolutely not impressed by the anti-soy movements arguments. There is much evidence that traditional soy foods (as opposed to soy lecithin and soy protein isolate) can be a very good component of a healthy diet and, as part of a healthy, whole foods diet, soy trypsin inhibitors are not something to worry about. Especially because soy is not the only food with trypsin inhibitors. They are common in seeds and legumes. Spinach, broccoli, cucumbers, Brussels sprouts and radishes, potatoes, and corn also have them.

Next, I will be looking into the purported dangers of soy’s phytoestrogens.

Photo: Bean curd person of high skill  by Wm Jas

NOTE: You are welcome to use my blog’s original images and content for non-commercial purposes if you attribute the work to me (Kathy Abascal) and link back to the blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.