Search Results for: 41,736

Apr
21
2018

3 Cups Of Coffee Stop Clogged Arteries

There is a new coffee study that says 3 cups of coffee stop clogged arteries. The study appeared in the Journal of the American Heart Association on March 24, 2018. It was part of the cross sectional Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health. This study took place from August 2008 to December 2010. It followed 15,105 civil servants, aged 35 to 74 years. They were living in 6 Brazilian cities (Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, São Paulo, and Vitoria). The final study sample comprised 4426 individuals who underwent CAC measurements.

CAC score

CAC stands for “coronary artery calcium”. Other tests in the past have shown that CAC is a very sensitive test that quantitates the calcification status of coronary arteries. The CAC score is also known as Agatston score. It also predicts how likely it is that a person with a high CAC count will develop a heart attack down the road. A score of 100 or less is considered to be a low risk for developing a heart attack later in life. If the score is between 100 and 400, it is a moderate risk. A score of more than 400 ranks as a high risk to develop a heart attack.

Study design

Upon entering the study the participants had an extensive entrance exam and interview. Part of this was a nutritional and lifestyle questionnaire. This told the examiners whether the patients were smokers or not. Their age ranged between 35 and 74 years. Participants took a CAC test. 4426 individuals who underwent CAC measurements became part of the study. The participants’ blood pressure and body weight were additional measurements.

Results of the study

There was a negative correlation between the amount of coffee consumed on a daily basis and the CAC score. Specifically, the following observation emerged regarding daily coffee consumption and the risk of a higher than 100 CAC score.

  • Less than 1 cup per day: odds ratio 0.85
  • 1 to 3 cups per day: odds ratio 0.73
  • More than 3 cups per day: odds ratio 0.33

These results show clearly that there is an inverse relationship between coffee consumption and risk of developing coronary artery hardening. Those who consume 3 or more cups of coffee have a lower coronary artery disease risk.

The risk to develop coronary artery calcification in coffee drinkers (3 or more cups) is 67% lower. The comparison group are non-coffee drinkers.

Discussion of the results

The research paper from Brazil compares their results with many other research facilities and concludes that others had very similar conclusions. For instance, a 2014 publication pointed out that consuming more than 5 cups of coffee per day had no association with heart disease and did not cause any increased mortality.

The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends consuming 3 to 5 cups of coffee per day, which reduces the risk of getting diabetes type 2 or cardiovascular disease.

Korean study using CAC scores

One other relevant Korean study that involved 25,138 participants is also of note. The participants consumed 3 to 5 cups of coffee per day. They also underwent CAC tests. The coffee drinkers had a 41% lesser prevalence of CAC score in comparison to non-coffee consuming controls. The authors of the present study said that the Korean study was comparable to their own findings.

Comparison of study to previous literature

Mortality data and coffee consumption

In a large Harvard study that I discussed on Nov. 18, 2017 the end point was mortality data. There too, was a dose response curve. With 3 to 5 cups of decaffeinated or regular coffee there was a reduction of death rates by 15%. Less coffee consumption produced less reduction of mortality.

Stroke data and coffee consumption

In another review on March 4, 2013 I reviewed a 10-yer study that looked at the effect of 1 to 2 cups of coffee per day in 32,600 women. There was a 25-32% reduction of strokes compared to non-coffee or tea consuming controls. I also reviewed a Finnish study that consisted of 29,133 smokers (smoking 5 cigarettes a day) aged 50 to 69 who were stroke free when entering the study. It ended in 1993 and the study had lasted for at least 5 years. Drinking two cups of black tea or 8 cups of coffee reduced the stroke risk by 21 to 23%.

Stroke mortality and coffee consumption

In the Annals of Internal Medicine (June 17, 2008) researchers have found that coffee consumption can be beneficial to reduce stroke mortality. A study using the data from 41,736 male and 86,214 female subjects is quite informative. Researchers followed these people over 18 years in the male group and over 24 years in the female group. The risk of all-cause mortality decreased significantly with increasing coffee consumption in the male as well as in the female group. Men had a relative risk reduction of 20% in comparison to those with the lowest level of coffee consumption. Women with intermediate to high consumption of coffee had a relative risk reduction of 10% to 30 % when compared to the group that drank less than 1 cup of coffee per day. The end point here was risk of death from stroke.

3 Cups Of Coffee Stop Clogged Arteries

3 Cups Of Coffee Stop Clogged Arteries

Conclusion

Coffee has a number of anti-oxidant bioflavonoids that help increase survival. The main study reviewed measured the effects of coffee consumption by calcium scores of the coronary arteries. This is a specific way to look at the relative risk to come down with a heart attack in the future. Other ways to measure the beneficial effect of coffee are mortality as the end point, stroke or stroke mortality. I have reviewed some studies that used all of these end points. It is interesting to observe that consumption of 3 to 5 cups of coffee has such a beneficial effect. It does not matter whether it is regular or decaffeinated coffee. Both have the identical effect. This has been shown by a recent Harvard study.

Coffee and tea make you live longer

Coffee keeps the arteries open for longer, if we consume 3 to 5 cups of coffee per day. This allows our brain to think longer and allows our heart to beat for many more years. It is time to stop the research and to apply what was found: 3 to 5 cups of coffee per day. If tea is what you prefer, you are in luck. Everything I said about coffee also applies for green and black tea. There is one word of caution. Using copious amounts of sugar in your coffee or tea will most likely cancel some or all of the benefits. Cream and sugar-laced Frappuccino or Chai Lattes are calorie bombs and not conducive to good health. I use stevia instead of sugar to sweeten my coffee.

Jul
01
2008

Have A Cup Of Coffee And Decrease Your Death Risk

Coffee can be good for you, and this is one of the items, which even tastes good! There are some exceptions as discussed in previous articles: more than 2 cups per day can increase the risk for miscarriages in pregnant women. People who are anxious or nervous can find that coffee will aggravate anxiety. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis should also not indulge in the flavorful brew.

Aside from these exceptions researchers have found that coffee consumption can be beneficial. A recent study using the data from 41,736 male and 86,214 female subjects has evaluated data over a follow- up time of 18 years in the male group and 24 years in the female group. The risk of all-cause mortality decreased significantly with increasing coffee consumption in the male as well as in the female group.

Men had a relative risk reduction of 20% as compared to their counterparts with the lowest level of coffee consumption. Women with intermediate to high consumption had a relative risk reduction of 10% to 30 % as compared to the group that drank less than 1 cup of coffee per day.

Have A Cup Of Coffee And Decrease Your Death Risk

Have A Cup Of Coffee And Decrease Your Death Risk

The limit of the study in this case was the self-reported nature of coffee consumption, but the researchers feel that the modest benefit of reduction of all-cause and CVD death warrants further investigation.

Reference: June 17, 2008 Annals of Internal Medicine

Last edited December 4, 2012

May
01
2021

The Power of a Placebo

A publication in Nature Communications investigated the power of a placebo. Specifically, they wanted to know whether there is a difference between a hidden and a known placebo. With a hidden placebo the patient is unaware whether a pill is a placebo pill or a real medication. With a non-deceptive or known placebo, the patient knows it is a placebo. In this study the investigators wanted to know whether a non-deceptive placebo still can have an effect. As we shall see below the answer is: yes, non-deceptive placebos still have an effect. This was also summarized in this review.

Literature review

The authors reviewed the literature about placebo effects. They found 26 studies that reported positive effects with placebos, but they were mostly self-reporting. However, 8 studies measured objective markers. Only one study found improvement with a placebo therapy, namely by performing a task. The researchers also learnt that physical conditions do not respond to a placebo therapy. Examples of such physical conditions are wound healing, healing of fractures or appendicitis requiring surgery. In contrast, the conditions responding to either hidden placebo or non-deceptive placebo involved emotional distress. This was what the subsequent experiments concentrated on.

The experiments

62 men and women participated in experiment 1. Experiment 2 had a nonclinical sample from another large university in the Midwest.  Only females were accepted for experiment 2. The investigators wanted no sex differences in brain structure, brain formation and emotion processing.

The first experiment

For the first experiment the researchers recruited 62 healthy male and female students between the ages of 18 and 30. They were from two universities, namely the Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. Before the experiment started the hidden placebo group read an article about pain treatment. They were also given nasal placebo drops with the remark that this would help making the measurements more accurate. The known placebo group read another article that explained how placebos work. The text included a passage that explained that placebos work even in the case where the person knew they were a placebo. The same nasal drops were given with the remark that there was no active ingredient in it, but it “would help reduce their negative emotional reactions to viewing distressing images if they believed it would. “

Results of first experiment

The researchers asked participants to view a series of 20 images with negative and cruel content. The subjects also viewed 10 images that were neutral in content. The participants viewed each image for a few seconds, then the investigators asked how they felt on a scale of 1-9. The group who knew that the nasal spray was a placebo felt less negative after viewing the distressing images compared to the other group.

The second experiment

In the second experiment the researchers showed a mixed sequence of neutral and distressing images to female subjects. The purpose was to measure the brain activity as a result of invoking various feelings. The investigators employed a modified continuous electroencephalography (EEG) recording of the brain activity to measure the processing of feelings. They showed a neutral screen between the negative and neutral images and asked the participants to clear their mind. The researchers scanned the brain activity at two time points. The first point measured the patient’s immediate reaction. The second point measured the brain activity at the end of emotional processing and understanding of the image. As discussed below this experiment showed the power of the placebo.

Results of the second experiment

There was no difference of the known placebo group and the control group (the deceptive placebo group) with regard to the initial reaction to the images. However, the placebo group showed less activity in the second period. The researchers monitored the brain activity with a modified EEG and in comparison to the control group. According to the authors the known placebo group was able to process their emotional response to the distress better than the control group.

The authors attempted to correct for confounding variables.  In the process they found out that those who did not believe in the power of a placebo still reacted the same way as the placebo group did. The researchers performed the second experiment only on women as the brains and processing modes are sex-specific. They did not want to introduce confounding variables unwittingly. At this point we do not know how males as a group react in similar experiments.

"The

Conclusion

With a hidden placebo the patient is unaware whether a pill is a placebo pill or a real medication. With a non-deceptive or known placebo, the patient knows it is a placebo. In a study with two experiments the investigators wanted to know whether a non-deceptive placebo still can have an effect. The result of the experiments showed that non-deceptive placebos still have an effect. The proof for his was with placebo nasal drops. The subjects viewed 20 upsetting images and subsequently 10 neutral images. They scored on a scale of 1-9 how upset they felt about the distressing images. The group who knew that the nasal spray was a placebo felt less negative after viewing the distressing images in comparison to the other group.

Placebo helps to process emotional response better than control group

In the second experiment investigators employed a modified continuous electroencephalography (EEG) recording of the brain activity to measure the processing of feelings. The investigators showed alternating upsetting images and neutral images to a female group of students. According to the authors the non-deceptive placebo group was able to process their emotional response to the distress better than the control group. This showed the power of the placebo. The authors concluded that these results may help develop new treatment plans for depression, emotional disorders and emotional distress.

Oct
05
2019

Breast Cancer Risk Persists After Hormone Replacement Therapy

New research showed that the breast cancer risk persists after hormone replacement therapy (HRT). This is described in this CNN article. It is common knowledge for some time that female patients who use synthetic hormones as hormone replacement in menopause, have a 1.6-fold to 1.8-fold risk to develop breast cancer. However, since the abrupt ending of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002 the truth about the risks of HRT became known and made HRT more confusing. After all, in this trial they wanted to show once and for all that HRT would be beneficial. The expectation was that HRT would prevent osteoporosis, heart attacks and breast cancer. But the results were quite different. Instead the study found a 41% increase in strokes, 29% increase in heart attacks, 26% increase in breast cancer, 22% increase in total cardiovascular disease and a doubling in the risk for blood clots.

Missing information about synthetic hormones

What the authors of the study did not explain was the fact that it was the properties of the synthetic hormones, progestagen and Premarin, that were responsible for the negative effects. Had researchers insisted to perform the study with bioidentical hormones, the results would have been quite the opposite! With bioidentical hormone replacement we see the prevention of heart attacks and clots; cancer rates are lower than controls, and the prevention of osteoporosis is another benefit. The end result is a reduction in mortality rates. These horrifying results from the use of synthetic hormones still frighten many women. This is particularly so when it comes to replacing hormones after menopause.

Breast cancer risk study with HRT in more details

The research study described in the CNN article is based on this comprehensive Lancet study. The researchers did a Meta analysis of 58 prospective studies. Unfortunately all the hormones given were synthetic hormones (not bioidentical ones) that had the same configuration as in the WHI. On average women became menopausal at age 50. This is when the physicians commenced HRT. The prospective follow-up showed that 108,647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer around the age of 65. 55,575 women (51%) had used HRT. Postmenopausal women who used estrogen/progestagen combinations during years 1–4 had a relative risk of 1.60-fold to develop breast cancer. This risk increased during years 5–14 after exposure to estrogen/progestagen with a relative risk of 2.08-fold to develop breast cancer. 

More details about breast cancer risks

The risk of developing breast cancer was lower when women took estrogen only as a form of HRT. For years 1-4 the relative breast cancer risk for patients on estrogen alone was only 1.17-fold. Regarding years 5-14 with estrogen-alone replacement the breast cancer risk was 1.33-fold.

Women of average weight who started their HRT of estrogen/progestagen pills at age 50 with menopause one woman in 50 users developed breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 69. In women who used estrogen regularly, but progestagen only irregularly, one in 70 users developed breast cancer. For estrogen only users one in every 200 women developed breast cancer.

Discussion of the above results

Dr. Wright and Dr. John Lee have pointed out years ago that there are alternatives to taking synthetic hormones as HRT. Taking oral synthetic hormone preparations is problematical. First, the pharmaceutical company attached chemical side chains to the synthetic hormones. The women’s estrogen receptors recognize the synthetic hormones only partially. Hormone researchers developed progestagen to mimic a woman’s progesterone. But it turns out that the estrogen receptors read progestagens like an estrogen. This is the reason why there are higher breast cancer rates with the combination of estrogen/progestagen than estrogen alone. Secondly, there is a problem of estrogen dominance, which causes a higher likelihood that the patient develops breast cancer or heart attacks.

Avoiding estrogen dominance reduces breast cancer risk

If estrogen is balanced with progesterone, the cancer promoting effect of estrogen is counterbalanced, and the women on bioidentical hormone replacement are protected from the serious side effects women of the WHI had to endure.

Bioidentical estrogen applications are available through creams that women apply to the skin. This avoids the problem of the first-pass effect; if estrogens are absorbed from a pill in the gut they have to pass through the liver, which is the organ that metabolizes them.

Bioidentical hormone replacement as an alternative to HRT

In Europe there has been a strong resistance to using synthetic hormones. As a result long-term studies were able to show that there is no danger when bioidentical hormone replacements therapy uses creams that are applied to the skin or intravaginally. This avoids the first-pass effect in the liver, as is the case with synthetic estrogens and progestagens taken orally as pills.

John Lee stated that physicians should measure hormones and identify those women who are truly hormone deficient. These are the ones who need hormone replacement. However, physicians should use only bioidentical hormones in a hormone replacement therapy. And they should also replace only as much as necessary to normalize the hormone levels. This is also the level where postmenopausal symptoms disappear. Dr. Lee noted: “A 10-year French study of HRT using a low-dose estradiol patch plus oral progesterone shows no increased risk of breast cancer, strokes or heart attacks”.

How is bioidentical hormone replacement done?

The best method is usually a bioidentical hormone cream application to the forearms or to the chest wall once per day. A woman on bioidentical hormone replacement applies bioidentical Bi-Est cream and progesterone cream to the skin of her forearms or chest wall. The hormones get directly absorbed into the blood stream and can do their job without interference. The treating physician can prescribe different amounts of the bioidentical hormones depending on saliva tests or blood tests. 1 or 2 months later repeat blood or saliva tests can follow to verify that the amounts of the replacement hormones and their absorption are adequate for the patient’s need.

Difficulties to measure progesterone levels

Dr. David Zava, PhD gave a talk on breast cancer risks. This was a presentation at the 24th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine (Dec. 9-11, 2016) in Las Vegas that I attended. Dr. Zava, who runs the ZRT laboratory, spent some time to explain how to measure progesterone in a physiological way.

Blood (serum) progesterone levels do not adequately reflect what the hormone tissue level is like in a woman’s breasts. On the other hand saliva hormone levels are giving an accurate account of what breast tissue levels are like.

Progesterone blood levels versus progesterone tissues levels

Dr. Zava gave an example of a woman who received an application of 30 mg of topical progesterone. Next, laboratory tests observed hourly progesterone levels in serum and saliva. The serum progesterone levels remained at around 2 ng/ml, while the saliva progesterone levels peaked 3 to 5 hours after the application. It reached 16 ng/ml in saliva, which also represents the breast tissue progesterone level. Dr. Zava said that the important lesson to learn from this is not to trust blood progesterone levels. Too many physicians fall into this trap and order too much progesterone cream based on a misleading low blood test. This leads to overdosing progesterone. With salivary progesterone levels it is possible to see the physiological tissue levels, which is impossible with blood tests. Dr. Zava emphasized that testing blood or urine as progesterone hormone tests will underestimate bio-potency and lead to overdosing the patient.

Breast Cancer Risk Persists After Hormone Replacement Therapy

Breast Cancer Risk Persists After Hormone Replacement Therapy

Conclusion

A new Meta analysis of 58 prospective studies with a large amount of participants showed that standard hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women causes breast cancer. Postmenopausal women who used estrogen/progestagen combinations during years 1–4 after menopause had a relative risk of 1.60-fold to develop breast cancer. This risk increased during years 5–14 after exposure to estrogen/progestagen with a relative risk of 2.08-fold to develop breast cancer. Unfortunately all of the patients had received the standard Premarin estrogen and synthetic progestagen combination. The body’s estrogen receptors read both of these synthetic hormones as estrogen, which led to estrogen dominance. Estrogen dominance (with missing natural progesterone) is known to cause breast cancer.

Comments and discussion of bioidentical hormone replacement (BHRT)

I have explained in my comment that the investigators should have used bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) instead of making a similar mistake as in the Women’s Health Initiative, where synthetic hormones caused cancer, heart attacks and blood clots.

Bioidentical hormone replacement is started with progesterone creams first in order to avoid estrogen dominance. After hormone tests estrogen is gradually introduced as Bi-Est cream applied to the skin and balanced with the progesterone. The physician orders blood estrogen levels and progesterone saliva hormone tests from time to time to monitor the hormone levels. No cancer occurs with bioidentical hormone replacement. It also protects from osteoporosis, heart attacks and strokes.

Part of this blog was published here before.

Incoming search terms:

May
26
2019

The Foods That Are Killing Us

There is an article in a CNN report talking about the foods that are killing us. This review is based on an article in the Lancet. The Lancet study was based on a global review of eating habits in 195 countries. The question in the study was which of 15 food items caused the diseases that killed people. The answer was surprising. There are either omissions or unhealthy components of foods that kill us. Here is a list of 12 food groups that are problematical.

A dozen foods that were found to be problematical in the global review

  • Diet high in sodium (4 grams per day, which is 86% above the optimal level)
  • Low intake of whole grains (only 23% of optimal levels)
  • Low fruit intake
  • Diet high in trans fatty acids
  • Low omega-3 fatty acid diet (due to low intake of sea food)
  • Diet low in calcium
  • Diet low in fiber
  • High intake of sugar beverages or sugary foods (49 grams of sugar per day)
  • Processed meat intake too high (4 grams per day, 90% more than optimal)
  • Red meat consumption too high (27 grams per day, 18% higher than optimal)
  • Nut and seed intake too low (only consuming 12% of desired amount)
  • Diet low in milk (16% of desired amount)

Each of these components or several of them in combination create deficiencies in us or overburden us to the point where we can get sick and disabled.

Different countries have different eating habits

Globally there were 11 million deaths found in 2017 and 255 million years of disability because of various dietary inadequacies.

Here is the lineup of the leading causes of death:

  • cardiovascular disease with 10 million deaths and 207 million years of disability.
  • Cancers caused 913,090 deaths and 20 million years of disability.
  • Type 2 diabetes caused 338,714 deaths and 24 million years of disability.

This was broken down into statistics for each of the contributory countries. Here I am only citing some pertinent data that shows the importance of balanced meals for a healthy life expectancy.

Different death rates in various countries

There were big differences in terms of cardiovascular disease deaths according to various regions. Central Asia had the highest death rate with 613 deaths per 100,000 people per year. In contrast the high-income Asia Pacific group had only a cardiovascular death rate of 68 per 100,000 people per year.

Cancer deaths were highest in East Asia with 41 deaths per 100,000 people. The lowest cancer rate was found in North Africa and the Middle East with 9 deaths per 100,000 people.

Among the 20 most populous countries Egypt had the highest diet-related deaths, namely 552 deaths per 100,000 people. On the other hand Japan had the lowest of all diet related deaths with 97 deaths per 100,000 people. 

Some highlights how unhealthy foods kill us

Globally people only eat 12% of the desirable amount of nuts and seeds. They only drink 13% of what they should consume in terms of milk. People worldwide eat 23% of the desirable amount of whole grains.

Nuts and seeds contain mono- and polyunsaturated fats and omega-3 fatty acids, which lower your risk of getting heart attacks and strokes.

Milk is a good source of calcium, protein, minerals and vitamins. However, milk, yogurt or cheese should be consumed as low fat varieties. Alternatively people who do not consume milk should look for protein carriers such as soy milk or pea milk.

If you eat nuts and vegetables you can largely compensate for low milk consumption. If you don’t get enough whole grains, you are missing a whole lot of nutrients. This makes you more vulnerable of getting cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, and obesity.

Other unhealthy foods can kill us

The WHO has labelled red meat and processed meat as being carcinogenic

Studies clearly showed a higher than normal rate of colorectal cancer in those who consumed larger amounts of red meat and/or sausages.

Sugar overconsumption

Sugar overconsumption leads to a variety of conditions. Weight gain with the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes are common when you eat too much sugar. But even cancer like colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer is more common in people who overindulge in sugar or sugary drinks. Sugar consumption raises your triglyceride and LDL level. This will eventually lead to hardening of the arteries, heart attacks and strokes.

Gout develops with purine containing foods

Gout can be caused by consuming a lot of red meat combined with copious amounts of beer. This is how royalty in the Middle Ages suffered from gout attacks. Gout had the nickname of “Disease of the affluent.” Both beer and red meat contain a lot of purines, which the kidneys cannot handle. The uric acid crystals that precipitate around joints cause excruciating pains.

 What the global health study showed

Researchers of the global health study stated that improving the diet habits could potentially eliminate 1 in 5 deaths globally. Dietary risks for major diseases like heart attacks, strokes and cancer are independent from sex, age and socioeconomic status.

Three dietary factors stood out: too much salt, too little fruit and too little whole grain. These three items were responsible for 50% of diet-related deaths and 66% of “disability-adjusted life years”. The authors used this expression to describe how years of disability had their root in diet deficits (e.g. too little fruit) or overdoses of unhealthy food components (e.g. salt).

The leading dietary risk factors are too much salt, low whole grain, low fruit consumption, low vegetable intake and low omega-3 fatty acid consumption. On top of that come the previously established risks due to sugar overconsumption, excessive fat intake and consumption of red meat and processed meat.

Discussion of the meaning of these results

Deaths from heart attacks and strokes

We know for some time that high sugar and high starchy food intake cause elevated triglycerides and elevated LDL cholesterol. This leads to hardening of the arteries and eventually to strokes and heart attacks.

High sodium intake

Sodium intake of more than 2300 mg per day is considered high and can cause high blood pressure. heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms.

Eating not enough fruit

If you eat too little fruit, your system does not get enough vitamin C and other vitamins. Heart disease, cancer and anemia could develop from that.

Eating not enough vegetables

People who do not eat enough vegetables do not have enough antioxidants that protect them from free radicals. Free radicals are unstable chemicals that attack cells and DNA. Mutated cells can cause cancer. If you eat too little vegetables, you are at a higher risk of getting cancer. But there is another aspect of vegetables: phytonutrients protect from hardening of the arteries and blockages of heart and brain vessels. When someone does not eat enough vegetables, the risk for heart attacks and strokes is higher. Eating vegetables also protects you from diabetes and keeps the blood sugar more stable.

Not eating enough whole grain

Whole grain was identified as missing in a lot of people’s diet. When you incorporate whole grains into your food, you reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, and obesity.

There are vitamins, minerals, dietary fiber and lignans in whole grain. Other nutrients are beta-glucan, several phytochemicals, phytosterols, phytin, and sphingolipids. All of these are necessary to maintain good health.

Low omega-3 fatty acid consumption

Omega-3 fatty acids are important for healthy skin, brain development (neurodevelopment of children) and prevention of heart attacks. Omega-3 fatty acids reduce the risk of cancer because of their anti-inflammatory action and inhibition of cell growth factors. In one study rectal cancer showed a 21% reduction comparing the highest omega-3 fatty acid intake to the lowest intake of omega-3 fatty acids. Colon cancer showed no effect to omega-3 consumption, but breast cancer showed a reduction with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. Researchers showed that omega-3 fatty acid supplementation can slow down dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Protein deposits called amyloids were found less in the brain of patients with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation; in addition the brain volume was preserved more with the omega-3 supplement. Low omega-3 fatty acid consumption also has a detrimental effect on macular degeneration of the eyes and on joint pains of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The Foods That Are Killing Us

The Foods That Are Killing Us

Conclusion

I have reviewed a global health study that described various risks that led to deaths from different diseases. It was noticeable that death and disability rates varied significantly according to different countries. The authors also looked into food habits and could pinpoint certain food deficiencies that caused diseases that prematurely disabled or killed people. I have described the various one-sided food habits that led to specific diseases.

What we should all learn from this complicated study is that we all can strive to eat more balanced meals. You want to eat a low sodium diet, eat enough fruit and vegetables, to which you add some nuts. Eat enough whole grains and add omega-3 fatty acids. This way the risk of getting cancer, cardiovascular diseases or other problems can be significantly reduced.

Incoming search terms: