Fish Oil, Colitis, And Cancer

Remember this study that showed both omega-3 fatty acids (in the form of fish oil) and omega-6 fatty acids (in the form of safflower oil) promoted colon cancer in rats? (Fish oil was worse.)

"At 3 weeks after tumor transplantation, the fish oil diet and the safflower oil diet had induced, respectively, 10- and 4-fold more metastases (number) and over 1000- and 500-fold more metastases (size) than were found in the livers of rats on the low-fat diet."
- Dietary Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Promote Colon Carcinoma Metastasis in Rat Liver, Cancer Research 1998

Here's a later one that cited it and added to it:

Dietary Fatty Acids Modulate Chronic Colitis, Colitis-Associated Colon Neoplasia And COX-2 Expression In IL-10 Knockout Mice, Nutrition, 2006

Mice were fed chow supplemented with:

• Corn oil (control)
  
• Olive oil
  
• Fish oil

Findings:

• "The average colitis score was higher in the Fish Oil than in the Corn Oil group."
  
• "The incidence of severe colitis (score ≥ 3) was significantly higher in the Fish Oil group than in the Corn Oil and Olive Oil groups (50% versus 7.7% and 3.7%)."
  
• "Aberrant crypt foci and crypt index were significantly higher in the Fish Oil Group than in the Corn Oil group."
  
• "Dysplasia [abnormal, precancerous] was more frequent in the Fish Oil group and less frequent in the Olive Oil than in the Corn Oil group (47% and 4% versus 15%)."

Conclusion:

"[In mice], fish oil exacerbates chronic colitis and colitis-associated premalignant changes."

They used corn oil for the control group. But the corn oil group actually performed worse than the olive oil group. Perhaps it was a function of type of fat? - Both corn oil and fish oil are high in polyunsaturated fat, olive oil is higher in monounsaturated fat.

The trend I see in these and other studies is that dietary fat has some association with cancer, that the type of fat matters (e.g. in colon cancer, polyunsaturated fat seems more problematic), and that certain individuals, especially those with a genetic predisposition, are at increased risk for cancer when they consume certain fats. A low-fat diet, which is by default a high-carbohydrate diet, tends to be protective.

I have a human study I'll post shortly.
________Photo of fish oil extracted from seafood waste from: Angling For Fortune With Omega-3 Fish Waste Venture.
Fish oil has become a profitable business, not only because of increased consumer demand, but because it can be produced from exploitation of waste products from other industries - input costs are low.

Can Man Live On Air?

Man Claims To Have Had No Food Or Drink For 70 Years
Indian military scientists are studying an 82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or drink for 70 years
- Telegraph, April 28, 2010

True or false? I say false. But I believe he's used to fasting.

It's quite a claim. I wonder if he does any chewing at all, and if not, how that affects his teeth and jaw.

It's interesting that fluid from his bladder got reabsorbed. Love how we work. It reminds me of how hibernating animals get fluid when they aren't drinking. They retain and recycle the H2O produced from our electron transport chain - the mechanism in mitochondria that produces energy for us. That mechanism is in fact why we breath oxygen, we need it to drive the ETC and provide energy. At the bottom of the chain, the oxygen accepts electrons and is reduced* to water.

I recall reading that hibernating bears also recycle their wastes, even in their bowels. They form a fecal plug to keep it in!

So, maybe Prahlad Jani is experiencing a form of hibernation?

* Reduction here meaning accepting electrons, as opposed to oxidation which donates electrons.
________

More Problems In Animals Fed Genetically Engineered Soy

This is a coincidence.

I just posted about Dr. Irina Ermakova's study from 2005 describing fertility problems in mice fed genetically modified (GM) soy. This morning I read anti-GMO crusader Jeffrey Smith's blog about recent problems in hamsters fed GM soy. The same issues emerged - reduced fertility, increased mortality of offspring, worsening of problems in succeeding generations, and an unusual phenomenon - hairy gums (see photo).

Genetically Modified Soy Linked To Sterility, Infant Mortality In Hamsters, Jeffrey Smith, April 20, 2010

Five years later and we're still finding the same problems in test animals and livestock. Maybe it's the GM corn or soy. Maybe it's the pesticides on these crops. (Since GM crops are designed to resist pesticides, more pesticides are applied, even when they don't need to be, well, except now with resistant weeds...) But we continue to plant and eat genetically engineered crops. We continue to feed them to our food animals. We continue to dismiss these findings.

Jeffrey Smith says:

"Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment."

The FDA (led by recently installed former Monsanto executive Michael Taylor) and the USDA continue to claim that there is no difference between GMOs and their non-genetically engineered counterparts.¹

If they have information that refutes these studies, why not make it public? It would make a lot of us feel more comfortable, especially with their recent efforts to prevent labeling of genetically engineered food (as well as labels designating a food does not contain GMOs.)
________ ¹ Proposed Draft Recommendations For The Labeling Of Foods And Food Ingredients Obtained Through Certain Techniques Of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (GM/GE), April, 2010

FDA/USDA Put Up International Roadblock To Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Food

Remember this study by Dr. Irina Ermakova where she was investigating the safety of genetically modified (GM) soy?¹

Additions	Females That Gave Birth	Born Rats (No.)	Dead Rats (No. / %) (in 3 weeks)
Control	4 (of 6)	44	3 / 6.8%
With GM Soy	4 (of 6)	45	25 / 55.6%
With Normal Soy	3 (of 3)	33	3 / 9%

Over half (55.6%) of the rats fed GM soy were dead in 3 weeks, compared to 9% fed regular soy. Many that survived were malformed, as depicted in the photo. The smaller rat on the right was fed GM soy. The rat on the left was not. The rats are the same age.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing."
- Dr. Ermakova

________
And remember this explanation by Jeffrey Smith of the difference between genetic modification and regular hybridization or selective breeding:

"Genetic engineering is not natural. It carries unique risks and is fraught with unpredicted side effects.

In normal hybridization or selective breeding you take plants from the same species or related species and they essentially have sex and their offspring share genes from both parents.

With genetic engineering, you take a single gene or combination of genes from other species, and you manipulate the gene in the laboratory. You add, typically, an "on switch" called a Promoter from a virus and other materials and then you force it into the DNA of the plant. Then you clone the cell into a plant.

The process of insertion, whether through "gene gun" technology or bacterial infection, plus cloning, causes massive collateral damage in the DNA. It leads to hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA, and hundreds or thousands of genes that can change their levels of expression in the natural plant. These changes can lead to unpredicted side effects, such as new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or anti-nutrients. And this is not theoretical. They have actually found these types of things in the genetically engineered crops already on the market.

________
Well, more than 80 farmers and organizations just sent a letter (pdf) to the FDA and USDA expressing concerns about the US position on labeling of genetically engineered (GE) products. The FDA and USDA don't support labeling.

There's an important meeting on May 3 in Canada. A group that develops food safety standards for the United Nations, the Codex Alimentarius, is set to discuss the GE labeling issue. The FDA and USDA will be arguing that labeling food as genetically engineered "is likely to create the impression that the labeled food is in some way different" and would therefore be "false, misleading or deceptive."

If the US is successful in convincing the international body that GE labeling is false and misleading, then voluntary labeling of food inside the US, for instance, what the Non-GMO Project is doing, could be outlawed.

The US position paper states that Codex should not "suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods." However, [Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union] stated, "Such foods clearly are different."
- Consumers Union, More Than 80 Groups Urge FDA And USDA To Change US Position On Food Labeling, Position Will Create Problems For American Producers To Label Products GM/GE-Free

What happened to President Obama's promise to make sure genetically engineered food was labeled?
________¹Genetically Modified Soy Affects Posterity: Results Of Russian Scientists’ Studies

Results of Heart Attack Diet Poll

If you wanted to prevent a heart attack, would you:


The collective wisdom here is that, to lower the risk for a heart attack, one would eat less of everything: fat, carbohydrate, and protein. Perhaps it doesn't matter what the macronutrient make-up of your diet is as long as you're eating less of it.

There was a slight advantage for reducing carbs. It's hard to say if this was significant in this informal poll. But if it's true, that would mean, by default, eating more fat and protein. (The converse is also true ... If you were cutting back on fat and animal protein, the bulk of your diet would be carbs.)
________

Oil Is A Processed Food

Corn, flax, canola, wheat, and soy are all seeds. Walnuts, pecans, pistachios, pine nuts, Brazil nuts, filberts, and almonds are seeds. Oats, rice, barley, spelt, quinoa, rye, amaranth, and teff are seeds. Sesame, pumpkin, sunflower, poppy, fenugreek are seeds. Lentils and peanuts are seeds, so are kidney beans, pinto beans, garbanzo beans, mung beans, adzuki beans, and peas. Coconuts are seeds. All of these seeds can be sprouted.

Some diets discourage seed consumption. Paleolithic diet followers reason that before agriculture, seeds were not abundant enough to have been a significant food source, and/or for seeds to have been a food source they would have to be ground and cooked. Our human ancestors may not have been grinding and cooking 2.6 million years ago, or even (depending on who you read) 250,000 years ago.

If it's true that our human ancestors did not consume many seeds, or that the seeds they did consume were not ground and cooked, it's also likely that our human ancestors did not consume much extracted seed oil.

Oils are a processed food - not the oils present in food in its natural state, but oils that have been mechanically, chemically, or thermally extracted. Most seed oils are high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) and contain relatively high amounts of inflammation-promoting omega-6 PUFA. If our ancestors weren't eating much seed oil, they probably weren't eating much PUFA.

Ironically, one thing the popular meat-based Stone Age diets and the plant-based low-fat diets of Esselstyne and McDougall have in common is their avoidance of oils. Neither of these diets contain concentrated sources of omega-6-rich polyunsaturated oil. And both of these diets claim to defend against "diseases of civilization."
________

The Paleo Diet Potluck

Paleo-vegetarian? It's time for me to re-evaluate the Paleo Diet.

When I first learned about the Paleolithic diet, I learned that it attempted to approximate the diet of our ancestors who lived over a million years ago, and up to a time before agriculture. (Paranthropus boisei, shown, lived from about 2.6 to 1.2 million years ago.)

I read several years ago that this diet excluded:

• Grains (wheat, rice, corn, millet, barley, oats, quinoa, teff, amaranth)
  
• Beans and legumes (dried or fresh, such as peas, string or green beans, peanuts, chickpeas, navy, kidney, adzuki, mung, soybeans)
  
• Dairy products
  
• Potatoes, yams, and other starchy tubers
  
• Salt
  
• Sweeteners (some honey is allowed)
  
• Coffee, tea, alcohol, juices, and all beverages except for pure spring water (not from a tap)
  
• Added oils and fats

Included:

• Meats
  
• Seafood
  
• Eggs
  
• Vegetables
  
• Fruits
  
• Nuts and seeds (in moderation, since nuts, grains, and beans are all seeds and seeds are not thought to have contributed to Paleolithic foodstuffs)

All foods were supposed to be organic, not farmed, and locally grown. Plants should be from heirloom and non-genetically engineered varieties, since ancient fruits and vegetables were not as sweet or pulpy as today's selections. Eggs should be from free range hens. Meats should be lean and low-fat, since animals in Paleolithic times were lean.

Foods, including meat, were primarily eaten raw. Some grilling over an open wood fire was allowed, since the debate over what impact fire and cooking had on the evolution of our genome (hinging on when cooking was introduced) is still alive in some parts of this community. Cooking is also a safety issue, it reduces risk for foodborne illness.

No cigarettes, vitamins, supplements, or drugs, especially synthetic, were allowed. I even heard of some who shunned electricity. Which leads me to the reason I'm writing this...

All paleo dieters make concessions. This is where paleo dieting becomes colorful.

• Some say no to organic whole grains but yes to genetically engineered, monocultured oils, extracts, and supplements made from those grains.
  
• Some say yes to factory-farmed meats (which have a different fatty acid profile from prehistoric meats).
  
• Some dress their salads (vinegar and other fermented or pickled foods are not included in a traditional paleo diet).
  
• Some say yes to beer but no to the barley that the beer is made from.

And just about everyone on a Paleo diet lives in a modern, polluted and plugged-in world where threats from environmental toxins, politically-induced famine, resource depletion, and improvised explosive devices now accompany threats from infections and accidents ... and where the food market is global, with products travelling great distances before they arrive on food market shelves.

It is the interpretation of the paleo diet which makes it healthful or not.

In the past, I sidelined the Paleolithic diet because I thought it was too extreme. I also thought it was too meat-centered and too high in protein, especially for a community I'm used to dealing with - people with diabetes. (e.g. Older diabetics often present with chronic kidney disease (CKD). High protein diets accelerate kidney deterioration in CKD.)

But the challenges presented by adapting this diet for a modern human have spawned some creative solutions:

• Nut milks and cheeses in place of dairy products.
  
• Sprouted grains - which are really a cross between a grain (seed, not allowed) and a plant (allowed). Sprouting also reduces gluten and denatures chemicals that interfere with digestion.

The emergence of these more accessible paleo-like diets has changed my mind. In fact, some are not unlike diets many health professionals currently recommend.

From my observations, these paleo take-offs don't require all organic, locally grown, non-farmed vegetables and fruits. They allow grains and beans, albeit in a less processed, low GI (glycemic index) form. They allow farmed meats in lieu of freshly killed wild meats. Coffee, tea, beer, wine, and juices are allowed. Cooking is not discouraged. I've even heard of "paleo-vegetarian" diets which are plant-based but include the occasional animal product (great for CKD since they're lower in protein). Paleo-vegetarian makes sense ... After all, if you were the person doing the gathering and cooking, you probably weren't the person doing the hunting, so you probably didn't have unfettered access to the kill.

There are probably as many flavors of paleo diets, as many varieties of macronutrient patterns, as there are, and were, cultures, societies, and groupings of humans. One common ingredient ... all paleo diets shun processed food. How can I sideline that?

Here are a few quotes from Dr. Milton (professor of physical anthropology at the University of California in Berkeley who specializes in the dietary ecology and digestive physiology of human and non-human Primates, from my post Eat The Weeds) where she responded to Cordain (of Paleolithic diet fame):

"Because some hunter-gatherer societies obtained most of their dietary energy from wild animal fat and protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans."

"The hunter-gatherer Hazda of Tanzania consume "the bulk of their diet" as wild plants, although they live in an area with an exceptional abundance of game animals and refer to themselves as hunters."

"It seems prudent for modern-day humans to remember their long evolutionary heritage as anthropoid primates and heed current recommendations to increase the number and variety of fresh fruit and vegetables in their diets rather than to increase their intakes of domesticated animal fat and protein."

________Photo of Paranthropus boisei from BBC. Caption:

"In East Africa, a hominid called Paranthropus boisei (2.6 until about 1.2 million years ago) became specialised so that it could eat tough-to-chew but more abundant plant foods such as nuts, roots and tubers (largely underground vegetables, the potato being a modern example)."

Fish Oil: Long-Term Decrease Of Heart Benefit, Possible Increased Risk For Stroke

The Italian GISSI-P trial is often cited to support fish oil supplementation for heart attack prevention. GISSI-P involved over 11,000 patients who were followed for 3.5 years. I was browsing this analysis of it:

Early Protection Against Sudden Death by n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids After Myocardial Infarction, Time-Course Analysis of the Results of the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevenzione, Circulation, 2002

And saw that the benefit of taking fish oil eroded over time. The risk of death in the group taking fish oil rose over the 3.5 years of the study.

Then my eyes fell on that subgroup for nonfatal stroke, specifically 3 months in ... Does that record a relative risk (RR) of 10.51? Does that mean that people who took 1 gram of fish oil/day were ten times as likely as non-fish oil takers to have a stroke? Although the stroke risk declined over time, it remained above 1.00; the risk for stroke was always higher among fish oil takers than those in the control group who took no fish oil.

All of the participants of GISSI had recently had a heart attack - within 3 months. Taking fish oil did decrease their risk of death from a subsequent heart attack. But it also, if I'm reading this right, increased their risk for stroke - quite a lot at the beginning.
________

Resilience

From another forum I read.

"Resilience is the inner strength, that certain something that enables some people to thrive through hardship that would destroy others. Resilience isn’t a “some have it, some don’t quality. It’s a skill. Within each person there is a capacity for resilience - the ability to turn loss into gain. To be strengthened by and even transformed by adversity. The effects of combat stress and trauma can chip away at this. You are in a slump that feels never ending. Resilience is the ability to deal well with stress, adversity and trauma. It is a skill that can be developed if worked at. It will not erase or change your problems. But instead give you the ability to find something positive that will sustain you and help you in the future.

Resilience does not mean that you deny or forget what has happened. It does not mean you wall off your feelings and just “tough it out.” It means that you are open to reaching out to others and growing in new ways. It ignites your drive to recover and enables you to thrive in the midst of agony and hardship. Resilience can be your personal roadmap that inspires you to keep going."

This was written by a 29-year-old whose spinal cord injury 2 years ago left him without the use of his limbs and torso. He was providing encouragement for a 19-year-old who recently became similarly paralyzed.

I feel a little bad lifting these comments and reposting them out of context, maybe not bad enough to let it stop me. Some people say things so well.
________Photo of turtle hatchling's dash to the ocean from ScienceDaily. Caption:

"A newly hatched sea turtle's first swim is the most critical of its life. Having run the gauntlet of air and land predators to make it to the sea, the tiny voyager must also evade hungry fish patrolling the beaches in its bid for freedom. (Credit: iStockphoto/Alan Tobey)"

Indian Guar Gum, Chinese Bleached Flour, Found Contaminated

Speaking of the need for increased inspections...

Guar gum from India was found to be contaminated with high levels of the dioxin pentachlorophenol (PCP). India produces 80-90% of the world's guar gum, a thickening agent used in processed foods.
FoodQualityNews, April 14

Bleached flour from China was found to be contaminated with lime, an inedible substance linked to lung problems. Pulverized lime was used as an unapproved bleaching agent.
FoodQualityNews, April 9

Some people want to reduce, not increase inspections. I'm not one of them.
________

US Seafood: 80% Imported, 1% Inspected

And when the FDA does inspect, "it frequently finds filthy fish and banned chemicals."

Seinberg sent this:



Excerpts:

"50% to 60% of all fish imports in Alabama are rejected."

That's incredible. How much seafood would the US be rejecting if it inspected more than 1% of imports? (Maybe that's why we don't inspect.)

"Consumers may be getting a dose of antibiotics with their seafood dinner."

I wonder if this reduces beneficial gut bacteria. If so, it would impact bowel function and nutrient absorption.

Alabama's Commissioner of Agriculture "witnessed fish farmed in sewage!" As if that was disgusting. We farm a lot of our produce and grains in sewage sludge. But the EPA turns a blind eye because they can't come up with a better way to dispose of it.

There are people in this country fighting to prevent increasing that 1% inspection rate. Some want to do away with inspections and government interference entirely. I'm not one of them.
________

The Cost, The Benefit

I read the following on a McDougall forum yesterday. Not saying I'm a McDougall acolyte; I read lots of forums. But this particular post struck a cord.

"Reading this*, I was struck by the general statements about diet preventable diseases. Heart disease, diabetes, etc - those things that people think a pill will fix. Well, I'm a RN in an ICU and here is what I see every day.

I see people - those same people that think the pills will fix everything - refuse to take those pills either because it is inconvenient ("it makes me pee too much") or because they just can't remember their meds correctly OR because they can't afford all the pills. The diseases stack up - its called "comorbidity" and with each disease (and its pills), they interact more and more and there are more side effects.

Heart disease isn't just a word that a pill or two will fix. It leads to (and looks like) this: Extreme shortness of breath - walking across the room will cause exhaustion and chest pain. Swollen legs up to 3-4 times their original size. Chest pain that prevents any sort of quality of life - forget playing with grandchildren, going fishing or to the casino, anything that might be something that seems "easy". High blood pressure that leads to strokes and difficulty with movement, thought, or eating and drinking. Imagine eating nothing but pureed food for the rest of ones life - steak gruel doesn't seem nearly as appealing as steak. Lets throw some arthritis in there - constant pain and difficulty of movement. Your recliner becomes your best friend and getting out of bed in the morning seems impossible because of the pain. Chronic pain does NOT go away with a pill. It doesn't go away at all as long as a person keeps doing the things that create it. Obstructive sleep apnea - now that one is fun - sleep in a recliner for the rest of your life, wearing a tight mask strapped over your face that forces the air into your lungs. And diabetes - first of all, it makes the heart disease a lot more likely. Think its all fixed with some insulin shots? Not so. It still leads to blindness, kidney failure (hook you up to a machine 3 days a week for 4 hours a day for the rest of your life - forget traveling with retirement. You're doing good to go to the store), amputations (didn't need those toes/feet/legs anyway) or wounds that just won't heal. I've seen wounds that tunnel 6 - 8" into a persons body that started with just sitting too long (easy to do, what with the shortness of breath, the arthritic pain, and the chest pain) - and these wounds don't heal. Because of diabetes.

And, the hospital becomes your best friend. Spending 6 months out of a year in the hospital because of this is not unusual. IV sticks, dressing changes, pneumonia, catheters, ventilators, and extreme boredom. Bad hospital food. Its really bad.

Makes some spinach look good, eh? When the disease is just a word, it is far less powerful than when it is an experience."

* This was the comment that started the thread:

"I was reading a message board on a local group and someone asked if you would be willing to change your diet if you knew it would cause irreversible health problems in later years.

Here is one of the responses:

'I am fully aware that my diet cause premature aging and will produce health complications down the road. But I am unwilling to change because I find it hard to deny myself the things I enjoy. It I had the will power, I would live on a diet of brown rice, broccolii and fresh berries...but I prefer chocolate cake and coffee' "

I think it's difficult to make changes when you're young, when you feel invincible. But what do you say when someone continues to eat hoagies and Coke, continues to smoke, willfully, aware of the consequences, and ends up as above?
________Painting of Jelly Donut by Emily Eveleth.

Polyunsaturated Fats Associated With Cataracts

I noted in a previous post that polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs, of which omega-3 is one, e.g. flax seed oil), by nature of their high number of volatile double bonds, oxidize quickly. Oxidized fats and their metabolites have been shown to increase risk for atherosclerosis and some cancers.

I was researching eye health this morning and came across this:

Dietary Fat Intake And Early Age-Related Lens Opacities, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005

Lens opacities are cataracts.

This study found an association between high intake of PUFAs and cataracts.

It looked at many types of fat from many food sources. Only PUFAs rose to the level of significance.

Women with higher PUFA intake, and higher intake of the shorter-chain PUFAs linoleic acid (omega-6) and linolenic acid (omega-3), had an increased risk for nuclear opacity. The authors noted that a failure to find opacity in other parts of the lens (cortical or posterior subcapsular) may be related to higher concentration of antioxidants in those locations.

From the study: The following oils and food sources were associated with a higher risk for cataracts:

• Linoleic acid (18:2n–6), an n–6 PUFA, is abundant in the Western diet. It is the major fatty acid in safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, and cottonseed oils, and it accounts for >50% of the total fatty acid content in these oils.
  
• Linolenic acid (18:3n–3) is a plant-derived n–3 PUFA found in soybean, canola, and flaxseed oils, in walnuts, and in green leafy vegetables.

I don't see the benefit in supplementing the diet with extracted, purified fat (mayonnaise, margarine, oils, oil pills). Fat found naturally-occurring in food, thus complexed with thousands of other chemicals: protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, other phytochemicals), is not only adequate, but preferable.
________

Food Vs. Nutrients (With An Example Of Omega-3)

I like this concept, "food synergy":

Food Synergy: An Operational Concept For Understanding Nutrition, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009

"Research and practice in nutrition relate to food and its constituents, often as supplements. In food, however, the biological constituents are coordinated. We propose that "thinking food first"' results in more effective nutrition research and policy. The concept of food synergy provides the necessary theoretical underpinning. The evidence for health benefit appears stronger when put together in a synergistic dietary pattern than for individual foods or food constituents. A review of dietary supplementation suggests that although supplements may be beneficial in states of insufficiency, the safe middle ground for consumption likely is food. Also, food provides a buffer during absorption. Constituents delivered by foods taken directly from their biological environment may have different effects from those formulated through technologic processing, but either way health benefits are likely to be determined by the total diet.

The concept of food synergy is based on the proposition that the interrelations between constituents in foods are significant. This significance is dependent on the balance between constituents within the food, how well the constituents survive digestion, and the extent to which they appear biologically active at the cellular level. Many examples are provided of superior effects of whole foods over their isolated constituents. The food synergy concept supports the idea of dietary variety and of selecting nutrient-rich foods. The more we understand about our own biology and that of plants and animals, the better we will be able to discern the combinations of foods, rather than supplements, which best promote health."

At what point do questions such as "Where do I get my [nutrient]?" cease being relevant?

I ask this question about some nutrient every day, and have for years. I'm coming to realize its inadequacy. It fails to consider in much depth the vehicle which supplies the nutrient (breakfast cereals seem to be fortified these days with just about any nutrient you could want, but who wants breakfast cereals?), the condition of the person consuming the nutrient, and the interaction among the constituents supplied with the nutrient. Also, it attaches an importance or prestige to the nutrient that might not be justifiable.

On that last point, for example, how important are omega-3 fatty acids for human health? Of course some amount are essential, but this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, not epidemiological studies but actual intervention trials with control groups) and cohort studies:

Risks And Benefits Of Omega 3 Fats For Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, And Cancer: Systematic Review, British Medical Journal, 2006

Found:

"We found no evidence from RCTs or cohort studies that omega 3 fats have an effect on combined cardiovascular events.

Neither RCTs nor cohort studies showed significantly increased risks of cancer or stroke with higher intake of omega 3, but there were too few events to rule out important effects."

There was no strong evidence that taking omega-3 reduced heart attacks, yet this is one reason omega-3 supplements are being promoted.

If there was no substantial risk in supplementing, you might sanction it. But in the case of omega-3, the risks include:

• Fewer immune cells, e.g. natural killer (NK) cells. NK cells recognize tumors and are important against cancers and viral infections.¹
  
  
• Possible increased risk for cardiac death.³ This was seen in men with angina in the DART-2 trial, primarily those taking fish oil supplements.² DART-2 was included in the above meta-analysis; its authors said:
  
  "UK guidelines encourage the general public to eat more oily fish, and higher amounts are advised after myocardial infarction. This advice should continue at present but the evidence should be reviewed regularly. It is probably not appropriate to recommend a high intake of omega 3 fats for people who have angina but have not had a myocardial infarction."
  

From Reference 3:

"Nutritional interventions are not equally acceptable and should be tailored to the individuals for whom they are intended. Various distinct groups have a raised risk of CHD, and it cannot be assumed that the same nutritional interventions are appropriate to them all. Nutritional supplements do not necessarily have the same effects as the foods from which they are derived."

Which leads us back to food synergy. Supplements are useful when a particular good-source food is out of reach ... logistically, economically, culturally, or for reasons of taste or ethics. But I'm more convinced these days that supplements make poor substitutes for food, and may at times be harmful.
________¹ Can Omega-3 Fatty Acids (Fish Oil) Predispose Someone To Cancer?
² Lack Of Benefit Of Dietary Advice To Men With Angina: Results Of A Controlled Trial, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003
³ Secondary Prevention Of CHD In UK Men: The Diet And Reinfarction Trial And Its Sequel, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2007

Nap

________
Photo: icanhascheezburger

How Does A Vegan Get Omega-3?

Melinda asked this question in a prior post.

A good way, vegan or not, to get more relative omega-3 (that is, to get a higher omega-3:omega-6 ratio) is to decrease omega-6 intake. You don't even have to take a pill.

You can take all the omega-3 you want, in pill or food, but if you're not also decreasing omega-6 you're not benefitting from it as much as you could. When omega-3 is high relative to omega-6, different amounts of compounds get made downstream, like the longer chain EPA and DHA.

Vegetable oils are high in omega-6, as are the nuts and seeds they are made from. Oils from grains like corn, rice, and soybean are also high in omega-6. Not adding oil to food is a great way to reduce omega-6. Whole grains, however, like corn or rice are low in fat and so provide little omega-6 per serving.


Spreadsheet (This shows the ratios)

Above is a chart I made that shows omega-6 in some foods. Note that greens (romaine, broccoli, kale, spinach) generally have more omega-3 than omega-6 and so are excellent ways to improve your ratio. Walnuts on the other hand have more omega-6 than omega-3 and so are not a good way to improve your ratio. Although flax is high in omega-3, eating lots of it isn't a good idea. See below.

Both omega-3 and omega-6 are polyunsaturated fats. If you choose to take extra omega-3, in pill or food, instead of or in addition to decreasing omega-6, know that you are intaking more polyunsaturated fat. Fats that are not saturated have many highly-reactive double bonds and oxidize quickly, especially when they hit the acids in your stomach. Oxidized fats, and their metabolites, have been shown to increase risk for atherosclerosis and some cancers.
________

"PSA Testing Can't Detect Prostate Cancer." - Richard Ablin

Those are the words of Richard J. Ablin, the man who discovered prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in 1970, and the man who claims use of the PSA test "has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster."

Here's an editorial he wrote for the New York Times a few weeks ago:

The Great Prostate Mistake

Excerpts:

• PSA testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t.
  
  
• Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man’s PSA levels, but none of these factors signals cancer.
  
  
• Men with low readings might still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be completely healthy.
  
  
• [One study found] 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. That’s 47 men who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of the bathroom for long.
  
  
• Why is [PSA testing] still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups push “prostate cancer awareness” by encouraging men to get screened.
  
  
• Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the entire population of men over the age of 50.

Ablin says men who truly have prostate cancer are more likely to die of some other disease first since the majority of prostate cancers grow so slowly.

The National Cancer Institute has become absolutely wishy-washy about recommending the test, in the end saying a very non-committal "It's controversial:"

"Using the PSA test to screen men for prostate cancer is controversial because it is not yet known for certain whether this test actually saves lives."

This was notable:

"There is some evidence that a diet higher in fat, especially animal fat, may increase the risk of prostate cancer."

I'll add to that dairy products.________

Animal Protein Detrimental To Bones

At least that's what this study found:

The Association Between Dietary Protein Intake And Bone Mass Accretion In Pubertal Girls With Low Calcium Intakes, British Journal of Nutrition, March 2010

A 5-year study in Beijing, China involving 757 girls, average age of 10 years. The intervention was cows milk for the first 2 years of the study.

"Negative associations were observed between protein intake (55.9–61.0 g/d on average) and BMC accrual at TB, PF or DF (β = − 1.92, − 10.2 or − 4.82, respectively, P < 0.01) after adjustment. When protein intake was considered according to animal or plant food sources, protein from animal foods, particularly meat, had significant negative effects on bone mineral content accrual at DF or PF after adjustment. It was concluded that higher protein intake, especially from animal foods, appeared to have a negative effect on bone mass accrual."

The more meat and eggs the girls ate, the lower their bone density.

The recommended protein intake for a 120 pound adult is 44 grams/day. Although some recommend no more than 30 grams/day.

Related posts:
The More Protein You Eat, The More Calcium You Excrete
High Prevalence of Osteoporosis Among Alaskan Eskimos
Dairy Producer Underwrites Study: Finds Vegan Diets May Harm Bones (The same authors found vegan diets didn't harm bones before they were funded by a group with dairy ties.)
________

Potato Sprouts

Question: How does this go into the ground? Sprouts up or sprouts down?

Last year I left some potatoes on the counter and they sprouted. Instead of throwing them away I pushed them into the soil around herb pots I had on my porch. I had a nice unexpected harvest of red potatoes in about a month. But I forget how I put them in the soil. Does anyone know? Thank you!
________Photo: Bix

Keep Your Eye On China

Who's the biggest exporter of all? Who just overtook Germany, the previous leading exporter?


Source: The Economist: Great Exportations
China still has a very large poor population. I hope this changes the quality of life for them.

On a related note, here's an excerpt from Fareed Zakaria's book, The Post American World:

"To get a sense of how completely China dominates low-cost manufacturing, take a look at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is one of the world's largest corporations. Its revenues are eight times those of Microsoft and account for 2% of America's GDP. It employs 1.4 million people, more than GM, Ford, GE, and IBM put together. It is legendary for its efficient -- some would say ruthless -- efforts to get the lowest price possible for its customers. To that end it has adeptly used technology, managerial innovation, and perhaps most significantly, low-cost manufacturers. Wal-Mart imports about $18 billion worth of goods from China each year. The vast majority of its foreign suppliers are there. Wal-Mart's global supply chain is really a China supply chain."

I had no idea Wal-Mart was so big. Wal-Mart sources a nice chunk of its food from China. To be fair, so does Whole Foods, who is being challenged over the organicness of its China-sourced organic food.
________

Bites

Interesting discussion at Virginia Messina's blog: Fat in Vegan Diets: How Low Should You Go?
(Messina says don't go too low. Tough call, because if you're vegan and you're eating lots of fat, you're eating lots of omega-6. The omega-6:omega-3 ratio for olive oil is 13:1. An optimum ratio is closer to 4:1 or less. Almonds ratio is 2003:1, peanuts is 1719:1! Also, optimal fat intake is an individual affair, disease-dependant.)

You know how a tan protects the body against too much UV-radiation from the sun? Likewise body fat, and insulin resistance, may protect against too many calories: Gluttony, Sloth And The Metabolic Syndrome: A Roadmap To Lipotoxicity, Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, March 2010
(Such that ... Obesity delays rather than causes the metabolic syndrome. Body fat benefits by removing from circulation and storing potentially toxic lipids, protecting vulnerable blood vessels and organs. Mice that have less fat-storing ability fall victim to the metabolic syndrome sooner. Love the fresh perspective. A reason to avoid liposuction.)
________

Sunlight Deficiency

This is a continuation of the discussion about vitamin D supplementation. Brad's comment in: Vitamin D Supplementation: The Jury Is Not In is worth a read.

The body does not evolve or fine tune a mechanism to perform one isolated function. We're more efficient than that. (Example: the pathway to the production of cholesterol (via squalene) in the body creates a number of byproducts or metabolites. One is CoQ₁₀, the "vitamin" people are spending lots of money on, and a vital chemical (as a co-enzyme) in the electron transport chain (where we make energy in the form of ATP). Squalene itself is a strong antioxidant. We have less CoQ₁₀ and other important chemicals when we stop manufacturing cholesterol in our cells. In fact, taking statins inhibits their manufacture since it inhibits the manufacture of cholesterol. A number of years ago Merck considered adding CoQ₁₀ to its statin medications to prevent the muscle wasting typical of low CoQ₁₀ levels.

So vitamin D production in our skin is probably part of a larger picture. We know that exposure to light regulates circadian rhythms and production of other hormones - calcitonin, melatonin, as well as cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). All of these have a direct and indirect impact on sleep, lipid metabolism, glucose metabolism, bone mineralization, immunity, and so on.

I think "vitamin D deficiency" could be more accurately described as "sunlight deficiency" or maybe "photon deficiency."

I do wonder about the effects of providing one chemical, vitamin D, the manufacture of which is sunlight dependant, and not all similarly produced chemicals. What impact does a large dose of vitamin D, or a large circulating level of 25(OH)D, have on the manufacture of other light-dependant hormones? How does it affect feedback mechanisms?

It doesn't make sense to supplement with just vitamin D as compensation for sunlight deficiency. If you are going to supplement, why not provide all the chemicals and hormones in short supply as a result of inadequate sun exposure?
________Photo: I don't know. I wish I could credit it. It's marvelous.

Breakfast

A beet, a squash, and a potato.

They go into the oven, as is, when I get up in the morning. No cutting or peeling. I do wrap the potato and beet in parchment and foil. It retains moisture, encourages even heating, and saves me having to clean the oven in case of explosion. (See below.)

Well, I don't eat all of this, and not on the day I cook it either. Usually the following day. I scoop out the squash flesh, slice&dice the potato and beet. They go into containers for later. Great, portable fast food during the day.

The squash is a kabocha. Life is good when I can find these, which I do only a few months a year - in September when they're harvested near me, and now when they're shipped in from Mexico. They have a deep orange flesh and are very sweet, especially when held for a time after harvest.

The potato is a Japanese sweet potato. It has a purple exterior and yellow flesh. It's a true find! Sweeter than an orange "yam" and a little less moist. Here's a quick snap showing the comparison between my yellow Japanese sweet potato and my orange Garnet yam, rather, sweet potato.

The Garnet "yam" and other yams in the US are technically sweet potatoes. A true yam isn't bright orange, moist or sweet. It's pale, dry and starchy, more like a white potato. And it's large! I've never tasted a true yam, have you? Here's a nice table that lists the differences:
What Is The Difference Between A Sweet Potato And A Yam?

The beet is a beet.

My exploding yam (well, sweet potato). This didn't happen just once either. Piercing first? True folly.

________Photos: Bix

Vitamin D Supplementation: The Jury Is Not In

"Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the general population remains insufficient."
- Vitamin D Supplementation in the Age of Lost Innocence, Annals of Internal Medicine, March 2010

And from a recent article in the New York Times:

"Since most of the data on vitamin D comes from observational research, it may be that high doses of the nutrient don’t really make people healthier, but that healthy people simply do the sorts of things that happen to raise vitamin D.

“Correlation does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect relationship,” said Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, a Harvard professor who is chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Despite the promise of vitamin D in observational studies, research into other supplements shows it’s difficult to document a benefit in otherwise healthy people, and virtually impossible to predict potential harms, notes Dr. Eric A. Klein, chairman of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic."
- The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science, or Hype?, New York Times, Feb 2010

It's nice to see more thoughtful reporting on this topic, especially as the vitamin D industry gears up to rake it in:

"According to the lab company Quest Diagnostics, orders for vitamin D tests surged more than 50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, up from the same quarter a year earlier. And in 2008, consumers bought $235 million worth of vitamin D supplements, up from $40 million in 2001."
- The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science, or Hype?, New York Times, Feb 2010

Vitamin D supplements raise levels of 25(OH)D in the blood; this is not the active form of the vitamin. Do higher blood levels of a precursor reduce incidence of disease? This causal relationship has not been determined.
________Photo: Bix