Campbell’s is like the Microsoft of the soup world. The company dominates the soup business, but it’s products…well…taste like crap.
Their soups are at best bland and mushy. Some contain so much salt that they’re the human equivalent of a salt lick. For example, Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup provides a whopping 890 mg of sodium per serving, and 2,225 grams of sodium for a standard 10.75-ounce can.
Campbell’s now owns Swanson, the maker of various chicken broths and stocks. Until recently, Swanson spiked its tasteless products with monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer. But MSG is well documented as a cause of Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.
I’m not joking. Every Chinese restaurant used to boost the flavor of its meals by adding MSG. But a fair number of customers complained of neck and muscle aches afterwards, the result of MSG. So now, a lot of Chinese restaurants don’t use MSG anymore.
But I digress.
Swanson recently introduced organic chicken, beef, and vegetable broths. Sounds like a great idea, right?
Well, on the company’s web site, the Swanson folks fess up to the fact that their broths contain 550 mg of sodium for each one-cup serving. A typical bowl of soup would contain about two cups, so that would add up to 1,100 mg of sodium. And maybe one blood-pressure cuff.
But no where on the Swanson website is a full listing of the products’ other ingredients. Ditto for the Campbell website. This is more than just peculiar, because even such junk-food hustlers as McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and Starbucks list all of the ingredients in all of their products on their websites. (For example, a venti-size Starbucks banana coconut frappuccino with whipped cream provides 730 calories, including a quarter-pound of sugars.)
So that left me wondering what Swanson and Campbell might be hiding.
So I clicked to contact customer service and wrote a brief email asking for a complete list of ingredients for the Swanson Organic Chicken Broth. Sounds simple enough, right?
A few days later, campbellsoup@casupport.com responded:
“All of our products have nutritional labels that include the calorie, sodium, fat, cholesterol and carbohydrate content for a single serving. However, it is important to note that product recipes change frequently and ingredients are periodically added or replaced. Therefore, we suggest that you check each package for the most current nutritional information...
“I hope I've been able to answer your question. Please contact the Consumer Response Center or visit Campbell's website if you have additional questions.”
So I wrote back and said that they had NOT answered my question. And I also wondered, adding a list of full ingredients to the website can’t be all that difficult, could it? After all, it’s got to be easier to update a web page compared with…say, reformulating the ingredients in an industrial-size soup manufacturing facility.
Finally I went to both my local supermarket and Whole Foods, but did not find Swanson’s organic broths on the shelf. So their ingredients remain a mystery to me.
And after all this, I’m left wondering: Why couldn’t Campbell’s just be more up front about their ingredients and list them on the company’s website. Unless they really want to hide what’s in them.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
‘Tis the Season: Sugar ‘n Stress
It’s baaccccckkkkkkk…
That time of year, that is.
From Halloween through New Year’s Eve, all too many of us find excuses to be gluttons, from nibbling on leftover Halloween candies to all-out binging. I call it, ominously, the “SS” time — for sugar and stress.
There’s no denying that we expose ourselves to way too many holiday stresses, not the least of which are family, traffic, and shopping at the mall. When we’re stressed, our eating habits slide almost immediately. We delay eating or skip meals entirely. Then, when we’re crashing, we overeat, usually on junk foods.
And that’s a perfect prescription for making stress even worse.
Our brain’s biochemistry depends on what we eat. Or don’t eat. Neurotransmitters are built upon nutrients, particularly amino acids (protein building blocks) and B-complex vitamins. Even our genes depend on nutrients to work properly.
When our blood sugar falls and we crash, ancient parts of our brain light up. We become aggressive, irritable, impatient. Eating a sugary or starchy food solves the problem quickly, but starts a new up-and-down blood sugar cycle.
So, what can you eat to stress proof yourself?
A little bit of quality protein, such as fish or chicken, stabilizes blood sugar. So do high-fiber veggies, which include almost anything except potato.
Protein provides the amino acids you need to make serotonin and GABA (gamma amino butyric acid), which are calming neurotransmitters. They also provide the amino acids to make dopamine and adrenaline, two energizing neurotransmitters. Sugar and starches don’t provide any of this, so the more junk food you eat, the more you starve your brain.
We were all taught that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. So begin the day with a little protein, and you’ll be more even tempered much of the day. An egg will do the job. So will a bowl of steel-cut (not instant!) oatmeal. Add some high-fiber fruit, such as an apple or some berries. Then be sure to include a little protein at lunch and dinner too.
If you’re taking prescription antidepressants or anxiolytics, better eating habits will help your meds do a better job.
To convert those amino acids to neurotransmitters, your brain needs the B-complex vitamins and vitamin C.
The Bs have been known as anti-stress vitamins since the 1940s. They are nature’s mood lifters and also take the edge off stress-induced anxiety. The B vitamins also play roles in breaking down food for energy, important if the season’s pressures and obligations tend to wear you down.
If you manage your stress and eating habits now, you just might not need to make a resolution about weight loss come January 1. That alone could put you in a better mood.
Copyright 2009 Jack Challem, www.nutritionreporter.com
That time of year, that is.
From Halloween through New Year’s Eve, all too many of us find excuses to be gluttons, from nibbling on leftover Halloween candies to all-out binging. I call it, ominously, the “SS” time — for sugar and stress.
There’s no denying that we expose ourselves to way too many holiday stresses, not the least of which are family, traffic, and shopping at the mall. When we’re stressed, our eating habits slide almost immediately. We delay eating or skip meals entirely. Then, when we’re crashing, we overeat, usually on junk foods.
And that’s a perfect prescription for making stress even worse.
Our brain’s biochemistry depends on what we eat. Or don’t eat. Neurotransmitters are built upon nutrients, particularly amino acids (protein building blocks) and B-complex vitamins. Even our genes depend on nutrients to work properly.
When our blood sugar falls and we crash, ancient parts of our brain light up. We become aggressive, irritable, impatient. Eating a sugary or starchy food solves the problem quickly, but starts a new up-and-down blood sugar cycle.
So, what can you eat to stress proof yourself?
A little bit of quality protein, such as fish or chicken, stabilizes blood sugar. So do high-fiber veggies, which include almost anything except potato.
Protein provides the amino acids you need to make serotonin and GABA (gamma amino butyric acid), which are calming neurotransmitters. They also provide the amino acids to make dopamine and adrenaline, two energizing neurotransmitters. Sugar and starches don’t provide any of this, so the more junk food you eat, the more you starve your brain.
We were all taught that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. So begin the day with a little protein, and you’ll be more even tempered much of the day. An egg will do the job. So will a bowl of steel-cut (not instant!) oatmeal. Add some high-fiber fruit, such as an apple or some berries. Then be sure to include a little protein at lunch and dinner too.
If you’re taking prescription antidepressants or anxiolytics, better eating habits will help your meds do a better job.
To convert those amino acids to neurotransmitters, your brain needs the B-complex vitamins and vitamin C.
The Bs have been known as anti-stress vitamins since the 1940s. They are nature’s mood lifters and also take the edge off stress-induced anxiety. The B vitamins also play roles in breaking down food for energy, important if the season’s pressures and obligations tend to wear you down.
If you manage your stress and eating habits now, you just might not need to make a resolution about weight loss come January 1. That alone could put you in a better mood.
Copyright 2009 Jack Challem, www.nutritionreporter.com
Friday, October 16, 2009
Vitamin D May Help Protect Against the Flu
Maintaining high levels of vitamin D this winter may enhance protection against the H1N1 flu, according to an analysis of deaths and complications from the 1918-1919 flu pandemic.
William B. Grant, PhD, of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center in San Francisco, and Edward Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard University School of Public Health, investigated the number of deaths and incidence of pneumonia associated with the deadly flu 90 years ago.
They found that the fewest deaths and cases of pneumonia occurred in two southern American cities included in the data analysis. Residents of those cities would have had the highest sunlight exposure and vitamin D production during the previous summer. The greatest number of deaths and pneumonia cases occurred in northern cities – those with less sun exposure.
Grant and Giovannucci noted that the fatal complications of flu result in part from a secondary bacterial infection, such as pneumonia.
Vitamin D is needed for the body’s production of cathelicidin, an antibacterial peptide that has been shown to fight tuberculosis and septicemia. Vitamin D also protects against endotoxins, which are released by bacteria when they are destroyed.
Reference: Grant WB, Giovannucci E. The possible roles of solar ultraviolet-B radiation and vitamin D in reducing case-fatality rates from the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. Dermato-Endocrinology, 2009;1:1-5.
William B. Grant, PhD, of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center in San Francisco, and Edward Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard University School of Public Health, investigated the number of deaths and incidence of pneumonia associated with the deadly flu 90 years ago.
They found that the fewest deaths and cases of pneumonia occurred in two southern American cities included in the data analysis. Residents of those cities would have had the highest sunlight exposure and vitamin D production during the previous summer. The greatest number of deaths and pneumonia cases occurred in northern cities – those with less sun exposure.
Grant and Giovannucci noted that the fatal complications of flu result in part from a secondary bacterial infection, such as pneumonia.
Vitamin D is needed for the body’s production of cathelicidin, an antibacterial peptide that has been shown to fight tuberculosis and septicemia. Vitamin D also protects against endotoxins, which are released by bacteria when they are destroyed.
Reference: Grant WB, Giovannucci E. The possible roles of solar ultraviolet-B radiation and vitamin D in reducing case-fatality rates from the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. Dermato-Endocrinology, 2009;1:1-5.
The Downside of Multitasking
Multitasking – doing two or more activities at once – has become part of the way of doing things.
There’s no way to completely avoid multitasking, but I have often argued against excessive multitasking. My reason is simple: it’s difficult for a person to do two things at the same time equally well. If you doubt me, just think about all the times that slow drivers were yacking on their cell phones in front of you. Their driving suffered because their phone call dominated their attention. You’re no better if you try to multitask.
Recently, researchers at Stanford University in California compared college students who did a lot of multitasking with those who did very little. The researchers figured that students who did the most multitasking would be better at it. They were wrong. It turned out that the students who did the most multitasking weren’t very good at it. The more they multitasked, the worse they were in terms of being easily distracted and filtering out irrelevant information, according to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Why the surge in multitasking, including texting while driving, in recent years?
I believe there are two reasons. One, many new technologies, such as email, cell phones, and texting have encouraged distracting, impulsive-addictive behavior. Two, poorer eating habits, including excessive amounts of caffeine and junk foods low in B vitamins and omega-3 fats, have altered the biochemistry of millions of brains, leaving many people more susceptible to distractions and uncomfortable simply being alone with their thoughts. The solution? Healthier foods, perhaps some supplements, and learning to be mindful and in the moment.
There’s no way to completely avoid multitasking, but I have often argued against excessive multitasking. My reason is simple: it’s difficult for a person to do two things at the same time equally well. If you doubt me, just think about all the times that slow drivers were yacking on their cell phones in front of you. Their driving suffered because their phone call dominated their attention. You’re no better if you try to multitask.
Recently, researchers at Stanford University in California compared college students who did a lot of multitasking with those who did very little. The researchers figured that students who did the most multitasking would be better at it. They were wrong. It turned out that the students who did the most multitasking weren’t very good at it. The more they multitasked, the worse they were in terms of being easily distracted and filtering out irrelevant information, according to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Why the surge in multitasking, including texting while driving, in recent years?
I believe there are two reasons. One, many new technologies, such as email, cell phones, and texting have encouraged distracting, impulsive-addictive behavior. Two, poorer eating habits, including excessive amounts of caffeine and junk foods low in B vitamins and omega-3 fats, have altered the biochemistry of millions of brains, leaving many people more susceptible to distractions and uncomfortable simply being alone with their thoughts. The solution? Healthier foods, perhaps some supplements, and learning to be mindful and in the moment.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
More Thoughts on Health-Care Reform
Whatever your political thinking happens to be, you can’t deny that the American health-care system is dysfunctional and in serious need of improvement. The late Emanuel Cheraskin, MD, DMD, once said it best: Medicine is America’s fastest growing failing business. His thinking applies to the entire health-care system, not just medicine.
Why does health care keep getting more expensive? One reason is that the current hodge-podge system is based on earning money through interventions – e.g., physician visits, tests, hospitalizations, surgeries, and prescriptions. I’m not against making money, but the incentive is for every part of the system to encourage more and more interventions, and the costlier the better. Money is made off illness; no illness means no profit.
As a consequence, there is little desire by anyone in health care to reduce the number of interventions or their cost. Nor is there much interest in saving money, because saving a few billion dollars translates to a company losing a few billion dollars in profits, and no company wants to lose money.
I do believe there is a need for some type of universal coverage. Indeed, my European associates are aghast at the thought that one of every six Americans does not have any insurance coverage to defray the cost of needed medical care. And those who do have insurance often have to haggle with their insurers about what procedures are covered and what are not. Quite simply, universal coverage is the ethical and moral way to treat our brethren.
But providing some type of universal insurance of medical coverage is not a solution in itself. Costs will eventually increase, and there will eventually be more pressures to cut services or ration care to rein in costs.
Real improvement in health care must come from a concerted effort to prevent disease and to reduce the need for medical care. I believe this would be best done through improved eating habits, greater physical activity, and other positive lifestyle changes. Without a genuine program geared toward prevention -- perhaps something along the lines of government efforts to curb smoking -- the costs of a health-care system (regardless of who pays) will eventually lead to its collapse.
Maybe someone will figure out that the health-care system could profit big time from prevention-oriented interventions. At least that's my hope.
Why does health care keep getting more expensive? One reason is that the current hodge-podge system is based on earning money through interventions – e.g., physician visits, tests, hospitalizations, surgeries, and prescriptions. I’m not against making money, but the incentive is for every part of the system to encourage more and more interventions, and the costlier the better. Money is made off illness; no illness means no profit.
As a consequence, there is little desire by anyone in health care to reduce the number of interventions or their cost. Nor is there much interest in saving money, because saving a few billion dollars translates to a company losing a few billion dollars in profits, and no company wants to lose money.
I do believe there is a need for some type of universal coverage. Indeed, my European associates are aghast at the thought that one of every six Americans does not have any insurance coverage to defray the cost of needed medical care. And those who do have insurance often have to haggle with their insurers about what procedures are covered and what are not. Quite simply, universal coverage is the ethical and moral way to treat our brethren.
But providing some type of universal insurance of medical coverage is not a solution in itself. Costs will eventually increase, and there will eventually be more pressures to cut services or ration care to rein in costs.
Real improvement in health care must come from a concerted effort to prevent disease and to reduce the need for medical care. I believe this would be best done through improved eating habits, greater physical activity, and other positive lifestyle changes. Without a genuine program geared toward prevention -- perhaps something along the lines of government efforts to curb smoking -- the costs of a health-care system (regardless of who pays) will eventually lead to its collapse.
Maybe someone will figure out that the health-care system could profit big time from prevention-oriented interventions. At least that's my hope.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Swine Flu -- How Serious and Some Ways to Enhance Your Resistance
The swine flu, or H1N1 influenza virus, emerged in Mexico this past spring. The timing was uncharacteristic of most flu viruses, and so was its genetic makeup. H1N1 bore an uncanny resemblance to the 1918 flu virus, which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people worldwide. The 1918 virus initially appeared mild, seemed to disappear during the summer, then reemerged with deadly virulence in the fall and winter. Unlike most types of influenza, it tended to affect healthy people in their 20s, triggering a self-destructive immune reaction in people with the most robust immune systems.
Will this year’s H1N1 virus follow the same pattern as the 1918 flu? At this point, there is certainly the potential, but no one knows for sure. It’s too soon to panic, but it would be smart to prepare. I’m stocking up on some supplements, just in case.
I believe it’s important to take some key supple-ments daily for general protection, and then to ramp up the dosages on the first day of symptoms, before virus concentrations increase and the immune system overreacts. My flu-protection plan consists of the following:
N-acetylcysteine (NAC). This potent antioxidant is unsurpassed for suppressing flu symptoms. I take 500 mg daily, doubling this over the fall and winter. I’ve taken up to 5 to 6 grams daily to suppress flu and cold symptoms.
Vitamin D. I take 5,000 IU daily, but will briefly go up to 25,000 to counter flu or cold symptoms.
Vitamin C. Bowel tolerance increases during sickness, so take at least 2,000 mg daily and increase this to 10,000 mg or more to fight infections.
Selenium. This mineral helps prevent the creation of viral mutations that can damage the heart. Take 200 mcg daily, but increase it to 400 mcg if you’re fighting a flu or cold.
L-lysine. This amino acid inhibits the growth of viruses. I take it only when fighting an infection, 500 to 1,000 mg daily.
Zinc lozenges. These also help suppress cold and flu symptoms. Follow label instructions.
Oscillococcinum. This homeopathic remedy also seems to help. Follow label instructions.
Don’t forget: The office, family gatherings, and air travel are great opportunities to share infections. Wash your hands frequently, and if you’re sick, please stay home.
Will this year’s H1N1 virus follow the same pattern as the 1918 flu? At this point, there is certainly the potential, but no one knows for sure. It’s too soon to panic, but it would be smart to prepare. I’m stocking up on some supplements, just in case.
I believe it’s important to take some key supple-ments daily for general protection, and then to ramp up the dosages on the first day of symptoms, before virus concentrations increase and the immune system overreacts. My flu-protection plan consists of the following:
N-acetylcysteine (NAC). This potent antioxidant is unsurpassed for suppressing flu symptoms. I take 500 mg daily, doubling this over the fall and winter. I’ve taken up to 5 to 6 grams daily to suppress flu and cold symptoms.
Vitamin D. I take 5,000 IU daily, but will briefly go up to 25,000 to counter flu or cold symptoms.
Vitamin C. Bowel tolerance increases during sickness, so take at least 2,000 mg daily and increase this to 10,000 mg or more to fight infections.
Selenium. This mineral helps prevent the creation of viral mutations that can damage the heart. Take 200 mcg daily, but increase it to 400 mcg if you’re fighting a flu or cold.
L-lysine. This amino acid inhibits the growth of viruses. I take it only when fighting an infection, 500 to 1,000 mg daily.
Zinc lozenges. These also help suppress cold and flu symptoms. Follow label instructions.
Oscillococcinum. This homeopathic remedy also seems to help. Follow label instructions.
Don’t forget: The office, family gatherings, and air travel are great opportunities to share infections. Wash your hands frequently, and if you’re sick, please stay home.
The “Single Cause” Fallacy
One of the foundations of modern medicine is that each disease has a single cause – identify the cause and a drug treatment will follow. The idea certainly helps with the marketing and sales of drugs, but it denies the complexity of most disease processes.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that cancer would be cured by 1976. Over the years, we’ve read hundreds (if not thousands) of promising news releases and scientific papers suggesting that the “latest” discovery could very well lead to a cure, or at least to effective treatments, for cancer. Despite all of the research – hundreds of billion dollars of funding – the death rate from cancer between 1950 and 2005 has decreased by only 5 percent. In contrast, deaths from heart disease decreased by 64 percent during this time.
Although all types of cancer share many features, such as the proliferation of abnormal cells, cancers can have many different causes. Alterations in gene function are at the root of cancer, but they can result from any number of factors, including poor nutrition, elevated hormone levels, and environmental toxins. Damage to some individual genes, such as the p53 and BRCA, certainly increase the risk of cancer.
But the research increasingly shows that cancers don’t develop because of one or two genes that go bad. Rather, cancers are the consequence of a lot going wrong and going out of control. An analogy: instead of one musician hitting a bad note, cancer is more like all of the musicians in an orchestra repeatedly hitting the wrong notes.
So if cancer does not have a single cause, what’s the best way to tackle the disease? The only sensible approach is to emphasize prevention – eating better diets, taking some nutritional supplements, exercising, and creating an environment with fewer environmental toxins.
I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate cancer or identify a “cure,” but through mindful living we can certainly reduce the risk of cancer and the number of people who must undergo surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation – treatments that often produce as much suffering as the disease itself.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that cancer would be cured by 1976. Over the years, we’ve read hundreds (if not thousands) of promising news releases and scientific papers suggesting that the “latest” discovery could very well lead to a cure, or at least to effective treatments, for cancer. Despite all of the research – hundreds of billion dollars of funding – the death rate from cancer between 1950 and 2005 has decreased by only 5 percent. In contrast, deaths from heart disease decreased by 64 percent during this time.
Although all types of cancer share many features, such as the proliferation of abnormal cells, cancers can have many different causes. Alterations in gene function are at the root of cancer, but they can result from any number of factors, including poor nutrition, elevated hormone levels, and environmental toxins. Damage to some individual genes, such as the p53 and BRCA, certainly increase the risk of cancer.
But the research increasingly shows that cancers don’t develop because of one or two genes that go bad. Rather, cancers are the consequence of a lot going wrong and going out of control. An analogy: instead of one musician hitting a bad note, cancer is more like all of the musicians in an orchestra repeatedly hitting the wrong notes.
So if cancer does not have a single cause, what’s the best way to tackle the disease? The only sensible approach is to emphasize prevention – eating better diets, taking some nutritional supplements, exercising, and creating an environment with fewer environmental toxins.
I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate cancer or identify a “cure,” but through mindful living we can certainly reduce the risk of cancer and the number of people who must undergo surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation – treatments that often produce as much suffering as the disease itself.
Sugar Wars – Nothing Natural About Them
Despite the worldwide economic recession, one type of business seems to be profiting: candy shops.
Most of us have our comfort foods. It may be chicken soup, a slice of pizza, or a chunk of chocolate. A recent article in the New York Times reported that business in candy shops is booming. Business is especially good for inexpensive sweets, such as Hershey Kisses, compared with more expensive indulgences.
Interestingly, this sweet-tooth trend coincides with another trend, a shift from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) back to old-fashion sugar (sucrose). Begin-ning in the 1980s, HFCS became the sweetener of choice in processed foods, soft drinks, and candies. It was sweeter than sucrose, had a longer shelf life, and less expensive. Consumption of HFCS skyrocketed, while sucrose consumption plummeted – though the average American’s consumption of all added sugars has continued to climb to about 160 pounds per year.
Sucrose is a chemical compound, whereas HFCS is a blend of fructose and glucose, which leads to different metabolic effects. HFCS does a better job of raising triglycerides (a marker of diabetes and heart disease risk), and is more likely to lead to weight gain (in comparison to sucrose).
A lot of people (including me) complained about HFCS, and the giant junk food companies apparently listened. They’ve started returning to sucrose as a sweetener in frozen dinners, tomato sauces, salad dressings, and other products. With incredible audacity, companies are now describing sucrose as natural and healthy.
Natural and healthy? While HFCS does appear worse than sucrose, that doesn’t make sucrose a healthy alternative. The ideal dietary solution is to emphasis fresh foods and to avoid packaged foods, especially those with any type of added sugar.
Most of us have our comfort foods. It may be chicken soup, a slice of pizza, or a chunk of chocolate. A recent article in the New York Times reported that business in candy shops is booming. Business is especially good for inexpensive sweets, such as Hershey Kisses, compared with more expensive indulgences.
Interestingly, this sweet-tooth trend coincides with another trend, a shift from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) back to old-fashion sugar (sucrose). Begin-ning in the 1980s, HFCS became the sweetener of choice in processed foods, soft drinks, and candies. It was sweeter than sucrose, had a longer shelf life, and less expensive. Consumption of HFCS skyrocketed, while sucrose consumption plummeted – though the average American’s consumption of all added sugars has continued to climb to about 160 pounds per year.
Sucrose is a chemical compound, whereas HFCS is a blend of fructose and glucose, which leads to different metabolic effects. HFCS does a better job of raising triglycerides (a marker of diabetes and heart disease risk), and is more likely to lead to weight gain (in comparison to sucrose).
A lot of people (including me) complained about HFCS, and the giant junk food companies apparently listened. They’ve started returning to sucrose as a sweetener in frozen dinners, tomato sauces, salad dressings, and other products. With incredible audacity, companies are now describing sucrose as natural and healthy.
Natural and healthy? While HFCS does appear worse than sucrose, that doesn’t make sucrose a healthy alternative. The ideal dietary solution is to emphasis fresh foods and to avoid packaged foods, especially those with any type of added sugar.
The Mind-Body Connection
Many people remain skeptical of a clear body-mind connection – that our life experiences and emotions can have a profound effect on our hard-wired biology. While animal studies have clearly shown that a mother’s style of nurturing can affect her offspring’s lifelong behavior and physical health, scientific studies showing a clear mind-body link in people have been limited.
Now, researchers have clearly shown that the behavior of some genes can be permanently changed by psychological factors during childhood.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal compared two groups of brain cells. Some cells were obtained from people who had been abused as children and later committed suicide, and other brain cells came from people who had committed suicide but who had not been abused as children.
The researchers, writing in Nature Neuroscience (2009; doi 10.1038/nn.2270), explained how they investigated specific stress-response genes and cell receptors for cortisol on brain cells. When people are stressed – as in the case of children who are being abused – their levels of cortisol, a key stress hormone, swell.
In most people, the brain increases the activity of stress-response genes and the number of cell receptors involved in clearing cortisol from the brain. However, these genes were roughly 40 percent less active in cells from people who had been abused as children. In other words, being abused permanently changed the activity genes that would have helped buffer the effects of stress later in life.
The biological explanation for this mind-body connection lies in the science of “epigenetics.” Every one of our bodies’ cells contains about 20,000 genes, which can be considered our “hardware.” Epigenetics is more like our modifiable genetic “software.” Nutrition, stress, and toxins are among the key modifiers of our epigenetic programming, which turns genes on and off. Amazingly, epigenetic changes caused by nutrition and experience can be passed from one generation to the next.
Now, researchers have clearly shown that the behavior of some genes can be permanently changed by psychological factors during childhood.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal compared two groups of brain cells. Some cells were obtained from people who had been abused as children and later committed suicide, and other brain cells came from people who had committed suicide but who had not been abused as children.
The researchers, writing in Nature Neuroscience (2009; doi 10.1038/nn.2270), explained how they investigated specific stress-response genes and cell receptors for cortisol on brain cells. When people are stressed – as in the case of children who are being abused – their levels of cortisol, a key stress hormone, swell.
In most people, the brain increases the activity of stress-response genes and the number of cell receptors involved in clearing cortisol from the brain. However, these genes were roughly 40 percent less active in cells from people who had been abused as children. In other words, being abused permanently changed the activity genes that would have helped buffer the effects of stress later in life.
The biological explanation for this mind-body connection lies in the science of “epigenetics.” Every one of our bodies’ cells contains about 20,000 genes, which can be considered our “hardware.” Epigenetics is more like our modifiable genetic “software.” Nutrition, stress, and toxins are among the key modifiers of our epigenetic programming, which turns genes on and off. Amazingly, epigenetic changes caused by nutrition and experience can be passed from one generation to the next.
Monday, February 9, 2009
In Praise of Evolution
The never-ending arguments about evolution and creationism (or intelligent design) mystify me. I can’t understand why one of the most beautiful and fascinating aspects of biology is so controversial.
Evolution is all about change, adaptation, and dumb luck. It’s nature’s version of the Las Vegas crapshoot. It’s exciting, and sometimes scary.
From a biological standpoint, evolutionary changes result from a genetic roll of the dice (every time an egg is conceived) or from mutations (random changes to our genes). Most of these changes don’t mean a thing, a few alter our appearance or increase our risk of disease, and once in a while they give us nature’s version of seven-eleven.
Cancer is a good example of evolution in action. Cancers evolve, and they are a microcosm of the entire evolutionary process. I doubt that anyone would ever argue that cancer is just a theory.
Cancers develop from mutations that change the programming of our genes and the behavior of cells. When doctors treat cancer with chemo or radiation, they destroy the weakest cells, but cells with treatment-resistant genetic mutations survive. That’s natural selection—part of the evolutionary process—and that’s why most cancers eventually return.
The randomness of evolutionary process can be unforgiving or serendipitous. You never know how the dice will roll. A moth born bright yellow becomes easy pickings for a bird. But a moth of a different color may blend in to its surroundings, survive, and pass its lucky genes onto another generation.
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin noticed how different beaks among Galapagos finches were adapted to different types of food. Birds born with maladapted beaks couldn’t feed themselves and so they died off, whereas birds with beaks suited to a particular island’s food sources flourished.
Segues from one species to another take a long time. Monkeys did not turn into human beings overnight—their evolution occurred through a lot of minor changes over millions of years. That’s a difficult time scale for most people to imagine. After all, many of us have trouble imagining what life was like 100 years ago.
It takes my breath away when I think about how life changes through the evolutionary process. I wish I could see a time-lapse film depicting all the little biological changes in the transition from primates to humans, or how mammals returned to the sea and became whales and dolphins. But the millions of years these changes take make that kind of film impossible.
Don’t ask me why all this happens or how it got started. I’m pretty humble about things like that, and rather than ascribe them to one thing or another, I’ll admit that I just don’t know. I can live with not knowing.
I do believe that the irony in all this is that creationists have also evolved. They’ve evolved from a literal Biblical explanation of life on Earth to the more clever argument of intelligent design. I believe that’s a good example of change and adaptation. Too bad they don’t see their own evolution or appreciate the wonder of how life evolves. I think it’s the greatest show on Earth—maybe not in the heavens, but definitely here on Earth.
Evolution is all about change, adaptation, and dumb luck. It’s nature’s version of the Las Vegas crapshoot. It’s exciting, and sometimes scary.
From a biological standpoint, evolutionary changes result from a genetic roll of the dice (every time an egg is conceived) or from mutations (random changes to our genes). Most of these changes don’t mean a thing, a few alter our appearance or increase our risk of disease, and once in a while they give us nature’s version of seven-eleven.
Cancer is a good example of evolution in action. Cancers evolve, and they are a microcosm of the entire evolutionary process. I doubt that anyone would ever argue that cancer is just a theory.
Cancers develop from mutations that change the programming of our genes and the behavior of cells. When doctors treat cancer with chemo or radiation, they destroy the weakest cells, but cells with treatment-resistant genetic mutations survive. That’s natural selection—part of the evolutionary process—and that’s why most cancers eventually return.
The randomness of evolutionary process can be unforgiving or serendipitous. You never know how the dice will roll. A moth born bright yellow becomes easy pickings for a bird. But a moth of a different color may blend in to its surroundings, survive, and pass its lucky genes onto another generation.
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin noticed how different beaks among Galapagos finches were adapted to different types of food. Birds born with maladapted beaks couldn’t feed themselves and so they died off, whereas birds with beaks suited to a particular island’s food sources flourished.
Segues from one species to another take a long time. Monkeys did not turn into human beings overnight—their evolution occurred through a lot of minor changes over millions of years. That’s a difficult time scale for most people to imagine. After all, many of us have trouble imagining what life was like 100 years ago.
It takes my breath away when I think about how life changes through the evolutionary process. I wish I could see a time-lapse film depicting all the little biological changes in the transition from primates to humans, or how mammals returned to the sea and became whales and dolphins. But the millions of years these changes take make that kind of film impossible.
Don’t ask me why all this happens or how it got started. I’m pretty humble about things like that, and rather than ascribe them to one thing or another, I’ll admit that I just don’t know. I can live with not knowing.
I do believe that the irony in all this is that creationists have also evolved. They’ve evolved from a literal Biblical explanation of life on Earth to the more clever argument of intelligent design. I believe that’s a good example of change and adaptation. Too bad they don’t see their own evolution or appreciate the wonder of how life evolves. I think it’s the greatest show on Earth—maybe not in the heavens, but definitely here on Earth.
Friday, January 23, 2009
How to Achieve Real Change in Health Care. Is Anyone Listening?
A physician I knew (he died at a ripe old age) once quipped, “Medicine is America’s fastest growing failing business.” And unless we refocus our entire approach to health care, it’s going to grow and fail even faster.
Most proposals for health-care reform have focused on either expanding the availability of insurance or reducing the costs of prescription drugs. While necessary, these approaches are essentially extensions of a dysfunctional health-care system, and they fail to correct its fundamental flaws.
Health care (of which medicine is part) is an oxymoron. It’s really a disease-care system that continues to exist only because of the rationing of treatment. Millions of people are excluded from health-care coverage, and others must deal with huge out-of-pocket expenses or simply do without.
The solution I envision would transform this disease-care system into a genuine health-care system. The only way to accomplish this, at a price this nation can afford, is to emphasize prevention.
I don’t mean inoculations or well-baby checkups, although they certainly should be part of any health-care system. Nor do I mean near-compulsive cholesterol and blood pressure checks, although they too have a place.
Rather, I recommend that the incoming Obama administration fund a large federal and state campaign that tackles prevention in a way similar to how government discouraged the use of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco campaign has largely worked, and one focusing on prevention can work as well.
Focusing on prevention is imperative. Unless we reduce the demands placed on disease care, the current or extended disease-care system will eventually collapse financially.
Nearly all experts agree that most chronic health problems result from poor eating habits, a lack of physical activity, and other lifestyle issues, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. These are behaviors that can be modified to reduce the risk of disease, and less disease means lower health-care costs.
It’s important that this campaign convey the message that each and every one of us is a partner in our own health. We can’t abuse our bodies and then expect doctors or magic pills to reverse the damage, regardless of who pays. We must acknowledge our personal responsibility for staying healthy and do a much better job of eating more nutritious foods and staying reasonably fit.
I would make nutrition the foundation of any health-care campaign, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s the basis of our biology and biochemistry. Second, two of every three Americans are now overweight or obese. More than 23 million have type 2 diabetes, and somewhere between 40 and 100 million have some form of prediabetes. These are signs that our eating habits and lifestyles are truly warped. Ominously, these health problems increase the risk of heart disease and most other chronic degeneration diseases.
There’s no need to get distracted by arguments over which diet is best. Everything I’ve learned about healthy habits boils down to emphasizing fresh foods over almost anything that comes in a box, can, jar, bottle, or bag. It’s as simple as that. Opt for a piece of fish or chicken and some vegetables instead of a burger and fries in the drive-thru. And yes, eat smaller portions.
Physical fitness is important as well. While we don’t have to build Schwarzenegger-type bodies, we do need to realize that all the time we spend in front of televisions and computers helps make us fat. Just going for a daily walk improves blood sugar and weight, and obviously the more we do, the better off we’ll be.
Food companies could certainly be given incentives to help spread the word about eating better and becoming more physically active. They could also retool some of their food products to wean people off junk foods. After all, the health of their profits will at some point depend on the health of the nation.
A consortium of medical societies, food-industry lobbying groups, and vitamin supplement associations could also help underwrite consumer-education campaigns geared to preventing disease.
Even the Food and Drug Administration could play a role by clearly discouraging the use of hydrogenated oils and caloric sweeteners, maybe by requiring warning labels on some packages. The FDA could also streamline the now complicated processes of making health claims for foods and supplements.
Doctors may dismiss my proposal by saying that patients want a quick fix (code word for prescription drug) and aren’t compliant with dietary changes. But the studies show that one-on-one nutrition coaching and follow-ups do result in compliance and consistency.
Will there be resistance to what I propose? Of course they will be. Every billion dollars saved in disease care will translate to a billion lost in drug company and hospital profits.
But something has got to give. As a nation, we’ve got to get off our duff and make some changes. It’s far easier, better, and less costly in the long run to prevent (or lower the risk of) disease than to struggle to treat it. Furthermore, as people get healthier, they will also have more energy, use fewer sick days, and be more productive. That can only be good for our economy.
We need more than a Band-Aid when it comes to reforming health care and controlling costs. I hate to say it, but for a permanent cure, health care needs major surgery followed, of course, by a lean diet and time to heal. This process will certainly take more than a couple of years to yield clear benefits, but so did the campaign to reduce tobacco use.
Most proposals for health-care reform have focused on either expanding the availability of insurance or reducing the costs of prescription drugs. While necessary, these approaches are essentially extensions of a dysfunctional health-care system, and they fail to correct its fundamental flaws.
Health care (of which medicine is part) is an oxymoron. It’s really a disease-care system that continues to exist only because of the rationing of treatment. Millions of people are excluded from health-care coverage, and others must deal with huge out-of-pocket expenses or simply do without.
The solution I envision would transform this disease-care system into a genuine health-care system. The only way to accomplish this, at a price this nation can afford, is to emphasize prevention.
I don’t mean inoculations or well-baby checkups, although they certainly should be part of any health-care system. Nor do I mean near-compulsive cholesterol and blood pressure checks, although they too have a place.
Rather, I recommend that the incoming Obama administration fund a large federal and state campaign that tackles prevention in a way similar to how government discouraged the use of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco campaign has largely worked, and one focusing on prevention can work as well.
Focusing on prevention is imperative. Unless we reduce the demands placed on disease care, the current or extended disease-care system will eventually collapse financially.
Nearly all experts agree that most chronic health problems result from poor eating habits, a lack of physical activity, and other lifestyle issues, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. These are behaviors that can be modified to reduce the risk of disease, and less disease means lower health-care costs.
It’s important that this campaign convey the message that each and every one of us is a partner in our own health. We can’t abuse our bodies and then expect doctors or magic pills to reverse the damage, regardless of who pays. We must acknowledge our personal responsibility for staying healthy and do a much better job of eating more nutritious foods and staying reasonably fit.
I would make nutrition the foundation of any health-care campaign, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s the basis of our biology and biochemistry. Second, two of every three Americans are now overweight or obese. More than 23 million have type 2 diabetes, and somewhere between 40 and 100 million have some form of prediabetes. These are signs that our eating habits and lifestyles are truly warped. Ominously, these health problems increase the risk of heart disease and most other chronic degeneration diseases.
There’s no need to get distracted by arguments over which diet is best. Everything I’ve learned about healthy habits boils down to emphasizing fresh foods over almost anything that comes in a box, can, jar, bottle, or bag. It’s as simple as that. Opt for a piece of fish or chicken and some vegetables instead of a burger and fries in the drive-thru. And yes, eat smaller portions.
Physical fitness is important as well. While we don’t have to build Schwarzenegger-type bodies, we do need to realize that all the time we spend in front of televisions and computers helps make us fat. Just going for a daily walk improves blood sugar and weight, and obviously the more we do, the better off we’ll be.
Food companies could certainly be given incentives to help spread the word about eating better and becoming more physically active. They could also retool some of their food products to wean people off junk foods. After all, the health of their profits will at some point depend on the health of the nation.
A consortium of medical societies, food-industry lobbying groups, and vitamin supplement associations could also help underwrite consumer-education campaigns geared to preventing disease.
Even the Food and Drug Administration could play a role by clearly discouraging the use of hydrogenated oils and caloric sweeteners, maybe by requiring warning labels on some packages. The FDA could also streamline the now complicated processes of making health claims for foods and supplements.
Doctors may dismiss my proposal by saying that patients want a quick fix (code word for prescription drug) and aren’t compliant with dietary changes. But the studies show that one-on-one nutrition coaching and follow-ups do result in compliance and consistency.
Will there be resistance to what I propose? Of course they will be. Every billion dollars saved in disease care will translate to a billion lost in drug company and hospital profits.
But something has got to give. As a nation, we’ve got to get off our duff and make some changes. It’s far easier, better, and less costly in the long run to prevent (or lower the risk of) disease than to struggle to treat it. Furthermore, as people get healthier, they will also have more energy, use fewer sick days, and be more productive. That can only be good for our economy.
We need more than a Band-Aid when it comes to reforming health care and controlling costs. I hate to say it, but for a permanent cure, health care needs major surgery followed, of course, by a lean diet and time to heal. This process will certainly take more than a couple of years to yield clear benefits, but so did the campaign to reduce tobacco use.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Early Diagnosis Is Not Prevention
Several years ago I wrote about a disturbing example of what George Orwell called “double-think” – holding simultaneous contradictory views. At the time I focused on mammography, which has often been promoted for “preventing” breast cancer.
Mammography, however, has nothing to do with preventing breast cancer. It’s a diagnostic tool. You can have a hundred mammograms performed, but they won’t prevent a single case of breast cancer. (In fact, a recent study suggested that mammograms might even increase the risk.) Once diagnosed, a patient will usually be pushed into a medical maze with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
The idea that early diagnosis equals prevention is returning. Recently, a story in the New York Times kept referring to colonoscopies as a way of “preventing” colon cancer. When I emailed the editor that colonoscopies don’t prevent colon cancer, she steadfastly defended her writer’s choice of the word.
Huh? Early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. Confusing the two is double-think.
Meanwhile, a supermarket ran an ad in my local newspaper encouraging people to get various medical tests from a portable testing lab. People could pay for a “heart disease prevention package” or a “stroke and aneurysm prevention package” of tests.
The tests are fine if you want them and if you want to pay for them. But they do not prevent cancer or cardiovascular diseases. They too are a form of early diagnosis.
If such tests do reveal serious health problems, then you have a choice: you can enter the medical maze and subject yourself to drugs and surgery, or you can improve your eating habits and lifestyle. But once in the medical maze – the same one that confuses early diagnosis with prevention – odds are that you’ll be pushed toward the more aggressive and more expensive therapies. After all, the point of early diagnosis is only partly to help patients. The other part is to make money off you.
Mammography, however, has nothing to do with preventing breast cancer. It’s a diagnostic tool. You can have a hundred mammograms performed, but they won’t prevent a single case of breast cancer. (In fact, a recent study suggested that mammograms might even increase the risk.) Once diagnosed, a patient will usually be pushed into a medical maze with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
The idea that early diagnosis equals prevention is returning. Recently, a story in the New York Times kept referring to colonoscopies as a way of “preventing” colon cancer. When I emailed the editor that colonoscopies don’t prevent colon cancer, she steadfastly defended her writer’s choice of the word.
Huh? Early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. Confusing the two is double-think.
Meanwhile, a supermarket ran an ad in my local newspaper encouraging people to get various medical tests from a portable testing lab. People could pay for a “heart disease prevention package” or a “stroke and aneurysm prevention package” of tests.
The tests are fine if you want them and if you want to pay for them. But they do not prevent cancer or cardiovascular diseases. They too are a form of early diagnosis.
If such tests do reveal serious health problems, then you have a choice: you can enter the medical maze and subject yourself to drugs and surgery, or you can improve your eating habits and lifestyle. But once in the medical maze – the same one that confuses early diagnosis with prevention – odds are that you’ll be pushed toward the more aggressive and more expensive therapies. After all, the point of early diagnosis is only partly to help patients. The other part is to make money off you.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Controversy Over Vitamin C and Cancer
A recent study – in cells and mice – was published in the journal Cancer Research and immediately followed by newspaper and internet headlines screaming that vitamin C interfered with the cancer-killing effect of several chemotherapeutic drugs.
The finding contradicted several promising studies – in cells, animals, and people – showing that large amounts of vitamin C enhance the body’s ability to fight cancer. What gives?
The study, conducted by researchers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, used an awful methodology. That’s what gives. I’ll explain.
Most of the vitamin C found in foods and supplements is chemically known as ascorbic acid. The Sloan-Kettering researchers did not use this type of vitamin C. Instead, they used dehydroascorbic acid, which is the “oxidized” form of the vitamin, and found that it reduced the effectiveness of chemo drugs on cells. Meanwhile, in the mouse study, the researchers used dehydroascorbic acid in doses known to be toxic.
No one in the entire world sells dehydoascorbic acid supplements. In fact, when dehydroascorbic acid is formed in the body, it is quickly broken down because of its inherent toxicity. It makes absolutely no sense to (1) call dehydroascorbic acid vitamin C or (2) to use it in cancer experiments.
Several studies have successfully used large amounts of real vitamin C to destroy cancer cells in cell experiments, animals, and people. The current theory is that large amounts of vitamin C – large intravenous doses of vitamin C in people – generate hydrogen peroxide, which functions as a natural chemotherapeutic agent but does not harm normal cells.
The finding contradicted several promising studies – in cells, animals, and people – showing that large amounts of vitamin C enhance the body’s ability to fight cancer. What gives?
The study, conducted by researchers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, used an awful methodology. That’s what gives. I’ll explain.
Most of the vitamin C found in foods and supplements is chemically known as ascorbic acid. The Sloan-Kettering researchers did not use this type of vitamin C. Instead, they used dehydroascorbic acid, which is the “oxidized” form of the vitamin, and found that it reduced the effectiveness of chemo drugs on cells. Meanwhile, in the mouse study, the researchers used dehydroascorbic acid in doses known to be toxic.
No one in the entire world sells dehydoascorbic acid supplements. In fact, when dehydroascorbic acid is formed in the body, it is quickly broken down because of its inherent toxicity. It makes absolutely no sense to (1) call dehydroascorbic acid vitamin C or (2) to use it in cancer experiments.
Several studies have successfully used large amounts of real vitamin C to destroy cancer cells in cell experiments, animals, and people. The current theory is that large amounts of vitamin C – large intravenous doses of vitamin C in people – generate hydrogen peroxide, which functions as a natural chemotherapeutic agent but does not harm normal cells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
