Blogs: Health

Poultry and Penis Cancer

2012-05-17T12:00:00Z

One of the reasons it’s so difficult to study the relationship between diet and cancer is because many dietary behaviors are associated with non-dietary behaviors. For example, one of the reasons we used to think coffee-drinking caused cancer was because people who drink coffee are more likely to have a cigarette in the other hand, which led to spurious conclusions. When you factor in those considerations, we find that coffee consumption may actually decrease cancer risk, as I detailed in Coffee and Cancer.

The reason it was so difficult to study cancer among coffee-drinkers is the same reason it’s so difficult to study cancer among meateaters. Historically, those eating vegetarian have been noted to have lower cancer rates, but maybe it’s just because they exercise more, or smoke less, or inhale less diesel fumes because they all own a Prius :)

In my 3 min. video Vegetarians Versus Healthy Omnivores I profiled new data that attempts to control for non-dietary factors by effectively comparing vegetarians only to meateaters who are as slim as vegetarians, exercise as much, smoke as little, and even eat roughly the same amount of fruits and vegetables. After all, maybe the reason vegetarians have been shown to be healthier is less about eating less meat, and more about eating more plants. Though these rigorous controls undercut key vegetarian advantages, such as lower obesity rates, even when vegetarians were compared in effect only to healthy meateaters with healthier diets, researchers still found “the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians."

The most striking difference between the dietary groups was in the risk for cancers of the blood and bone marrow, such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, various leukemias, and myeloma (more details in my 2 min. video EPIC Findings on Lymphoma). Chicken consumption appeared the most hazardous, associated with up to triple the cancer rates for every 50 grams of daily poultry consumption—that's just a quarter of a chicken breast worth!

Why was there so much more lymphoma and leukemia risk among those eating just a small serving of chicken a day? As detailed in my 2 min. video Chicken Dioxins, Viruses, or Antibiotics?, the association between poultry and cancer may be explained by the presence in chickens' and turkeys' flesh of drugs that were fed to the birds, industrial carcinogens such as dioxins, and/or the presence of oncogenic (cancer-causing) viruses.

In Poultry and Penis Cancer I present the largest study to date on poultry workers and cancer mortality, which found a whopping 8-fold increased risk of dying from penile cancer compared to controls, a finding thought due to chicken virus exposure, raising broader food safety concerns. If chickens can be infected with viruses linked to cancer in consumers, then what about eggs? Find out in Carcinogenic Retrovirus Found in Eggs.

These cancer-causing viruses found in chicken and eggs are utterly destroyed by proper cooking, so the primary risk of infection would presumably be associated with cross-contamination, such as when mixing cake batter, handling raw poultry, or even just touching meat in the supermarket.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Image credit: Kate Tomlinson / Flicker

HBO 'Obesity Special' simply adds to the confusion.

2012-05-15T19:29:54Z

Good description of the problem. The solution? Not so much

: Image from the HBO documentary

Did you watch the first few hours of the HBO Obesity special last night? If so, I would like to hear what you thought about it so far. Don't have HBO? No problem, you can watch it for free online (See link below)

Last week, I wrote my own review of the HBO Special, "The Weight of the Nation." And I concluded the same thing as some of the mainstream media folks---but for different reasons. Here's what I wrote: While watching the HBO documentary this week on DVD, I became curious about a few things:

Why do they concentrate on exercise over diet on a ratio of about ten to one?
When they do talk about diet, why do they never talk about the power of whole, plant-based foods to reverse chronic disease and obesity?
Why do they always include the phrases “lean cuts of meat” and “low-fat dairy” when describing a healthy diet?
Why did they choose an obviously obese man as one of their primary messengers?

I suspect that all of the answers to the above questions has something to do with money. And that’s not going to change until our overall “system” changes.

In my review, I concluded that the reason we heard nothing new is because the people who produced the documentary don't have any "new" knowledge.

They probably haven't read The China Study and they are in the dark when it comes to the power of whole foods, plant-based nutrition to promote health, reverse chronic disease and, yes, curb our out-of-control obesity epidemic. Our basic problem is twofold:

We're eating the wrong food.
95% of our best and brightest (including the media) are not aware of that simple fact. They still truly believe that we need all those "lean meats and low-fat dairy" products.

Mary McNamara of the L.A. Times writes:

If you were hoping that the good people at HBO had come up with a solution that will whittle the national waistline in 20 days or less you will be disappointed. "The Weight of the Nation" mostly tells us what we already know. Sodas, juice, sugary breakfast cereals, fast food and most processed snack foods are bad for us, their proliferation corresponding historically with the national weight gain. Fresh food costs more than junk food, which puts the poor more at risk. Children are surrounded by the siren call of unhealthful food, fad diets don't work and real change takes time.

The value of the series, then, is its, well, weight, its relentless attempt to remind us of what we know, to connect many important dots and clear away the emotional and cultural fog that often blurs discussions about obesity, and to offer hope in the form of personal stories, regional projects and past success.

Smoking was once ubiquitous, corporations squawked about cleaning up the air and water, people fussed about wearing seat belts, but when confronted with enough incontrovertible evidence, eventually, we choose life over convenience.

Ms. McNamara is absolutely right; the HBO Special is telling us what we already know. But why didn't they tell us what most of us DON'T already know? That we're eating the wrong food in this country. Unfortunately, that "most of us" includes the producers and the main "cast members" in this special.

Mark Perigard of the Boston Herald writes:

“The Weight of the Nation,” a well-intentioned documentary miniseries three years in the making---that just might send you stress--eating right out of the refrigerator. The statistics — and they are chucked relentlessly at you over the course of five hours in two nights — are soul-sapping.

In its personal vignettes, “Weight” illuminates, but too often the segments are a numbing array of statistics from well-meaning talking heads. One expert cuts through the chatter and demands a concerted effort from government, corporations and the public.

“Obesity will crush the United States, and we will fade in the rearview mirror of oblivion,” she says. “We could have done something different. We should have done something different, and we lacked the moral fiber and the love for our children to do the right thing.”

If we don’t get moving, we’ll be forever known as the Land of the Lard.

: J. Morris (Jim) Hicks

The Bottom Line. The media-reviewers featured here make two very good points:

There is nothing new in this documentary.
There were too many "talking heads" with no plan of action. (One of the primary talking heads was morbidly obese, a fact that none of the media seemed to notice.)

Until we "dispel the protein myth," and everyone understands that we don't need---and should not be eating---animal protein, nothing much is going to change with our mega-system that controls what most of us eat. I say "most of us" because everyone is free to choose what they want to eat, but the vast majority are not going to figure it out on their own. This is the tragedy of this whole situation.

For your convenience, here are links to the three reviews mentioned in this blog---along with a link to my "Dispelling the Protein Myth" article.

L. A. Times Review: HBO's 'Weight of the Nation' pounds away at obesity
Boston Herald Review: HBO’s ‘Weight’ tackles Big topic
The J. Morris Hicks Review: HBO Obesity Special: How important is the messenger? (contains link to the free online HBO special)
Dispelling the Protein Myth, by J. Morris Hicks.

: J. Morris Hicks, working daily to promote health, hope and harmony on planet Earth.

For help in your own quest to take charge of your health, you might find some useful information at our 4Leaf page or some great recipes at Lisa's 4Leaf Kitchen.

Got a question? Let me hear from you at jmorrishicks@me.com.

Blogging daily at hpjmh.com...from the seaside village of Stonington, Connecticut – Be well and have a great day.

—J. Morris Hicks, board member, T. Colin Campbell Foundation

Coffee Caveats

2012-05-10T12:00:00Z

Last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, an editorial entitled "Coffee consumption and risk of chronic diseases: changing our views" reviewed the growing evidence that for most people, the benefits of drinking coffee likely outweigh the risks. For example, a recent analysis of the best studies published to date suggests coffee consumption may lead to a modest reduction in overall cancer incidence, as detailed in my 1-min. video Coffee and Cancer. Each daily cup o' joe was associated with about a 3% reduced risk of cancers, especially bladder, breast, mouth, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, liver, leukemic, pancreatic, and prostate cancers.

What about the caffeine, though? Glad you asked! Check out What About the Caffeine?

There are a few caveats. Some health conditions may be worsened by coffee, such as insomnia, anxiety, gastroesophageal reflux (heartburn), high blood pressure, and certain heartbeat rhythm irregularities. There are also compounds in coffee that increase cholesterol levels, but are effectively removed when filtered through paper, so drip coffee is preferable to boiled, French press and espresso. Pregnant women should restrict caffeine consumption to less than two cups of coffee a day.

Despite the growing evidence of health benefits associated with coffee consumption, I still don't recommend people drink it—not because it's not healthy, but because there are even healthier choices. In this way, coffee is like a banana, another common convenient plant product. If you have a choice, I'd encourage you to make healthier fruit choices (apples are better, berries are best). Similarly, when it comes to beverages, I'd encourage you to choose an even healthier one, like green tea.

One final note: not all routes of administering coffee are benign. Consider the title of a case reported in a medical journal last month: "Rectal Perforation…Caused by Rectal Burns Associated With Hot Coffee Enemas."

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Image credit: Urban Hafner / Flickr

Early Detection; then slash, burn and poison...

2012-05-08T11:22:01Z

There has to be a better way---and there is!

: President Richard Nixon signs the National Cancer Act on December 23, 1971.

Since Richard Nixon declared war on cancer back in 1971, a huge cancer business has gotten much bigger. In the past 41 years, the watchword of the day has become "early detection" followed by some combination of slash, burn and poison---more commonly known as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Just this week, a friend of mine passed away after spending the last few years of his life suffering through the standard treatment paradigm for this horrible disease. I continue to ask myself, where would we be today if our leaders had focused on prevention instead of early detection and treatment of symptoms?

I recently blogged about a new book, How We Do Harm, highlighting many of the flaws within our current medical paradigm. While the author presented some very interesting information, he missed the main point in my opinion. In a book review of over 1,000 words, there was not a single mention of addressing our toxic diet as the primary driver of most of our diseases—including cancer. A direct quote from Dr. T. Colin Campbell (The China Study):

“The U.S. government should be discussing the idea that the toxicity of our diet is the single biggest cause of cancer.”

: World's 3rd Richest Man has prostate cancer at 81

Almost every day, we hear news about our flawed medical system when it comes to cancer and other chronic disease. A few weeks ago, we heard about Warren Buffett's decision to be treated for prostate cancer at the age of 81.

Then we heard a great debate in the media about whether or not that made any sense and was Mr. Buffett sending the wrong message to older men who had recently been advised against continuing to have the P.S.A. test. From a 4-24-12 article in USA Today (see link below):

The first question to ask: Should an 81-year-old even be screened for prostate cancer? The evidence says no. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of clinicians providing data-based practice guidelines, recommends against routine prostate cancer screening for healthy men of any age. Studies over the years, which have included participation of more than 300,000 men of various ages, have shown that harm from prostate cancer screening outweighs the benefits.

: Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry, Cornell University---says that our government should be discussing the idea that the toxicity of our diet is the single biggest cause of cancer.

An earlier New York Times article (See link below) suggested the same thing. "A late outcry among many physicians and patients over a government panel’s recent announcement that healthy men should no longer receive P.S.A. blood testing to detect prostate cancer is rooted in a long and impassioned history among cancer screening advocates that early detection must always save lives. But as science has taught us, that’s not always the case." The article continues:

As early as 1913, physicians and laypeople formed the American Society for the Control of Cancer, which later became the American Cancer Society, bearing this hopeful message: “With early recognition and prompt treatment, the patient’s life may often be saved.” The idea had some scientific basis.

Patients whose cancers appeared to be less extensive at diagnosis lived longer, on average, than those whose cancer was more widespread. The organization put this philosophy in action, publicizing a series of “danger signals” that suggested possible early warning signs of cancer, including breast lumps, irregular bleeding, sores that did not heal and persistent weight loss. “Delay kills!” posters bluntly warned.

: Early detection continues to trump true prevention---the elimination of the cause. Maybe $10 billion a year would help get that word out there, with or without the support of the ACS.

Same Old, Same Old. In article after article, all of the emphasis continues to be on the management of the disease after it has been detected. That means learning more about how every single form of cancer in every part of the body grows, spreads and kills. Treatments are then designed to minimize the spread of each cancer and thereby lengthen the patient's life. But questions remain:

Do we ever know for sure if the treatment regimen actually extends the patient's lifespan?
Are there cases where the treatment regimen actually shortens the patient's life?
Is the pain, suffering, and mental anguish for all concerned worth a few more months of surviving---even if surviving in misery?

Are the results worth it? What about the cost of early detection and subsequent treatment? In the USA Today article below we learn that the annual cost of screening for just prostate cancer in just the United States is $3 billion. Are the results worth it? Even the inventor of the PSA test has his doubts:

The cost of PSA testing contributes $3 billion annually to health care spending, much of it paid for by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In fact, Richard Ablin, the scientist who discovered PSA, calls the testing's widespread use a "public health disaster."

Then there's screening for colon cancer which is a whopping $50 billion business in just the United States. If you include breast cancer, we're probably talking about a total of over $100 billion that is spent for early detection on these three most common cancers.

My final question is this. What if we spent just ten percent of that number ($10 billion) on educating the public regarding the primary cause of cancer and how to prevent it in the first place. What if we used that money to let them hear the wisdom of Dr. T. Colin Campbell?

“The U.S. government should be discussing the idea that the toxicity of our diet is the single biggest cause of cancer.”

The bottom line. Address the cause and win the war on cancer. If we started spending $10 billion per year on educating the public about the cause---we'd win this war on cancer and it wouldn't take another forty-one years. This message needs repetition, just like any other advertising message. People will have to hear it many times before they start believing it.

*****************

The Shortfalls of Early Cancer Detection New York Times
What's right for Buffett may not be right for every man USA Today
Older Men Still Being Screened for Prostate Cancer New York Times
An earlier blog on this topic: Early detection of prostate and breast cancer…

—J. Morris Hicks, board member, T. Colin Campbell Foundation

Stool Size and Breast Cancer Risk

2012-05-03T12:00:00Z

Women eating plant-based diets may have lower breast cancer rates because they have larger bowel movements. In The Best Detox, I described the role of the liver in removing toxins from the blood stream, which can then be jettisoned through the bile into the digestive tract, and eliminated. Our gut is our body's disposal system; anything it wants to get rid of, it throws down the trash chute. One can imagine our enterocytes, the cells lining our intestinal wall, as a vast array of trash pickers, resource recovery workers. They’re sifting through the river of garbage flowing past and picking up anything of use—a vitamin here, a mineral there, such that by the end there isn’t much left that’s desirable—and what's left truly gets, ahem, dumped.

The digestive tract is also how we get rid of excess hormones and cholesterol. Our body expects there to be an ever-flowing torrent of intestinal contents to flush this stuff out to sea. We did, after all, evolve over millions of years on a diet centered on unrefined plant foods. We aren't designed for burgers and milkshakes; we are designed for fiber, and lots of it. Anthropologists estimate we evolved eating 100 grams of fiber a day or more!

So our body is counting on a massive, quick-flowing stream of contents through our digestive tract, and when there's excess estrogen in the trash, our body expects it to just zip right out. But what if we don't consume an adequate amount of fiber to soften and bulk up that intestinal flow? What if that river dries up into just a slow trickle of sludge? We still have the same number of trash pickers, but the volume and speed of the flow is way down, so they’re finding all sorts of stuff that otherwise would have been lost. Uh oh—that means they're picking back up the estrogen that your body intentionally dumped, and thrusting it right back into the system. Fiber, on the contrary, dilutes, speeds, and bulks up the flow, so lots of stuff never even makes it to banks of the river to be picked at and inappropriately saved. My 4-min video Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen explains that this may be why women who eat lots of plants (the only place fiber is found) have lower estrogen levels and a lower risk of breast cancer.

As I show in my 1-min video Food Mass Transit, meat-eating women average a four-day mouth-to-anus transit time, likely too long to meet the target 200 gram (half pound) minimum fecal output for cancer prevention. People don't realize you can have daily bowel movements and still be effectively constipated. You can be regular, but four days late. In other words, what you’re flushing today you may have eaten last week. If you want to test it for yourself, all you need to do is eat a big bowl of beets and see when things turn pretty in pink. Ideally, to reach that half-pound target, your intestinal transit time should be down in the 24 to 36 hour range.

Small bowel movements are also associated with a variety of other diseases such as appendicitis, colon cancer, constipation, and diverticulitis. See my 2-min. video Stool Size Matters. Just eating antioxidant-rich foods can improve stool weight. See Bulking Up on Antioxidants (2 min). And finally, check out Bowels of the Earth (2 min) to find out which country has the largest (and smallest) average stool size. Find out who's #1 at number 2!

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Image credit: Taylor McConnell / Flickr

Enter a Contest Where Everyone Wins

2012-05-02T18:18:01Z

Let's face it. What this country needs is a warning label placed on each package of meat--something like the one on packages of cigarettes, but maybe more colorful.

All of us have come to realize that Meat is Dangerous and even KILLS.

Our idea was to sponsor a contest with our readers submitting their ideas for a Meat Warning Label. Since we are a nonprofit without a lavish spending budget, we are unable to offer cash prizes or expensive gifts.

In this contest everyone automatically becomes a winner because each submission will be published on Vegetarians in Paradise, Facebook, and Pinterest as well as shared on a number of other websites sympathetic to this cause.

Our goal is splash Meat Warning Labels across the internet. With enough entries we will possibly gain the attention to further this cause.

Breast Cancer Survival and Soy

2012-04-26T12:00:00Z

In my last two posts, The Best Detox and Breast Cancer Stem Cells vs. Broccoli, I documented ways to 1) boost our liver's ability to clear carcinogens, 2) make our DNA more resistant to toxins that make it past our first line of defense, and 3) then ramp up immune surveillance of any budding tumors—all in hopes of preventing cancer. But what about for those who already have it?

Though small consolation, one consequence of the fact that breast cancer is now the #1 cancer killer of young women is that breast cancer survival is a very active area of research. For example, a major study was recently published that followed 4,000 women with breast cancer for 7 years. Not all of them made it to the end. The researchers tried to figure out if there was anything about the diets of the non-survivors that may have played a role in their deaths. Two dietary components in particular were associated with an early death: saturated fat and trans fat.

Breast cancer survivors may decrease their risk of dying by 41% simply by avoiding saturated fat, found primarily in the American diet in cheese, chicken, and junk food (see my 3-minute video Breast Cancer Survival, Butterfat, and Chicken). And breast cancer survivors may improve their survival 78% by avoiding trans fat, found primarily in junk food and animal products (see my 1-minute video Breast Cancer Survival and Trans Fat). Ideally, everyone should try to minimize the intake of both, as explained in Trans Fat, Saturated Fat and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

On the other hand, the two foods expected to improve breast cancer survival are flax seeds and soy products. Breast cancer is initially so slow-growing that women may have tumors for years or even decades before they’re diagnosed (see my 1-minute video Cancer Prevention and Treatment May Be the Same Thing). So one might expect that the same dietary factors that helped grow the tumor in the first place would keep goading it on after diagnosis. This may not always be the case, though. Alcohol, for example, is strongly associated with breast cancer risk, but the data has been mixed as to whether once you already have a full-blown tumor, it makes a difference if you continue to drink or not. Still, in general, the diet that helps prevent breast cancer is the same diet that’s going to help prolong survival. And that certainly seems to be the case for the phytonutrients found in flax and soy.

Flax seeds are the most concentrated source of lignans, a class of cancer-fighting compounds that may cut breast cancer mortality risk in half (see my 3-minute video Breast Cancer Survival and Lignan Intake). Interestingly, there are no lignans actually found in the seeds, just precursors that the good bacteria in our gut turn into lignans. This may explain why women who have frequent urinary tract infections have higher breast cancer rates—the courses of antibiotics wipe out the gut flora critical to the production of these anti-cancer compounds (see my 2-minute Flax and Fecal Flora).

Soy foods appear to help prevent breast cancer and prolong survival more directly, though. In Breast Cancer Survival and Soy I review the only three human studies to date, all of which suggest soy is beneficial. Before we had any human data, rodent studies found conflicting results, and we just found out why. It turns out rats and mice metabolize the phytoestrogens in soy up to 150 times less efficiently than humans. The faulty old lab rat data continue to be cited by soy detractors, however, even though we now have studies published on thousands of actual breast cancer survivors. While the jury may still be out on whether to feed tofu to your pet rat, the verdict is in on soy in human beings: not guilty.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

image credit: imgdive / Flickr and MesserWoland / Wikimedia Commons

Oral Health And Plant-Based Diets

2012-04-26T10:30:01Z

We all know that eating a plant-based diet abundant in fruits and vegetables does wonders for our health. The reduction in the three most talked about diseases in these regards are obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. All of them can be prevented or reversed just by adopting healthy eating habits but there's another great benefit to eating wholesome, healthy foods―superb oral health!

Following a diet of whole, plant-based foods has been shown to reduce bad breath, prevent gingivitis and periodontal disease, and even reduce the risk of oral related cancers. A closer look at each one reveals why this is so.

Beating Back Bad Breath

Bad breath, also known as halitosis, is caused mainly by the formation and release of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) during bacterial breakdown of proteins [1]. Eighty to ninety percent of halitosis cases originate in the mouth due to the abundance of food particles left behind after eating. Bacteria, located within the oral cavity, then have a field day with feasting on these food particles. This is especially the case in individuals suffering from gingivitis and periodontal disease as these bacteria can be found hiding beneath diseased gum lines. However, the main stomping ground for these bacteria is on the back third of the top surface of the tongue. In fact, four times as many bacteria are found there than in any other part of the mouth [2].

Read rest of article here.

Mad Cow California: Is the Milk Supply Safe?

2012-04-25T16:00:00Z

In announcing the detection of a new case of mad cow disease in California, the USDA emphasized that her carcass never made it into the food supply. The fact that the infected animal was a dairy cow, though, raises the question about the disposition of her milk. There's currently no direct evidence that cow's milk poses any mad cow risk, but when it comes to this mysterious class of diseases, we've learned time and time again that absence of evidence of risk, does not equal evidence of absence of risk.

The USDA flatly declared that milk doesn't transmit mad cow disease, but that's what we used to think about scrapie, the parallel disease in sheep, before research in the last 5 years unequivocally demonstrated that milk could indeed become contaminated with prions, the infectious proteins that cause these transmissible sponge-like (spongiform) brain diseases (encephalopathies). Similar experiments have not detected infectivity in mad cow milk, but this may be a function of the limited sensitivity of testing methods.

If prions are present at low levels in bovine milk, then this could present a particular problem in the United States, since inflammation has been shown to dramatically boost the infectivity of prion-infected milk and there is an epidemic of mastitis in the U.S. dairy herd. Last year researchers demonstrated that the ingestion of as little as 1 to 2 quarts of milk from scrapie-infected sheep stricken with mastitis could cause prion infection in lambs at an attack rate of 86%. This is thought to be because the prions may concentrate in the blood and pus cells sloughed into milk from inflamed udders.

Today’s dairy cows endure annual cycles of artificial insemination, pregnancy and birth, and mechanized milking for 10 out of 12 months (including 7 months of their 9-month pregnancies). This excessive metabolic drain overburdens the cows, who are considered “productive” for only two years and are slaughtered for hamburger when their profitability drops, typically around their fourth birthday, a small fraction of their natural lifespan. Turning dairy cows into milk machines has led to epidemics of so-called “production-related diseases,” such as lameness and mastitis, the two leading causes of dairy cow pre-slaughter mortality in the United States.

Because 1 in 6 dairy cows in the United States suffers from mastitis, the dairy industry continues to demand that American milk retain among the highest allowable “somatic cell” concentration in the world. When a cow's udder is inflamed, greater than 90% of the somatic cells in her milk are neutrophils, the inflammatory immune cells that form pus. As the dairy industry points out, the accumulation of pus is a natural part of an animal’s defense system. So pus itself isn’t a bad thing, we just may not want to drink it, especially if it can increase the risk of transmission of cellular pathogens that can survive pasteurization such as paratuberculosis and, in theory at least, prions.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Just say NO to a flawed "disease care" system.

2012-04-24T15:39:45Z

For if we continue to follow the money, our population will never be healthy.

Just read a book review in the New York Times (See link below). The book is How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick In America (St. Martin’s Press). In his book, Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, paints a grim picture. It sounds like an interesting book but is of little value to someone like me who has taken charge of my own health.

He describes some bizarre patient situations and talks about fixing the "disease care" system---yet we all know that our "system" cannot be fixed until we begin to focus on disease causation instead of symptoms. Here is just one of those patient situations:

There was a man with colon cancer who went to a wonderful hospital with a wonderful reputation. He got surgery and was referred to a medical oncologist who has a wonderful reputation as a doctor to the rich and famous in Atlanta. That medical oncologist started giving him chemotherapy and two other expensive drugs. When this man lost his insurance, the oncologist basically dropped him, and the guy ended up being seen by me at the county hospital.

A doctor who is training with me to be an oncologist immediately realizes that this guy is getting a chemotherapy regimen for colon cancer that we stopped using about 15 years ago. His medical oncologist was practicing the best medicine of the late 1980s, but we were in 2006. The other drugs he was being prescribed were totally unnecessary. But the doctor could get a substantial markup and make a substantial amount of money by selling them. The oncologist had known just enough to be greedy and prescribe drugs he can make money off of, but he didn’t know enough to prescribe the chemotherapy that would have given the patient a much better chance of surviving his cancer.

In a book review of over 1,000 words, there was not a single mention of addressing our toxic diet as the primary driver of most of our diseases---including cancer. A direct quote from Dr. T. Colin Campbell (The China Study):

"The U.S. government should be discussing the idea that the toxicity of our diet is the single biggest cause of cancer."

Do you wonder why Dr. Brawley's American Cancer Society doesn't share this simple fact with ALL Americans? The answer might be that if everyone ate an optimal diet for their entire lives, the field of oncology would be about as rare as the female membership of the Augusta National Golf Club. In short, cancer would no longer be a big business. So why is this business so big?

Dr. Brawley doesn’t place all the blame on insurance companies, hospitals and doctors. He also blames patients who have bought into the notion that more care — more treatment, more screening, more scans, more drugs — is better care. Many Americans, particularly wealthier ones, he says, are “gluttonous” in their consumption of health care resources and often use them unwisely.

: Doctors make more money and get sued less often if they order lots of expensive tests like this MRI.

The Bottom Line. Unless the book "reviewer" was missing something, this book contains no mention of dealing with cancer by preventing it in the first place. While he does a great job of describing some horror stories that are taking place every day in our "system," he comes up way short of describing a real fix. After reading the book review, here is how I would size up the futility of trying to "fix" our seriously flawed "disease care" system.

As long as doctors can earn more money and incur less risk by prescribing expensive MRIs and unnecessary chemotherapy, there will be no real progress. And I don't see much change in our system anytime soon. The only solution that I see is for enlightened individuals to "Just Say N0" to disease care and take charge of their own health.

A personal anecdote. Last year I received this note from a college friend who had been influenced by our book to greatly improve his diet:

I have been on the 4-Leaf Program for 12 weeks and have lost 36 pounds. My cancer doctor called yesterday to discuss a recent blood test. He said my cancer markers he was measuring had dropped 30%. I told him about the diet and he thought it was good idea.

But the oncologist never recommended a superior diet or told him what would comprise that kind of diet.

NY Times Book Review How Doctors and Patients Do Harm

Want to find out how healthy your family is eating? Take our free 4Leaf Diagnostic Survey It takes less than five minutes and you can score it yourself. After taking the survey, please give me your feedback as it will be helpful in the development of our future 4Leaf app for smartphones. Send feedback to jmorrishicks@me.com Blogging daily at hpjmh.com...from the seaside village of Stonington, Connecticut – Be well and have a great day.

—J. Morris Hicks, board member, T. Colin Campbell Foundation

Breast Cancer Stem Cells vs. Broccoli

2012-04-19T12:00:00Z

In my post The Best Detox last week, I detailed how a phytonutrient in broccoli boosts the detoxifying enzymes in the liver, but helping to clear carcinogens isn't the only way greens protect our DNA. A study of the DNA of broccoli-eaters found that eating broccoli appears to make DNA more resistant to damage, as I explore in my 1-minute video DNA Protection from Broccoli.

That was just one of several extraordinary studies published lately on cruciferous vegetables. Kale and the Immune System compares the immune system-boosting effect of cooked versus raw kale, a follow-up on my Best Cooking Methodvideo. Smoking Versus Kale Juice looks at the Japanese health fad of doing shots of kale juice. Seems kale can boost our good cholesterol, like amla and cocoa. Is there anything kale can't do?

Broccoli Versus Breast Cancer Stem Cells documents the most important study of the lot, though, exploring the role phytonutrients in certain greens play in a new theory of cancer biology, cancer stem cells, which explains why breast cancer can relapse 25 years after you thought it went away.

Sure, cruciferous vegetables produce a compound that appears to target breast cancer cells, but that's in a test tube. How do we even know we absorb broccoli phytonutrients into our bloodstream? And even if we do, how much do we have to eat to arrive at the test tube concentrations featured in the studies where it counts—in breast tissue itself? An innovative group at Johns Hopkins figured it out. They found women scheduled for breast reduction surgery, and an hour before they went into the operating room, had them drink some broccoli sprout juice. Check out my 2-minute video Sulforaphane: From Broccoli to Breast to see what they found.

Breast cancer is the leading cancer killer of young women, but lung cancer is the #1 cancer killer of women overall. In my 3-minute Lung Cancer Metastases and Broccoli I talk about some fascinating new research on the effects of broccoli on cancer cell migration, suggesting that broccoli and broccoli sprouts may decrease the metastatic potential of lung cancer.

Worried about the safety of raw sprouts? You’re probably thinking about alfalfa (Don’t Eat Raw Alfalfa Sprouts and Update on Alfalfa Sprouts). Broccoli sprouts appear much safer in terms of the risk of food poisoning (as noted in Broccoli Sprouts).

We know this family of vegetables helps prevent cancer, but once you already have cancer, what dietary changes can one make to improve survival? Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival completed my 13-video series on the latest research on cruciferous vegetables.

I previously covered a bit of the prevention side of the story in The Healthiest Vegetables. Wasn’t there some report downplaying the role of fruits and vegetables in cancer prevention, though? Watch my 2-minute take on it in EPIC Study.

Oh, and eat your greens!

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Image credit: Annie Cavanagh. Wellcome Images

Not much "health promotion" going on at VegFest

2012-04-17T11:25:35Z

Most exhibitors featured food that was just "not animals"

On a warm and sunny spring day in Worcester, Massachusetts---Dr. T. Colin Campbell was the highlight of the event as he he addressed a standing-room-only crowd at 1 p.m. He attended the show with his wife and grandson and was there primarily to promote his daughter's Whole Plant Cookbook and to continue spreading the word about plant-based nutrition.

: Dr. Campbell was a big hit at the VegFest. The man standing in the top right corner of the photo is the Holy Cross professor who invited me to speak at one of his classes in February. He reports that our book has made a big difference for him, his family and for many of his students.

Highlights of the show for the 4Leaf Team

There was great interest in our 4Leaf Survey as we administered it to about 100 people.
We sold all but two of the books that we brought with us.
Many people who had read our book stopped by our table to tell us what a difference it had made in their lives.
We added many new names to our database.
We had a chance to work together as a team for the first time---Jason, Lisa, Andrew and me.

: The authors are all set up and ready for the show. Don't miss the last photo of our youngest 4Leaf team member.

Vibrant health? Although I didn't get a chance to walk around the show, Jason told me that there were only 2 out of nearly 100 tables that were promoting vibrant health --- ours and Dr. Campbell's. Most of the exhibitors were giving away free food and none of it was 4Leaf. Catering to new vegetarians, they had lots of fake meats, cheeses, and sweets---with nary a whole plant in sight. Not animals, but not healthy either.

Meanwhile, at our table, we administered the 4Leaf Survey to a steady stream of interested people all day. Here's how they scored on our 12-question survey---with the number of people at each level listed first:

: Our 4Leaf survey estimates the % of daily calories from whole, plant-based foods.

# ----- level % of calories from whole plants
9 --- 4Leaf Over 80%
13 --- 3Leaf 60 to 79%
15 --- 2Leaf 40 to 59%
26 --- 1Leaf 20 to 39%
23 --- "BTM" 10 to 19% (Scoring "better than most")
14 --- "Unhealthy" < 10% (The "majority of Americans are in this group)

As you can see from the above, only about 25% of the people scored at 3Leaf or better on our survey. But this is much better than the scores that we would see in the real world. For example, if we surveyed 100 people at a McDonalds on a Friday night, we'd find less than 3% at those levels, if any. And we'd likely find 65% or more in the "unhealthy" category with less than 10% of their calories from whole plants.

Vegan is not necessarily healthy. I have made this statement many times---in our book, on this blog and in our speeches. And this was proven at the VegFest by a self-described "vegan" woman who took our survey. She actually tallied the lowest score of the day---reporting that she eats zero daily servings of whole fruit, vegetables, grains and legumes.

She admitted that she's not eating a very healthy diet; but she is not alone in the world of vegans and vegetarians---most are focusing primarily on what they're NOT eating. Hopefully, our survey will help her make some much-needed improvements in her diet.

Obesity at VegFest? Yes, there was a fair amount but not nearly as much as you'd see at Walmart on Saturday. And many of those obese folks are fairly new to being vegetarian and others are suffering from eating disorders. That being said, if they loaded up on all the "unhealthy" free vegan food at the event, their obesity would not improve.

Our conclusion. Even uninformed vegetarians are eating a much healthier diet than the average American. But this wasn't your average "vegetarian" crowd. Based on the throng of people trying to get into the Dr. Campbell portion of the event, my guess is that most people attended the conference primarily to see and hear Dr. Campbell. And that kind of group as a rule is going to be more knowledgeable about what constitutes a health-promoting diet.

The bottom line. For me, this was a very worth-while event. It was great to visit with people who are moving in the direction of plant-based eating---for whatever reason. So you can expect to see us at more VegFest events in the future.

Scroll down for a few more photos

: Dr. Campbell reviewing our 4Leaf Survey yesterday in Worcester--- before the VegFest began.

: This photo was taken from our table---looking across at Dr. Campbell's table on the same level.

Finally---one more photo of our youngest 4Leaf team member

: Middle grandson, Andrew (9), sitting with his "GranBuddy" just before the show began.

—J. Morris Hicks, board member, T. Colin Campbell Foundation

The Best Detox

2012-04-12T12:00:00Z

As detailed in my 3-minute video The Best Detox, there’s lots of talk these days about detoxing, but talk is cheap—our liver is actually doing it, all day, every day. If we want to detoxify our bodies, the best thing we can do is to boost our liver’s own detoxifying enzymes, and one of the most potent such inducer is a phytonutrient called sulforaphane. So where do we find this stuff? Broccoli, which produces more than any other known plant (with the silver going to kohlrabi and bronze to cauliflower; broccoli raab, on the other hand, produces about 500 times less than broccoli).

Broccoli is an exceptional source of sulforaphane, but the surprising thing is that there’s none actually in the vegetable—until you bite it. You know those chemical flares, or glow sticks, where you snap them and chemicals in two different compartments mix and set off a reaction? Broccoli does the same thing. In one part of the cell it keeps the enzyme myrosinase, and in another part it keeps something called glucoraphanin. There is no sulforaphane, which is what we want, anywhere in broccoli—not until some herbivore starts chewing on it. At that point, plant cells get crushed, the enzyme mixes with the glucoraphanin and sulforaphane is born. And the herbivore is like, "Ew, this tastes like broccoli!" and runs away. The plant uses this as a defense against nibblers and noshers. Little did broccoli count on a little lemon juice and some garlic—maybe a little tahini dressing? It’s our counterattack.

A similar enzymatic "glow stick" reaction happens in garlic. Both the enzymes in both these cases are inactivated by cooking, so there's a secret to preserving the benefits. See Sometimes the Enzyme Myth Is True for my "hack & hold" strategy (or maybe I should call it whack & wait?).

Broccoli sprouts are even healthier, and can be a cost-effective way to eat on the cheap if you make your own. That's the subject of my 2-minute video Biggest Nutrition Bang for Your Buck, in which broccoli sprouts beat out purple cabbage (Superfood Bargains) for the most one could get nutritionally for one’s money. Another good cost-saving tip can be found in Are Goji Berries Good For You?.

Can you overdo it? Yes, four cups of broccoli sprouts a day may exceed the safe dose of sulforaphane, for example. See Liver Toxicity Due to Broccoli Juice? and How Much Broccoli Is Too Much? There is also the issue of the goitrogenic compounds in raw cruciferous. See Overdosing on Greens. We can also drink too much tea (see Overdosing on Tea), eat too much of the spice turmeric (see Oxalates in Cinnamon), too much of the seaweed kelp (see Too Much Iodine Can Be As Bad As Too Little), and overdo coffee when pregnant (see Caffeine During Pregnancy). And in a nod to my Care2 post Stomach Staples or Healthy Kitchen Staples, I relate a cautionary tale of gastric bypass surgery in The Dangers of Broccoli?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

The daunting task of moving the world to plant-based

2012-04-10T11:09:21Z

Could anything be more difficult? Yes!

In an era when over 90% of us are eating some form of the typical Western diet with meat, dairy, and/or eggs three meals a day---we know that it is a daunting task to challenge that widely accepted norm. Even though we know we're right---for a plethora of reasons---it's hard to imagine anything more difficult than radically changing our eating paradigm to one that requires zero animal products.

But there is a task that would be far more difficult. Imagine for a moment that almost everyone in the world was already eating nothing but plant-based foods. That's right---the 60 billion farm animals that we used to raise for our deadly eating habits no longer exist. All of the great chefs and fine restaurants of the world are focusing 100% on plant-based dining and are written up in the Michellin and Zagat guides everywhere.

That's how things might be in 2112

: By 2112, people will have traded this "balanced" meal for fabulous plant-based dining in all the best restaurants.

Further, people everywhere are raving about the foods, they are healthy and the cost of healthcare has plummeted to record low levels---now hovering somewhere around 2% of the GDP. Gone are the days when that number soared from 5.2% in 1960 to almost 20% in the early 2000's.

The medical schools of yore have all been converted to institutions dedicated to health promotion. Most of the medical costs now are for things like prenatal services, injury repair, cosmetic surgery, etc. Screening tests for cancer are no longer needed since the incidence of that former killer disease has shrunk to near zero.

But there are a few populations in remote regions of the world that have no access to fresh plants---and they're still killing wild animals for their food. Occasionally a few tourists to those areas get a chance to dine with those people and some of those tourists found that they enjoyed eating that cooked flesh and cheese.

: If we can get the Brits to go plant-based, we can easily change the rest of the world.

Now a few of those wealthy tourists decide that it would be great to promote that way of dining in the more populated areas like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. They plan to start with the wealthiest people and ultimately roll out their plan to everyone in the world. But first they must convince their future customers that a diet of animal-based foods is a good idea.

After doing a little review of the history of the 21st century, when humankind finally came to their senses, they realize that moving back to animal-based foods would be a much more daunting task than they had imagined. A review of the historical data reveals that:

It would take between ten and twenty times more land, water and energy to feed everyone an animal based diet. And with all three in short supply, that was going to make their vision very difficult to execute.
We can expect to see well over half the population eventually die of food-driven diseases like cancer, heart disease and type-2 diabetes.
That rise in chronic disease translates into a 20-fold or 30-fold cost of health care that must ultimately be borne by the citizens---either directly or through taxation.
Now that environmental controls are in place, the production of the highly inefficient animal-based diet will more than quadruple the grocery bill of most families.
Since there wouldn't be enough land to feed the world's now 9 billion people this tasty new animal-foods diet---many new billions of people would just have to go hungry while the wealthy feasted on these fat-laden foods.
There would eventually need to be over 200 billion farm animals slaughtered per year to meet the world's appetite.
I can just hear it now, "We can raise pigs, chickens and cows on the moon and bring you gasoline for $2.50/gallon at the same time."

Who will lead this mis-directed group?

Realizing that only a fool would try to execute such a ludicrous plan, candidates for president of the United States will begin talking about growing cows, pigs and chickens on the moon, Mars, and beyond.

So lets compare our "daunting" task of 2012 with the infinitely more daunting task 100 years later...when a few lunatics try to move us back in the other direction. By comparison, let's take a look at what we have working in our favor today.

Here is what we now know in 2012:

We know that we can save much needed water, land and energy.
We know that we can eliminate 80% of our costly disease care.
We know that we can take much better care of our environment with plant-based eating: our topsoil, our trees, our climate and our water.
We know that we can easily feed 9 billion people on the 8 billion arable acres with plant-based foods.
We know that most people really do not want to ever cause any animal to suffer.

Bottom Line. We know that we are right about all of the above. And that's why our task is so much less daunting than that mis-directed group of the early 22nd century.

Blogging daily at hpjmh.com...from the seaside village of Stonington, Connecticut – Be well and have a great day.

—J. Morris Hicks, Board of Directors…

Kale, White Bean & Rosemary Soup!

2012-04-10T05:35:01Z

I went to Whole Foods and was blown away by one of their delicious “Health Starts Here” soups, whose main ingredients were kale and white beans. If you’re not familiar with the “Health Starts Here” program, it marks foods around the store – mainly in the deli – with a logo that says “Health Starts Here.” The logo means identifies foods in the store that meet the strict standards of health book authors Joel Fuhrman, MD, Rip Esselstyn, and/or John McDougall, MD. I find this program is especially useful for people who are traveling and don’t want to just eat vegan – they want to eat ultra-healthy vegan.

Since these health book authors generally advocate a vegan, very low-fat, very low-salt, very low-sugar diet, I used to worry that the “Health Starts Here” items wouldn’t be very tasty. On occasion, that’s true, but mostly they are delicious! My favorite out of all of the recipes is the White Bean and Kale Soup. I don’t have their exact recipe, but tried to make something close at home, and this definitely does the trick. Try this recipe for sure! It makes a big pot of soup, so you’ll have leftovers for a few days – and you’ll be glad that you do!

Kale, White Bean and Rosemary Soup

Ingredients:

2 Small-Medium Yellow Onions, Diced

5 Cans No-Salt White Beans (Cannellini Beans)

2 Boxes Low-Sodium Veggie Broth

1-2 T Dried Rosemary

1 Large bunch Kale (I use ¾ bag of Trader Joe’s pre-cut Kale)

Salt and Pepper to Taste

Directions:

Sauté diced onions in a few tablespoons of water for about 5 minutes. Add 3 cans of beans, 1½ boxes of veggie broth (about 6 cups) and Rosemary. Bring to a boil and then simmer for about 10 minutes. Meanwhile, but the remaining 2 cans of beans and ½ box (2 cups) of broth in a blender and blend until smooth. Add to the soup pot, along with the kale, and heat until warm. Add salt and pepper to taste.