Marc Joseph Nutrition - Blog

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers found that mice missing a key prostate cancer tumor suppressor gene were much more likely to survive with a high omega-3 fat, low omega-6 fat diet.

Specifically, survival rates in the study were:

• 60% for the mice fed a high omega-3 fat diet (1-to-1 omega-6 to omega-3 fat ratio)
• 10% for the mice fed a low omega-3 fat diet (20-to-1 omega-6 to omega-3 fat ratio)
• 0% for the mice fed a high omega-6 fat diet (40-to-1 omega-6 to omega-3 fat ratio)

In addition to improving survival times, omega-3 fatty acids slowed both the progression of cancer cell formation and tumor growth.

As one of the study’s co-authors notes, the implications are significant:

“This suggests that if you have good genes, it may not matter too much what you eat,” said Chen, a professor of cancer biology. “But if you have a gene that makes you susceptible to prostate cancer, your diet can tip the balance. Our data demonstrate the importance of gene-diet interactions, and that genetic cancer risk can be modified favorable by omega-3 PUFA.”

The bad news: The tumor suppressor gene absent in the mice in this study is estimated to be missing in 60% to 70% of human metastatic cancers. So, counting on good genes may not be a good bet.

The good news: Since prostate cancer cells are typically slow-growing, improving the omega-3 / omega-6 fat intake balance is one factor that may play an important role in determining whether one ultimately develops the disease.

Possible Mechanism

As discussed in an earlier post, a higher omega-3 / omega-6 fat intake tends to promote the production of anti-inflammatory immune system modulators (e.g., prostaglandin PGE-3), while a high omega-6 / omega-3 fat intake tends to promote the production of pro-inflammatory substances (e.g., prostaglandin PGE-2 and cytokines IL-6 and TNF-alpha).

(more…)

A large phone survey, commissioned by the non-profit Generation Rescue (GR) and conducted by independent opinion research firm Survey USA, found that, relative to unvaccinated boys, vaccinated boys were 2.5 times more likely to have a neurological disorder such as ADHD or autism.

The survey queried 11,817 households in Oregon and California, and gathered data on 17,674 children ages 4 to 17, including 9,175 boys and 8,499 girls. The survey method closely paralleled the approach and age ranges that the CDC has used to identify national prevalence rates for neurological disorders.

Survey Results

Significant relationships between vaccinations and neurological disorders (NDs) were found only in boys, which, as GR notes, is not too surprising, given that boys represent 80% of all ND cases.

Here are a few of the survey’s amazing findings:

A. All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:
- Were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder
- Were 224% more likely to have ADHD
- Were 61% more likely to have autism

B. Older vaccinated boys, ages 11-17, compared to older unvaccinated boys:
- Were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder
- Were 317% more likely to have ADHD
- Were 112% more likely to have autism

(GR notes: “Older children may be a more reliable indicator because many children are not diagnosed until they are 6-8 years old, and we captured data beginning at age 4.”)

C. All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results, compared to unvaccinated boys:
- Were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder
- Were 279% more likely to have ADHD
- Were 146% more likely to have autism

Also, all vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma than their unvaccinated peers.

Call for Larger Scale Study

(more…)

In a market-basket survey published in Environmental Science & Technology, researchers found that arsenic levels in U.S. rice varied significantly by region.

Specifically, rice grown in the south central U.S. (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, & Missouri) was on average 41% higher in arsenic than rice grown in California (0.27 mcg/g verus 0.16 mcg/g).

The scientists hypothesized that the higher level of arsenic found in south central U.S. rice could be attributed to the arsenic-containing pesticides previously used on the cotton fields that are now used for growing rice. Industry is currently trying to develop strains of rice that take up less arsenic from the soil.

Assessing Risk

Presently the government sets no maximum contaminant level for arsenic in food. The EPA has set a 10 mcg per liter limit for inorganic arsenic in drinking water.

The average consumption of rice in the U.S. is 25 grams per day. However, some ethnic groups, as well as people pursuing a gluten-free diet (e.g., individuals with Celiac diesease or on the autistic spectrum), may eat much more, and thus may be at risk for higher arsenic exposure. Also, as the researchers note, young children tend to eat much larger portions of rice relative to their small size.

Previous studies suggest that the percentage of inorganic arsenic (the most toxic form) found in U.S. rice varies widely, from 10% to 70% of the total arsenic in the rice. A person eating an average rice portion size of 100 grams with an arsenic content of 0.3 mcg/g would ingest 30 mcg of arsenic. If 50% of that arsenic were inorganic, total dietary exposure from rice alone would be 15 mcg, exceeding the EPA limit for a liter of water.

(more…)

Last month, I wrote a post questioning the conclusions of a poorly designed National Cancer Institute study that suggested taking “excessive” multivitamins could increase your risk for prostate cancer.

More recently, the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) put together an even more damning and detailed critique of the study’s results that raises other excellent points worth considering:

1. Study participants may have been mis-classified.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the study used self-reported food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) to ask study participants about prior supplement usage. FFQs are subject to significant error, as participants may over- or under-report supplement use.

As LEF notes:

Questionnaire-based information collection is limited in accuracy to the memory recall of the study subjects. The majority of people cannot recall what they ate for breakfast one week ago, or which shirt they wore to work two weeks ago, or how many gallons of gas they purchased during their last trip to the gas station, never mind specific doses and frequency of use of a myriad of dietary supplements months or years ago.

But it gets better when we learn what the researchers actually did in this case:

In this government-funded study bashing multivitamins, the researchers had the audacity to place each subject who stated they did not know how much vitamin E they took into the 400 IU a day category. This means when the results where tabulated to see if multivitamin use was associated with prostate cancer risk, men who may or may not have taken any vitamin E were deemed to have taken 400 IU a day.

Men who reported taking even one multivitamin supplement a month were recorded as taking a multivitamin every single day. This meant that when the data was tabulated, those who may have taken as few as twelve multivitamin supplements a year where considered to have taken a multivitamin each day.

If one were designing a study to make it impossible to conclude anything meaningful from the results, this would be a good way to do it.

(more…)

5 billion pounds.

That’s the estimated collective amount Americans are overweight.

Recently, there was an interesting Time magazine cover story that discussed the science of appetite and asked:

Just why is our appetite so powerful a driver of our behavior, and, more important, how can we bring it to heel?

These are difficult questions to answer, as there are many factors that can influence appetite, including “taste, smell, sight, texture, brain chemistry, gut chemistry, metabolism and, most confounding of all, psychology.”

The article discusses several of these factors in more depth, including how:

We’re programmed to eat to excess to store energy.

“We were hardwired to eat and eat—and particularly eat fatty foods because we didn’t get them often,” says Sharman Apt Russell, author of Hunger: An Unnatural History. We’re programmed not only to overeat but also to fail to recognize immediately just when we’ve reached that point. Mothers tell kids not to wolf their food because it’s harder to enjoy it that way and also because even after you’ve had enough, it can take a while for your brain to get the message. By the time it does, you’re not just full; you’re stuffed. “The people who didn’t immediately lose their appetites, who could gorge themselves and keep going, those people would survive longer during the next famine,” says Dr. Jeffrey Flier, obesity scientist and professor at Harvard Medical School.

The wide availability of inexpensive, high-calorie foods feeds directly into this historical tendency and contributes to a greater risk for obesity.

(more…)

There have certainly been many questionable articles dismissing the suspected vaccine-autism connection, but the San Francisco Chronicle opinion-piece (The Truth About Autism) written by Kaiser Permanente pediatrician Dr. Rahul K. Parikh is probably one of the more egregious in its twisting of the truth.

Parikh begins by discussing one of his patients:

“Since learning of her son’s diagnosis, Andy’s mother had been vigilant. In her research, which she presented to me in a binder, she was positive about two things:

First, Andy was part of an epidemic of autism that has afflicted kids during the past 20 years. Second, the routine, life-saving vaccines that Andy had received during the first two years of his life had at least contributed to — if not been — the cause of his illness.

On both of these issues, nothing could have been further from the truth.”

One would think such a bold statement denying a vaccine-autism link would be followed by strong supporting evidence. However, Parikh fails to provide that.

Instead, Parikh says:

“The increase in autism cases is due to a better understanding of the disorder and its prevalence.”

Parikh goes on to provide nothing but subjective reasoning to support this claim:

• There is “more professional and public awareness.”
• Kids previously classified as mentally retarded or developmentally disabled are now classified as autistic.
• There is greater incentive to diagnose kids with these disorders because kids diagnosed on the autistic spectrum qualify for state aid.

Question:

If the increase is just a case of better diagnosis, where are all the 40 year-old autistic people? If there has been no change in the rate of autism, there should be millions of autistic older adults.

And, yet, there aren’t.

(more…)

A review article published in the peer-reviewed journal Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine summarizes the impact of heavy metals mercury and cadmium on the vascular system.

The overall vascular effects of mercury include oxidative stress, inflammation, thrombosis, vascular smooth muscle dysfunction, endothelial dysfunction, dyslipidemia [high LDL cholesterol, low HDL, high triglycerides], immune dysfunction, and mitochondrial dysfunction. The clinical consequences of mercury toxicity include hypertension, CHD [coronary heart disease], MI [myocardial infarction], increased carotid IMT and obstruction, CVA, generalized atherosclerosis, and renal dysfunction with proteinuria …

… Cadmium concentrates in the kidney, particularly inducing proteinuria and renal dysfunction; it is associated with hypertension, but less so with CHD. Renal cadmium reduces CYP4A11 and PPARs, which may be related to hypertension, sodium retention, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, and zinc deficiency.

More on Mechanisms

There are several primary ways in which heavy metal exposure may increase the risk for vascular disease:

Increased Oxidative Stress - Mercury and cadmium have high affinity for molecules that contain sulfhydryl groups (-SH), including several sulfur-containing antioxidants, such as N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), alpha-lipoic acid, and glutathione. As a result, when the body is exposed to these heavy metals, antioxidant function is compromised and oxidative stress increases.

(more…)

Several recent articles drive home two key trends that are unlikely to change direction any time soon:

1. Health care costs continue to spiral upward.
2. More of these costs are being borne by individuals (you).

Runaway Costs

The first article (Health Care as if Costs Didn’t Matter) in the NY Times, highlights the large differences in care depending on geographic location.

In Idaho Falls, Idaho, anyone suffering from the sort of lower back pain that may conceivably be helped by the fusing of two vertebrae is quite likely to have the surgery. It’s known as lumbar fusion, and the rate at which it is performed in Idaho Falls is almost five times the national average. The rate in Idaho Falls is 20 times that in Bangor, Me., where lumbar fusion is less common than anywhere else …

… But it’s not clear that their patients are any better off. The evidence for lumbar fusion is incredibly mixed. It seems to help people with certain kinds of pain, but many others recover just as well without the surgery. Of course, doctors are almost always better off if the surgery is done: The typical hospital bill for lumbar fusion is roughly $50,000.

This is about as good an example as you can find of the health care mess. The number of lumbar fusions performed in this country has more than tripled since the early 1990s, and Medicare now spends more than $600 million a year on the procedure. It’s one reason your health insurance bill has gone up.

The article’s author notes that the call for universal health care may be a good idea, but that without dealing with the key cost driver (increasing usage of the system, especially expensive procedures), such an approach will be infeasible.

If we are really at the start of a once-in-a-generation push to fix health care, we need to be clear about the true problem. The main reason so many people lack health insurance is because of its cost. And a big reason for that cost is the explosion of expensive, medically questionable care, be it knee replacement, preventive angioplasty or lumbar fusion. The route to an affordable health insurance solution runs straight through this thicket.

Several individuals, including politicians on both the left and right and even the head of the Congressional Budget Office, have suggested that a cost-effectiveness institute needs to be established to figure out which kind of health care services really work.

(more…)

As reported in The Huffington Post by David Kirby, journalist and author of the book Evidence of Harm, today marks the start of a key event in the vaccine-autism debate:

On Monday, one of the most important legal proceedings in American medical history will get underway at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington. There, a special panel of three judges will begin hearing evidence to support — and refute — the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines and/or the live-virus measles-mumps-rubella [MMR] shot caused autism or autism-like symptoms in some American children.

Monday will mark the first time ever that evidence of autistic harm from childhood vaccines is examined and cross-examined in a court of law. This is far from a slam dunk case for either side, and the stakes - professional, financial, emotional — could not be more intense.

The case being heard beginning today (Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is the first test case selected from over 4800 autism claims filed with the federal claims court (aka the Vaccine Court). Any decisions in the case will likely affect future guidance for other Vaccine Court and autism cases around the country.

The Stakes

Back in 1986, a vaccine compensation system was developed by Congress to limit the liability of vaccine manufacturers. A 75-cent tax has been levied on each vaccination shot and put in a compensation fund, which currently totals $2.5 billion.

(more…)

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the cancer-vitamin D link and highlighted an excerpt from an article that hinted at the pending release of a study with extremely promising findings:

[P]erhaps the biggest bombshell about vitamin D’s effects is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-percent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn’t take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error.

Well, the paper has just been published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. And the results are nothing short of spectacular.

In the double-blind, placebo-controlled study, researchers randomly assigned postmenopausal women (age >55) to receive either 1400-1500 mg of calcium alone (Ca), the calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3 (Ca+D), or a placebo.

(more…)