How to Eat to Reduce Cancer Risk

AHA Publisher — Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:00:30 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – What does the best available balance of evidence say right now about what to eat and what to avoid to reduce your risk of cancer? In 1982, a landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer was released by the National Academy of Sciences. It was “the first major, institutional, science-based report on this topic.” The report started out saying that “scientists must be especially careful in their choice of words whenever they are not totally confident about their conclusions.” For example, by that time, it had become “absolutely clear” that cigarettes were killing people. “If the population been persuaded to stop smoking when the association with lung cancer was first reported, these cancer deaths would not be occurring.” If you wait for absolute certainty, millions of people could die in the meantime, which is why, sometimes, you have to invoke the precautionary principle. For example, “emphasizing fruits and vegetables to reduce the risk of several common forms of cancer.” We’re not completely sure, but there’s good evidence—and what’s the downside? “There are no disadvantages for healthy people eating more fruits and vegetables,” as I discuss in my video The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer. The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report continued: “The public is now asking about the causes of cancers that are not associated with smoking. What are these causes, and how can these cancers be avoided? Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to make firm scientific pronouncements about the association between diet and cancer. We are in an interim stage of knowledge similar to that for cigarettes 20 years ago. Therefore, in the judgment of the committee, it is now the time to offer some interim guidelines on diet and cancer.” The committee raised concern about processed meats, for example, and, 30 years later, that concern was confirmed. Processed meat was officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” Maybe if we had listened back in the early 1980s when the red flag first started waving, then we would have been spared Lunchables, about which a CEO of Philip Morris said: “One article said something like, ‘If you take Lunchables apart, the most healthy item in it is the napkin.’” The findings of this landmark 1982 diet and cancer report “generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people whose livelihood depended on foods in question and the food industry whose products were being questioned.” In fact, one of the authors of the report was “accused of ‘killing more people than those being saved,’” and there were formally organized petitions to expel the researchers from their professional societies. Indeed, “clearly a very sensitive nerve was touched.” The American Meat Science Association and other members of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology criticized the report and released “Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer: A Critique” in 1982. They agreed that perhaps lives would be saved, but argued that the recommended “reductions in meat consumption would sharply reduce incomes to the livestock and meat processing industries….The fruit and vegetable industries would clearly benefit from the expanded demand for their products if consumers were to implement the guidelines. However, fruits and vegetables account for less than 15 percent of cash receipts for U.S. agriculture.” Most of the money is in “cattle, hogs, poultry products, feed grains, and oil crops.” This reminds me of the tobacco industry memo where Philip Morris spoke of the tobacco industry going bankrupt. Maybe it’s not the meat that’s causing cancer, the industry critique continued, but all the marijuana people are smoking these days. “How then can one argue that such an abundant diet causes cancer? Or is this only some jealous attack on the goodness of our diet, like that of the Reverend Jonathan Edwards in Puritan times who condemned bear baiting, not because of the pain for the bear but because of the pleasure of the spectators.” You can’t tell us to cut down on meat, they argued, “one of mankind’s few remaining pleasures is that of the table.” The day the National Academy of Sciences’ landmark report was published was “The Day That Food Was Declared a Poison” according to Thomas Jukes, the guy who discovered you could speed up the growth of chickens by feeding them antibiotics. How dare the National Academy of Sciences recommend people eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains daily, which were said to contain “as yet unidentified compounds that may protect us against certain cancers. How can one select foods that contain unidentified compounds?…This is not a scientific recommendation; it sounds like ‘health food store’ literature.” My favorite critique, though, told us to think about the human breast. How can animal fat be bad for us if breast-feeding women create so much of it? Women are animals, and their mammary glands make fat for breast milk. Therefore, we shouldn’t have to cut down on burgers. Huh? Enough of that. What does the latest science tell us about nutrition and cancer? I’ve just talked about eating more fruits and vegetables. What are the other five recommendations that invoke the precautionary principle? Consumption of soy products may not only reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, but also increase chances of surviving it. In terms of dietary guidance suggestions on foods to cut down on, where evidence is sufficiently compelling, recommendations included “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx [throat], larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; [and] avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, the researchers are talking about all meat, including poultry and fish. Look, we all have to make dietary decisions every day and “cannot wait for the evolution of scientific consensus.” Until we know more, all we can do to protect ourselves and our families is “act on the best available evidence” we have right now. The level of evidence required to make decisions depends on the level of risk. If we’re talking about a new drug, for example, given the fact that medications kill more than a hundred thousand Americans a year—which is Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure—you want to be darn sure that the benefits outweigh the risks before you prescribe or take a drug. But what level of evidence do you need to eat broccoli? Do you need randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials? (How would you even design a placebo vegetable?) Even if all of the evidence suggesting how powerful broccoli is turned out to be some crazy cruciferous conspiracy, what’s the worst that could have happened? It’s healthy anyway! That’s the beauty of safe, simple, and side effect–free solutions provided by the lifestyle medicine approach. They can only help. I have so many more videos on diet and cancer for you. How Not to Die from Cancer may be a good place to start before you check out some more in related videos. Key Takeaways Waiting for absolute scientific certainty may result in avoidable disease and even death. For example, had no-smoking efforts taken off when the association between smoking and lung cancer was first reported, instead of waiting for the link to be “absolutely clear,” lives could have been saved. The National Academy of Sciences released a landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer in 1982, which included interim guidance. Concerns were raised about processed meats, which were confirmed three decades later. Processed meat has been officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” The 1982 report’s findings “generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people whose livelihood depended on foods in question and the food industry whose products were being questioned.” Invoking the precautionary principle, the latest science tells us to eat more fruits and vegetables, consume soy products to reduce breast cancer risk and increase chances of survival, and encourages “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; [and] avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, the researchers are talking about all meat, including poultry and fish. We don’t have to wait, nor should we wait, for scientific consensus. We can and should “act on the best available evidence” we have right now. The beauty of safe, simple, and side effect–free solutions provided by the lifestyle medicine approach is that they can only help. To read the original article click here.

The post How to Eat to Reduce Cancer Risk appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Feeling Anxious or Blue? Ultra-Processed Foods May be to Blame

AHA Publisher — Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:00:22 +0000

Florida Atlantic University via Newswise – Do you love those sugary-sweet beverages, reconstituted meat products and packaged snacks? You may want to reconsider based on a new study that explored whether individuals who consume higher amounts of ultra-processed food have more adverse mental health symptoms. Although ultra-processed foods are convenient, low cost, quick to prepare or ready-to-eat, these industrial formulations of processed food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, protein isolates) contain little or no whole food. They result from extensive ‘physical, biological, and chemical processes’ that create food products that are deficient in original and natural food. Ultra-processed foods typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers and other cosmetic additives. While there is some evidence regarding ultra-processed food consumption and depression, data are sparse regarding other adverse mental health symptoms including anxiety and mentally unhealthy days. Researchers from Florida Atlantic University’s Schmidt College of Medicine and collaborators explored a nationally representative sample of the United States population to determine if individuals who consume high amounts of ultra-processed foods report significantly more adverse mental health symptoms including depression, anxiety and mentally unhealthy days. They measured mild depression, number of mental unhealthy days and number of anxious days in 10,359 adults 18 and older from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Results of the study, published in the journal Public Health Nutrition, showed that individuals who consumed the most ultra-processed foods as compared with those who consumed the least amount had statistically significant increases in the adverse mental health symptoms of mild depression, “mentally unhealthy days” and “anxious days.” They also had significantly lower rates of reporting zero “mentally unhealthy days” and zero “anxious days.” Findings from this study are generalizable to the entire U.S. as well as other Western countries with similar ultra-processed food intakes. “The ultra-processing of food depletes its nutritional value and also increases the number of calories, as ultra-processed foods tend to be high in added sugar, saturated fat and salt, while low in protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals,” said Eric Hecht, M.D., Ph.D., corresponding author and an affiliate associate professor in FAU’s Schmidt College of Medicine. “More than 70 percent of packaged foods in the U.S. are classified as ultra-processed food and represent about 60 percent of all calories consumed by Americans. Given the magnitude of exposure to and effects of ultra-processed food consumption, our study has significant clinical and public health implications.” Researchers used the NOVA food classification for the study, which is a widely used system recently adopted by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. NOVA considers the nature, extent and purpose of food processing in order to categorize foods and beverages into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed foods. “Data from this study add important and relevant information to a growing body of evidence concerning the adverse effects of ultra-processed consumption on mental health symptoms,” said Charles H. Hennekens, M.D., Dr.PH, co-author, the first Sir Richard Doll Professor of Medicine, and senior academic advisor, FAU Schmidt College of Medicine. “Analytic epidemiologic research is needed to test the many hypotheses formulated from these descriptive data.” According to the National Institute of Mental Health, nearly 1 in 5 adults live with a mental illness. Mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety, are leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality. To read the original article click here.

The post Feeling Anxious or Blue? Ultra-Processed Foods May be to Blame appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

reconstituted meat Archives - Amazing Health Advances

How to Eat to Reduce Cancer Risk

Feeling Anxious or Blue? Ultra-Processed Foods May be to Blame