The overall cost-benefit ratio for mycotoxins depends on which food is contaminated.

Ochratoxin has been described as toxic to the immune system, developing fetus, kidneys, and nervous system, as well as being carcinogenic, but that is in animal studies. Ochratoxin “causes kidney toxicity in certain animal species, but there is little documented evidence of adverse effects in humans.” That’s why it’s only considered a possible human carcinogen.

Big Ag assures that current ochratoxin levels are safe, even among those who eat a lot of contaminated foods. The worst-case scenario may be young children eating a lot of oat-based cereals, but, even then, “their lifetime cancer risk is negligible.” Individuals arguing against regulatory standards suggest we can eat more than 42 cups of oatmeal a day and not worry about it. Where do they get these kinds of estimates?

They determine the so-called benchmark dose in animals—the dose of the toxin that gives a 10% increase in pathology—then, because one would want to err on the side of caution, divide that dose by 500 as a kind of safety fudge factor to develop the tolerable daily intake. For cancer risk, you can find the tumor dose—the dose that increases tumor incidence in lab animals by 5%—and extrapolate down to the ”negligible cancer risk intake,” effectively incorporating a 5,000-fold safety factor, as seen below and at 1:28 in my video Should We Be Concerned About the Effects of Ochratoxin?.

It seems kind of arbitrary, right? But what else are you going to do? You can’t just intentionally feed people the stuff and see what happens—but people eat it regularly. Can we just follow people and their diets over time and see if those who eat more whole grains, like oats, for example, are more likely to have cancer or live shorter lives?

What is the association between whole grain intake and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality? Every additional ounce of whole grains eaten a day is associated with not only a lower risk for cancer mortality but also a lower risk of dying from all causes put together. Below and at 2:05 in my video are findings from all the big cancer studies. Every single one trended towards lower cancer risk.

The bottom line is that you don’t find adverse effects confirmed in these population studies. This is not to say ochratoxin is necessarily harmless, but “any such risk does not outweigh the known benefits of wholegrain consumption.” In fact, healthy constituents of the whole grains themselves, like their antioxidants, may directly reduce the impacts of mycotoxins by protecting cells from damage. So, eating lots of fruits and vegetables may also help. Either way, “an overall healthy diet can play a significant role in mitigating the risk of contaminants in grain.”

In summary, healthy foods like whole grains are good, but just not as good as they could be because of ochratoxin, whereas less healthful foods, like wine and pork, are worse because of the mycotoxin, as shown below and at 2:52 in my video. Ochratoxin was detected, for example, in 44% of tested pork.

Doctor’s Note

This is the third video in a four-part series on mold toxins. If you missed the first two, see Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals and Friday Favorites: Ochratoxin and Breakfast Cereals, Herbs, Spices, and Wine.

Should We Be Concerned About Aflatoxin? is coming up next.

from NutritionFacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/are-the-effects-of-ochratoxin-concerning/
via IFTTT

Most crops are contaminated with fungal mycotoxins, but some foods are worse than others.

Oats can be thought of as “uniquely nutritious.” One route by which they improve human health is by providing prebiotics that “increase the growth of beneficial gut microbiota.” There are all manner of oats, ranging from steel-cut oats to, even better, intact oat groats (their form before being cut), all the way down to highly processed cereals, like Honey Nut Cheerios.

“Rolling crushes the grain, which may disrupt cell walls and damage starch granules, making them more available for digestion.” This is bad because we want the starch to make it all the way down to our colon to feed our good gut bacteria. Grinding oats into oat flour to make breakfast cereals is even worse. When you compare blood sugar and insulin responses, you can see significantly lower spikes with the more intact steel-cut oats, as shown below and at 0:54 in my video Ochratoxin in Certain Herbs, Spices, and Wine.

What about ochratoxin? As seen here and at 1:01 in my video, oats are the leading source of dietary exposure to this mold contaminant, but they aren’t the only source.

There is a global contamination of food crops with mycotoxins, with some experts estimating as much as 25% of the world’s crops being affected. That statistic is attributed to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, but it turns out the stat is bogus. It isn’t 25%. Instead, it may be more like 60% to 80%. “The high occurrence is likely explained by a combination of the improved sensitivity of analytical [testing] methods and the impact of climate change.”

Spices have been found to have some of the highest concentrations of mycotoxins, but because they are ingested in such small quantities, they aren’t considered to be a significant source. We can certainly do our part to minimize our risk, though. For instance, we should keep spices dry after opening sealed containers or packages.

What about dried herbs? In “Mycotoxins in Plant-Based Dietary Supplements: Hidden Health Risk for Consumers,” researchers found that milk thistle–based supplements had the highest mycotoxin concentrations. It turns out that humid, wet weather is needed during milk thistle harvest, which is evidently why they get so moldy. “Considering the fact that milk thistle preparations are mainly used by people who suffer from liver disease,” such a high intake of compounds toxic to the liver may present some concern.

Wine sourced from the United States also appears to have particularly high levels. In fact, the single highest level found to date around the world is in a U.S. wine, but there’s contamination in wine in general. In fact, some suggest that’s why we see such consistent levels in people’s blood—perhaps because a lot of people are regular wine drinkers.

Ochratoxin is said to be a kidney toxin with immunosuppressive, birth defect–causing, and carcinogenic properties. So, what about ochratoxin decontamination in wine? That is, removing the toxin? Ideally, we’d try to prevent the contamination in the first place, but since this isn’t always practical, there is increased focus on finding effective methods of detoxification of mycotoxins already present in foods. This is where yeast enters as “a promising and friendly solution,” because the mycotoxins bind to the yeast cell wall. The thought is that we could strain out the yeast. Another approach is to eat something like nutritional yeast to prevent the absorption.

It works in chickens. Give yeast along with aflatoxin (another mycotoxin), and the severity of the resulting disease is diminished. However, using something like nutritional yeast as a binder “depends on stability of the yeast-mycotoxin complex through the passage of the gastrointestinal tract.” We know yeasts can remove ochratoxin in foods, but we didn’t have a clue if it would work in the gut until 2016. Yeast was found to bind up to 44% of the ochratoxin, but, in actuality, it was probably closer to only about a third, since some of the bindings weren’t stable. So, if you’re trying to stay under the maximum daily intake and you drink a single glass of wine, even if your bar snack is popcorn seasoned with nutritional yeast, you’d still probably exceed the tolerable intake. But what does that mean? How bad is this ochratoxin? We’ll find out next.

Doctor’s Note

This is the second video in a four-part series on mold toxins. The first one was Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals.

Stay tuned for Should We Be Concerned About the Effects of Ochratoxin? and Should We Be Concerned About Aflatoxin?. You can also check: Friday Favorites: Should We Be Concerned About Ochratoxin and Aflatoxin?.

from NutritionFacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/mold-toxins-in-cereals-herbs-spices-and-wine/
via IFTTT

Ever since the days of Hippocrates, 2,400 years ago, fasting has been offered as a treatment for acute and chronic diseases, based on the observation that when people get sick they frequently lose their appetite.

Along with fever, decreased food consumption is one of the most common signs of infection. Often regarded as an undesirable manifestation of sickness, it’s actually an active, beneficial defense mechanism. As I discuss in my video Fasting for Cancer: What about Cachexia, chronic under-nutrition can impair our defenses, but data suggest that, in the short-term, immune function can be enhanced by lowering food intake.

Researchers have shown that the blood from starved mice was nearly eight times better at killing off the invading bacteria in a petri dish, dramatically boosting the capacity of their white blood cells to kill off the pathogens. What about people? And what about cancer?

 

Does Fasting Help Our Natural Killer Cells Fight Cancer Cells?

When study participants fasted for two weeks on an 80-calorie-a-day diet, not only did their white blood cells show the same kind of boost in bacteria-killing ability and antibody production, but their natural killer cell activity increased by an average of 24%. This is especially interesting because our natural killer cells don’t just help clear infections, but they also kill cancer cells. In fact, that’s how the researchers measured natural killer cell activity; they pitted them against K562 cells, which are human leukemia cells.

Fasting is said to improve anticancer immunosurveillance, or, more poetically, by “stimulating the appetite of the immune system for cancer.” So, why isn’t fasting used more to treat cancer? Because so much about cancer care revolves around keeping people’s weight up to try to counteract the cancer-wasting syndrome.

 

What Causes Cancer Cachexia?

Until recently, fasting therapy was not considered to be a treatment option in cancer, related to the fact that a common therapeutic goal in palliative cancer treatment is to avoid weight loss and counteract the wasting syndrome known as cachexia, which is the ultimate cause of death in many cancer cases.

Tumors are voracious, rapidly expanding and in need of a lot of energy and protein, so cancer metabolically reprograms the body to start breaking down to feed its tumors. It does this by triggering inflammation throughout the body. It’s not just that people lose their appetite. “The fundamental difference between the weight loss observed in CC [cancer cachexia] and that seen in simple starvation is the lack of reversibility with feeding alone.”

Therapeutic nutritional interventions to correct or reverse cachexia frequently fail. The best treatment for cancer cachexia, therefore, is to treat the cause and cure the cancer. In fact, maybe forcing extra nutrition on cancer patients could be playing right into the tumor’s hands. Like in pregnancy when the fetus gets first dibs on nutrients even at the mother’s expense, the tumor may be first in the feeding line. Maybe our loss of appetite when we get cancer is even a protective response.

 

Is Chemotherapy Enough?

As I discuss in my video Fasting Before and After Chemotherapy and Radiation, for the past 50 years, chemotherapy has been a major medical treatment for a wide range of cancers. Its main strategy has been largely based on targeting cancer cells, by means of DNA damage caused in part by the production of free radicals. Although these drugs were first believed to be very selective for tumor cells, we eventually learned that normal cells also experience severe chemotherapy-dependent damage, which can lead to dose-limiting side effects, including bone marrow and immune system suppression, fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, and in some cases, even death.

If you do survive chemotherapy, the DNA damage to normal cells can even lead to new cancers down the road. There are cell-protecting drugs that have been tried to reduce the side effects so you can pump in higher chemo doses, but these drugs have not been shown to increase survival––in part because they may also be protecting the cancer cells. What about instead fasting for cellular protection during cancer treatment?

 

Fasting and Chemotherapy

Many may not recognize the role fasting can play in cancer prevention and treatment. Short-term fasting before and immediately after chemotherapy may minimize side effects, while, at the same time, it may actually make cancer cells more sensitive to treatment. That’s exciting! 

During deprivation, healthy cells switch from growth to maintenance and repair, but tumor cells are unable to slow down their unbridled growth, due to growth-promoting mutations that led them to become cancer cells in the first place. This inability to adapt to starvation may represent an important Achilles’ heel for many types of cancer cells.

As a consequence of these differential responses of healthy cells versus cancer cells to short-term fasting, chemotherapy causes more DNA damage and cell suicide in tumor cells, while potentially leaving healthy cells unharmed. Thus, short-term fasting may protect healthy cells against the toxic assault of chemotherapy and cause tumor cells to be more sensitive––or at least that’s the theory.

Researchers found that, in rodents, fasting alone appears to work as well as chemotherapy. What’s more, unbridled tumor growth was also knocked down by radiation therapy—and even more so after the combination of radiation and alternate-day fasting. However, alternate-day fasting alone seemed to do as well as radiation. These data are exciting, but for mice with breast cancer. What about people?

 

Fasting Put to the Test Against Cancers

As I discuss in my video Fasting Before and After Chemotherapy Put to the Test, several patients diagnosed with a wide variety of cancers elected to undertake fasting prior to chemotherapy and share their experiences. They reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting and felt better across the board, with zero vomiting. The weight lost during the few days of fasting was quickly recovered by most of the patients and did not lead to any discernable harm. So, overall, fasting under care seems safe and potentially able to ameliorate side effects.

In a randomized clinical study, breast and ovarian cancer patients fasted from 36 hours before chemotherapy until 24 hours after, and fasting did appear to improve quality of life and fatigue. However, another study found no such beneficial effects. There did appear to perhaps be less bone marrow toxicity, given the higher counts of red blood cells and platelet-making cells. But no benefit when it came to saving white blood cells—the immune system cells—so that was a disappointment. Perhaps they didn’t fast long enough?

A systematic review of 22 studies found that, overall, fasting may not only reduce chemotherapy side effects (like organ damage, immune suppression, and chemotherapy-induced death), but it may also suppress tumor progression, including tumor growth and metastasis, resulting in improved survival. But, nearly all the studies were on mice and dogs. The studies on humans were limited to evaluating safety and side effects. The tumor-suppression effects of fasting––for example, its influence on tumor growth, metastasis and prognosis––sadly, were not evaluated.

 

Does Fasting Make Chemo More Effective?

As I discuss in my video Fasting-Mimicking Diet Before and After Chemotherapy, short-term food withdrawal during chemotherapy may begin to solve the long-standing problem with most cancer treatments: how to kill the tumor without killing the patient. Short-term fasting––for example, for 48 hours before chemo and 24 hours afterwards––may reduce side effects, so-called “chemotherapy-induced toxicity.” However, the potential tumor-suppressing effects of fasting have still not been thoroughly evaluated.

Some argue that reducing chemo’s side effects alone could improve efficacy, since patients could withstand higher doses. For example, the heart and kidney damage associated with the widely prescribed anti-cancer drugs limit their full therapeutic potential. It’s not clear, though, that maximizing the tolerated chemo dose would achieve longer survival or better quality of life. For now, I think we should just be satisfied with the fewer side effects for fewer side effects’ sake.

 

How Does Fasting Work?

Fasting can reduce the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer-promoting growth hormone. The reduced levels of IGF-1 mediate the differential protection of normal cells and cancer cells in response to fasting and improve chemo’s ability to kill cancer but spare normal cells.

So, reducing IGF-1 signaling may provide dual benefits by protecting normal tissues while reducing tumor progression. It may even help prevent the cancer in the first place. But fasting isn’t the only way to drop IGF-1 levels: A few days of fasting can cut levels in half, but that’s largely because protein intake is being cut. Protein is a key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans––suggesting that “reduced protein intake may become an important component of anticancer and antiaging dietary interventions,” particularly a reduction in animal protein.

 

Lowering Protein Intake to Lower IGF-1

If you compare those who eat strictly plant-based diets and get about the recommended daily intake of protein (0.8 grams per kg of body weight) to individuals who are just as slender but consume the higher amount of protein more typical to Americans, going on a calorie-restricted diet may lower IGF-1 a little, but eating a plant-based diet can lower it even more than going low calorie. 

So, not only may a diet centered around whole plant foods down-regulate IGF-1 activity, potentially slowing the aging process, but it may be a way of turning anti-aging genes against cancer.

from NutritionFacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/the-effects-of-fasting-on-cancer/
via IFTTT

One of the few food contaminants found at higher levels in those eating plant-based diets are mycotoxins, fungal toxins in moldy food ingredients, such as oats.

In France, exposure to dietary contaminants was compared between vegetarians and meat-eaters, and the results showed that exposures to persistent organic pollutants like PCBs and dioxins were dramatically lower among those eating more plant-based foods. This was due to their avoidance of foods of animal origin, though they did have higher estimated exposure to some mycotoxins, fungal toxins present in moldy food.

There are many types of mold on the planet, possibly millions, and the vast majority are harmless. However, over the last several years, certain mold toxins, such as aflatoxin and ochratoxin, have been popping up in breakfast cereals. Hundreds of samples were taken off store shelves, and about half were found to be contaminated with ochratoxin, but those store shelves were in Pakistan, which has a sub-tropical climate with monsoons and flash floods, leading to fungal propagation. Similar results have since popped up in Europe, in Serbia, for instance. They’ve also been found in Spain and seen in Portugal. Then, mycotoxins were discovered in breakfast cereals in Canada. What about breakfast cereals sold in the United States?

Researchers collected 144 samples and, similar to other countries, found that about half contained ochratoxin, but only about 7% exceeded the maximum limit established by the European Commission. What is the significance of finding ochratoxin in U.S. breakfast cereals? In the largest study to date, which included nearly 500 samples of cereal off store shelves across the United States, overall detection rates were about 40%, though only 16 of the samples violated the European standards. All the cereals with ochratoxin were oat-based; however, about 1 in 13 of the oat-based cereal samples tested were contaminated.

Ochratoxin has become increasingly regulated by many countries to minimize chronic exposure. Shown below and at 2:23 in my video Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals are the current regulations for mycotoxins in cereal-based baby foods, for example, worldwide.

Some countries are very strict, like in the European Union; other countries are less so, and one country in particular has no standards at all. Ochratoxin is not currently regulated at all in the United States.

What about sticking to organic products? One might expect them to be worse due to the fact that fungicides are not allowed in organic production. However, “mycotoxin concentrations are usually similar or reduced in organic compared with conventional products.” For example, in one of the breakfast cereal studies, researchers found similar contamination, and the same was found for infant foods. It cannot be concluded that organic is better than conventional from a mycotoxin perspective. “Despite no use of fungicides, an organic system appears generally able to maintain mycotoxin contamination at low levels.” But how much is that saying, given how widespread it is? How concerned should we be about the public health effects from “long-term exposure to this potent mycotoxin”?

If you look at blood samples taken from populations going back decades, sometimes 100% of people turn up positive for ochratoxin circulating in their bloodstream. In some sense, mycotoxins “are unavoidable contaminants of food,” since they are not easy to detect and many of them can remain hidden. And, once foods have become contaminated, mycotoxins aren’t destroyed by cooking. So, are there some foods we should simply try to avoid due to a higher risk of contamination? That’s exactly the question I’m going to address next.

Doctor’s Note

This is the first video in a four-part series on mold toxins. Check related posts below for the other three.

from NutritionFacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/fungal-toxins-for-breakfast/
via IFTTT

How might we moderate the rare but very real risk of headbanging?

If you search for heavy metal in the National Library of Medicine database, most of what you find is on heavy metal contamination in fish, which “makes it difficult to establish clearly the role of fish consumption on a healthy diet” and perhaps helps to explain the quintupling of odds of autoimmune diseases, such as juvenile arthritis. But searching for the hazards of heavy metal also pops up entries on the “risks from heavy metal music.” In this study, researchers were talking about traumatic injuries from slamming around “during a moshing session,” but you’re more likely to get injured at an alternative rock concert. (Check out some of the artists below and at 0:50 in my video The Dangerous Effects of Heavy Metal Music.)

Certainly, music-induced hearing loss is a serious problem, but that can result from any loud music. Clinical recommendations include the “80–90 rule”—no more than 80% of the maximum volume on personal listening devices for no more than 90 minutes a day. That’s not what the science shows, however. “Do not exceed 60% of the maximum volume” may be more evidence-based, but researchers figure teens would just ignore that, so they came up with more “acceptable” advice.

I assumed I’d see a lot of satanic panic nonsense from the 1980s, when “parents bereaved by suicide…accused Heavy Metal groups of promoting suicidal behaviours and…proceeded to sue musicians.” What kind of evidence did the parents present? There has been “little scholarly research” published until the “The Heavy Metal Subculture and Suicide” paper that tried to correlate the number of statewide heavy metal magazine subscriptions to youth suicide rates. Seriously?

It got really wild, though, when researchers called psychiatric institutions, pretending to be parents worried because their son started listening to heavy metal music, even though they made it clear that their son didn’t exhibit any symptoms of mental illness, didn’t do drugs or drink alcohol, and was doing fine at school. Ten of the twelve facilities believed the son required psychiatric hospitalization. Imagine what that would do to a kid! Researchers found that, decades later, metalheads “were significantly happier in their youth and better adjusted” than their peers.

Some studies were strange. Do Parkinson’s patients walk better listening to The Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine” or Metallica’s “Master of Puppets”? (See below and at 2:32 in my video.)

Others were pretty nondescript. Heavy metal musicians exhibit a higher heart rate than those performing “contemporary Christian,” which isn’t so surprising, as you can see  here and at 2:40.

Some others were kind of cute, like one that investigated the influence of music on promoting patient safety during surgery—veterinary patients, that is. Kittens got spayed with little earphones on their heads. It turns out that “Adagio for Strings” may be more relaxing than AC/DC.

A review on music therapy for human patients warned: “Caution should be exercised…when guiding patients in selecting their music. ‘Chaotic music, such us [sic] hip-hop and metal, is not healing to human cells.’” That even had three citations, though two of them don’t say anything and the third is a nursing newsletter merely quoting someone’s opinion. I did some digging, and it turns out that stomach cancer cells like metal. If you play them Cannibal Corpse versus Beethoven, 12 hours of death metal increases their growth in a petri dish, as you can see below and at 3:28 in my video. (That’s so metal.)

But who puts headphones on their stomach? Or their chests, for that matter? In one study, Mozart killed off one type of breast cancer cell line but not another; in another study, only Beethoven’s 5th Symphony seemed to work, and Mozart flopped when the petri dishes were surrounded by speakers. How does this stuff even get published?

Anyway, the true danger from heavy metal is headbanging. “Headbanging is a contemporary dance form consisting of abrupt flexion–extension movements of the head to the rhythm of rock music, most commonly seen in the heavy metal genre.” Although the “number of avid aficionados is unknown…some fans might be endangered by indulging excessive headbanging.” Despite headbanging generally being “considered harmless,” several health complications have been attributed to this practice, including ripping your carotid artery, rupturing your lung, whiplash injury, neck fracture, or subdural hematoma. One man reported headbanging at a Motörhead concert, and all that “brisk forward and backward acceleration and deceleration forces” might have ruptured his bridging veins and caused him to bleed into his skull.

As shown here and at 4:47 in my video, bridging veins bridge the gap between the brain and the covering that lines the inside of our skull, and if the veins tear, blood can build up under our skull and compress our brain.

This bridging vein rupture has been demonstrated on headbanging cadavers (another very metal study). See below and at 5:02 in my video. It’s been likened to a “pseudo shaken-baby syndrome” in adults.

The researchers conclude that their “case serves as evidence in support of Motörhead’s reputation as one of the most hardcore rock’n’roll acts on earth,” but I think the real takeaway is that a potentially dangerous complication like subdural hematoma can result from “a seemingly benign activity like head banging.” And some of the brain bleeds can be massive. One man complained of a “headache after headbanging at a party.” Why? As you can see in his CT scan below and at 5:35, circled in red is all blood, squishing over his brain. Amazingly, he survived; another man didn’t, headbanging and losing his life to a fatal subdural hemorrhage.

We can tear more than just veins. There are two sets of arteries that tunnel into the skull—the carotid arteries in the front and the vertebral arteries in the back—and we can tear both sets. A 15-year-old boy “indulged in headbanging” and ripped his carotid artery, which led to a massive stroke. He presented as half-paralyzed and unable to speak, and he died in a coma within a week.

What about the vertebral arteries in the back? They’re wedged into our skull, rendering them susceptible to shearing forces from extremes of neck motion, and that’s exactly what appeared to happen when a heavy metal drummer tore the wall of the artery. All of this is really rare, probably afflicting less than one in a thousand or so. What can metalheads do to reduce their risk? “To prevent injury due to such head-banging, the range of head and neck motion should be reduced, slower-tempo music should replace heavy metal rock, the frequency of head-banging should be only on every second beat, or personal protective equipment should be used”—like a neck brace?

“Little formal injury research has been conducted on the worldwide phenomenon of head banging,” so researchers constructed “a theoretical head banging model” with enough physics terms to make any nerd happy: “angular displacement,” “sinusoidal motion in the sagittal plane,” and “amplitude of the displacement curve.” The study participants? Headbangers. The control group? That’s easy with easy listening music.

The head injury curves and neck injury curves, based on headbanging tempo and angular sweep, are shown below and at 7:23.

“An average head-banging song has a tempo of about 146 beats per minute, which is predicted to cause mild head injury when the range of motion is greater than 75º,” so something like what’s seen below and at 7:34 in my video.

The researchers conclude: “To minimise the risk of head and neck injury, head bangers should decrease their range of head and neck motion, head bang to slower tempo songs by replacing heavy metal with adult-oriented rock, only head bang to every second beat, or use personal protective equipment.”

“Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change the habits of heavy metal aficionados.” Maybe what we need are metal-studded neck braces.

Doctor’s Note

What about the healing potential of music? Check out Music as Medicine and Music for Anxiety: Mozart vs. Metal.

from NutritionFacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/heavy-metal-headbanging-and-our-health/
via IFTTT