Toxicity

Scary Difference Between Healthy and Unhealthy Obesity

June 20, 2014 by James Bogash

pesticides and obesity — Photo courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremybrooks/

I have covered the difference in “healthy” versus “unhealthy” fat in a recent article that can be read by clicking here.

While rare in today’s society, it IS possible to have the purely storage form of fat (think hibernating bear) that has not yet turned against you and set you on the path for diabetes, heart disease and cancer. After all, our body stores fat for a rainy day. While humans don’t hibernate, throughout the vast majority of our fight for survival, starvation has been the norm. The ability to capture excess calories when available was a boon to survival.

Enter today’s lifestyle with no “hardship” for most of us in the industrialized world. The calories are everywhere and the quality is questionable. Do not EVER confuse the 100 calories in a kids’ size fast food french fry and the 100 calories in 3 servings of vegetables. Regardless of what you hear from some of the weight loss programs, a calorie is NOT a calorie.

Beyond the concern over the quality of the calories we take in and the exercise we do, what factors play a role in deciding whether our fat is going to be “healthy” or “unhealthy?” The answer is one of the scarier ones we face.

Toxicity from our environment.

For me, I think this is the scariest because it is subtle. The clothes you are wearing, the air you’re breathing, the plastic water bottle you drank, the mattress you sleep on, the new car smell in your new car and the non-organic bell peppers you ate with your salad. The exposures are literally everywhere and are usually silent. Sure, the “new shower curtain smell” is easily recognizable, but what about the BPA in the plastic water bottle you’re drinking from because you thought it was good for you? Tasteless and odorless.

Persistent organics pollutants, or “POPs,” are chemical compounds that are almost entirely man-created and are difficult to degrade in either the environment or our bodies. As a result, they accumulate inside your body and lead to all kinds of nasty things like cancer, obesity and diabetes.

While the list of POPs is extensive, there are some that top the list of the most common and they fall into 3 categories:

Pesticides: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene;
Industrial chemicals: hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and
By-products: hexachlorobenzene; polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF), and PCBs.

In case you’d really like to stay in tune with the research and worldwide advocacy of POPs, then the Stockholm Convention website is the best place to start.

Overall, though, it is clear that exposure to POPs is a bad thing, and this article is yet another one that clarifies just how extensive the problem is. In it, researchers looked at the difference in POPs levels between women who were obese but metabolically healthy (based on risk factors for heart disease and prediabetes) and obese and unhealthy. Here are the details:

They looked at 21 different pollutants.
Unhealthy obese women had higher levels of 12 POPs which was 40% higher than the healthy obese group.
Specifically, there were 470% higher levels of total dioxin- and non-dioxin-like PCBs (used in industrial uses and plastics).
Trans-nonachlor levels (an insecticide) were 610% higher.

There are uncountable numbers of POPs that we are exposed to on a daily basis and some are more strongly associated with chronic diseases than others. But the associations between certain POPs in this study and obesity are scary.

Overall, this means that you need to examine the chemicals you are exposed to every single day and do your best to avoid or reduce your exposure to these chemicals. As an example, feel free to check out this article on the use of diatomaceous earth for pest control.

Gluten, GMOs, Probiotics and Monsanto; the Web Tightens

April 12, 2014 by James Bogash

gluten and GMOs — Photo courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/kattebelletje/

I’ve had many people ask me about this “gluten free” thing and whether it’s “real.” Or is it just a fad?

First and foremost, the entity known as celiac disease is nothing new. The traditional acceptance of celiac disease is a condition where the immune system of the gut attacks the gluten containing portion of grains (namely wheat, but also to a certain degree in oats, barley and rye). This attack results in the lining of the gut (the villa) being flattened out. While a normal gut may have the area of a tennis court, in someone with celiac disease that eats gluten, the destruction of the lining of the gut leaves you with a ping pong table.

The shrinkage of the area that is needed to absorb nutrients wreaks havoc long term and leads to most of the issues associated with traditional celiac disease (osteoporosis, neurological disturbances, shortened life span, etc…). This is the far end of the spectrum and is usually diagnosed via biopsy of the lining of the gut. Moving up the spectrum (from worst to less-worser), the blood markers anti-transglutaminase and anti-gliadin antibodies will be elevated and can be checked in a blood test.

This is generally where mainstream medicine stops at the definition of celiac disease. However, as I mentioned, it is a spectrum and not a set point. As you move away from the biopsy proven gluten allergy to the other end of the spectrum, “sensitivity” becomes a much better word to use. At this end, the number of people with sensitivity to gluten is quite high and it is very real.

And the numbers of people with gluten sensitivity keep going up. But why?

A portion of this may due to a cross reaction between a protein found in the yeast Candida albicans and a protein found in gluten. This means that a prescription for antibiotics, which will increase the number of yeast in your gut, can initiate the onset of celiac disease in genetically susceptible patients.

Combine the wanton use of antibiotics with conventionally grown grains given high amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer (more nitrogen leads to more gliadin for the gut to react to) and you’ve got a recipe for more gluten problems.

But it turns out the story may be more complicated. This particular article looks at the role of glyphosphate (the principle component of the herbicide Roundup used heavily in GMO crops) and the realionship to celiac disease. While the article is quite complex, here are the high points:

• Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are similar to celiac disease.
• Glyphosphate triggers imbalances in gut bacteria (reduced Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which break down gluten).
• Disrupts detox P450 enzymes, interrupting the activation of vitamin A and D, the maintenance of bile acid production as well as the breakdown of environmental toxins.
• Glyphosphate chelates and leads to deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum and copper.
• Glyphosphate leads to deficiencies in the amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine and selenomethionine.
• In addition, both celiac patients and glyphosphate exposure increase risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
• Both are associated with reproductive issues like infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects.

Making matters worse, glyphosphate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing due to the growing practice of crop desiccation just prior to the harvest.

So, is it glyphosphate toxicity or gluten sensitivity? I’m pretty sure that this article didn’t entirely clear things up for many of you. The bottom line is that the answer likely lies somewhere in between. Either way, it would seem smart to take away two needed changes from this article. First, living a naturally gluten-restricted diet is a good idea. This does NOT mean buying the same types of foods you have always eaten but just buying them gluten-free. Not a good idea.

Second, if you do take in any gluten-containing grains, make sure they are organic or at least GMO free to reduce the likelihood that you will be exposed to glyphosphate.

Little Thought of Nutrient Increases Risk of Death Over 200%

February 1, 2014 by James Bogash

This topic is not, as my colleague Dr. Cipriano would put it, “sexy.” But, after some consideration I decided to comment on it for the full story.

Phosphorus is located on the periodic table of the elements at atomic number 15, sitting nicely between sulfur and silicon, below oxygen and above arsenic. If you want to know more, check out Wikipedia (and make sure you drop them a donation of a few bucks as well—they certainly deserve it).

In our bodies, phosphorus is a critical component of our DNA, RNA, our cell membrane as well as my favorite organelle, the mitochondria. As such, we need it for survival. Phosphorus is pretty common in our foods and so deficiencies are not common. The most well-known concern with phosphorus is in chronic kidney disease, where the kidneys lose the ability to get rid of excess phosphorus in the urine and phosphorus levels in the body rise.

Elevated phosphorus has to go somewhere, and it has a tendency to land in the blood vessels and contribute to plaquing in the arteries. This is the main reason that people with chronic kidney disease are so susceptible to heart disease.

But there is a darker side to phosphorus. Certain foods, like soda and processed foods, are also high in phosphorus. In sodas, phosphoric acid is the culprit, used to give the drink its characteristic tartness. There is concern that high intake of sodas are increasing phosphorus levels high enough to contribute to heart disease in those of us without kidney failure.

Further, another consequence of elevated phosphorus is that it will affect the conversion of vitamin D into its active form. One of the triggers for your body to activate vitamin D into the active form is a phosphorus or calcium deficiency. This turns on vitamin D, allowing the body to absorb more of these two nutrients.

In reverse, with high blood levels of phosphorus (or calcium) vitamin D does not get activated. When vitamin D doesn’t get activated, we don’t get the REAL benefits of vitamin D on cancer prevention, heart disease prevention, immune protection, vascular benefits, respiratory benefits and more.

All of this leads us to this particular study. In it, researchers looked at the risk of death (all-cause mortality, or the risk of dying from anything) in relation to the levels of phosphorus in the diet. Here’s what they found:

In those who consumed >1400 mg/d had a 223% higher risk of dying.
At <1400 mg/d, there was no association.
When taken in the context of calories, those taking in more than 0.35 mg/kcal also had a 227% higher risk of dying.

A few comments.

First, it is recommended that daily consumption of phosphorus stay around 1,000 mg for most age groups. As mentioned, processed foods and sodas have increased the phosphorus intake of Americans in recent years, and this may largely contribute to the problems seen with elevated phosphorus.
The only thing that throws a wrench in the works of this thought process is the note that those with healthier lifestyles had higher phosphorus intakes. This is obviously a wee bit disturbing, made even more so by the fact that, without looking much deeper into the study, I really don’t have any idea how the link between healthier diets and high phosphorus diets plays out.

It is, however, very common for some people to eat what they consider “healthy” foods that really are not. Some of these foods may be high in phosphorus content like prepared frozen foods, dairy products (like yogurt and milk) and breads (leavening agents). It is entirely possible that, when looking at the “healthy” foods in more detail that we would see that these foods are high in phosphorus.

In the meantime, this study just gives us even more reasons to avoid soda and processed foods in our diets.

What’s On YOUR Food Label and is it Safe? 7 Reasons for Concern

September 12, 2013 by James Bogash

I’ll trust that you’re reading food labels. Even better is to buy foods that don’t have labels. But can you trust the safety?

Of course you can. After all, the FDA regulates things that food manufacturers put into the stuff we eat. Many of the food additives that appear at the tail end of the ingredients label fall under the category of GRAS (generally recognized as safe). They are used to preserve, thicken, flavor and blend the foods we stuff in our mouths. Since the FDA determines was is recognized is safe, we’re all good and that would be the end of this blog post. But, of course, they don’t and this isn’t.

Nope. It’s the manufacturers who (A) determine whether something is recognized as safe and (B) let the FDA know about it. Here’s how it works:

The food and beverages manufacturers hire scientists and / or companies to determine whether an additive is GRAS. If it is, then the company is exempt from the pre-market approval process. In other words, these scientists can rubber stamp a new food additive and the FDA doesn’t get involved.

The Food Additives Amendment of 1958 listed 700 food substances that were grandfathered in and bypassed the FDA pre-market approval process. 1997, under the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Food Regulations the FDA announced a program that would allow streamlining of food additives merely by notifying the FDA that experts generally agreed that a product was safe. Incidentally, food colorings cannot be exempted. It is estimated that about 1,000 food additives are in our food supply that the FDA has no knowledge of.

Thus began the fox watching the henhouse.

In this particular study, researchers looked at 451 GRAS notifications that were voluntarily submitted to the FDA between 1997 and 2012, specifically looking for conflicts of interest that may have been present. Here’s what they found:

22.4% of the safety assessments were made by an employee of an additive manufacturer.
13.3% of the assessments were made by an employee of a consulting firm selected by the manufacturer (not an expert).
64.3% were done by an expert panel selected by either a consulting firm or the manufacturer.
In none of the assessments was an expert panel selected by a third party (which would be the ideal situation–much like a UL listing).
There were 290 panels with an average of 3.5 members. Ten members served on 27 or more panels; 1 served on 128 panels and at least 1 of these 10 with the most frequent service was a member of 225 panels (77.6%).

In other words, 100% of the members of these panels worked, either directly or indirectly, for the company that manufactured the food additive in question. I’m not saying that there is definitely a problem here, but if I were you, I’m pretty sure I’d still to what I call my “8 year old rule.”

If a typical 8-year old can’t read the ingredients label, you probably shouldn’t be eating it. Many of the food labels for processed foods today don’t pass the “35 year old biochemist” rule, let alone the 8 year old rule.

Tough-to-Treat Myofascial Pain Responds to Botulinium Toxin Type A – (05-31-01)

June 20, 2013 by James Bogash

Tough-to-Treat Myofascial Pain Responds to Botulinium Toxin Type A

It’s pretty neat to see an article addressing an incredibly common condition that is virtually unheard of in mainstream medicine. Although this study uses Botox, other methods include trigger point therapy, post-isometric relaxation stretches, moist heat and manipulation.

53rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology Nearly three-quarters of patients with refractory myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) experience good to excellent pain relief following treatment with botulinium toxin type A (Botox) injections, according to data presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). While botulinium toxin type A has proven effective in a variety of conditions associated with muscle spasm, the literature on its use in refractory MPS has been limited. Of the 187 injections in 104 patients in whom records were available for review, Dr. Royal reported that 135 (72.2%) injections resulted in good (16.6%) to excellent (55.6%) pain relief, lasting an average of 2.7 to 3.8 months. Nearly one in five patients (19.2%) who had an excellent response had at least a six-month duration of relief. Treatments were well tolerated with only a handful of patients having mild and very transient reactions. Myofascial pain syndrome is a common chronic regional pain syndrome defined by the presence of trigger points and referred pain remote from the involved area, Dr. Royal noted.

Clinical factors, diet, and drugs on upper GI glutathione system – (01-17-02)

March 10, 2013 by James Bogash

Clinical factors, diet, and drugs on upper GI glutathione system

Glutathione is one of the body’s more powerful methods of dealing with toxins and free radicals. This article finds that fruits and veggies will increase the concentrations of glutathione and the related enzyme glutathione transferase. While this is no great shocker, it does indicate that high levels of these compounds through higher intake of fruits and veggies may be a first line of defense against toxins that we take in through our diet.

Gut — Abstracts: Hoensch et al. 50 (2): 235.

Read entire article here

Link between environmental chemicals and human reproductive health – (03-01-04)

November 24, 2012 by James Bogash

How strong is the evidence of a link between environmental chemicals and adverse effects on human reproductive health?

For those concerned about environmental toxicity this is a good review article. The take home message is that these chemicals from our environment have a definite impact on our health, and reproductive effects are only one type. Many of these chemicals have estrogen-like activities and contribute to many women in our society being estrogen dominant. Dr. John Lee’s strong push for use of natural progesterone would help lower the impact of these xenoestrogens.

bmj.com Sharpe and Irvine 328 (7437): 447 –

Read entire article here

Organic Market: 3 Reasons Why Buying Organic Food is Good

October 2, 2012 by James Bogash

Many wonder if buying at an organic market is worth the extra money. A recent study looking at organic food has confused many consumers. Here is some insight.

This particular study seemed to garner very high press coverage, and yet the much more important study that found medication used for mild hypertension (think billions of dollars in drugs) was ineffective remained mostly ignored.

By now, there have been many reviews and comments on this study, trying to criticize based on perceived biases, funding questions and poor data collection problems.

I think most everyone is missing some of the most important points.

We have known for years that organic nutrients do not have appreciably higher levels of vitamins or minerals. First, the facts:

We know that shifting our intake to organic drops levels of POP (persistent organophosphate pollutants) in the blood.
No one has brought up the concept of xenohormesis, which is a scary one, and has been addressed in prior posts that can be read here in article on grass fed vs grass finished beef)
Finally, the phytonutrients that really make up the protective factors in food are going to be higher in organic produce.

This last factor is arguably one of the most important. The compounds that we label phytonutrients have been found again and again and again to protect us in every aspect of health and disease.

Think dark chocolate, tea, berries, nuts, coffee, artichokes, apples, etc… It’s the phytonutrients that do the work, not the simple things like magnesium or vitamin C.

These phytonutrients are in food, not for us, but to help them protect against the environment. It not like the blueberries all got together and decided to waste valuable resources to make anthocyanins so they can protect the humans.

These compounds are made selfishly by the plants to protect them from stressful situations (excess sunlight, pests, drought, etc..). Without stress, these plants have little incentive to produce these beneficial-to-us compounds.

Recent studies have found higher levels of lycopene in organic tomatoes, backing up this concept.

Overall, all this study does is confirm what we’ve already known–organic farming does not increase the levels of most vitamins and minerals. This does not, however, mean that there is no value to organic fruits and vegetables.

Personally, I stick with organic on the fruits and vegetables known to be higher in pesticide residues (the Dirty Dozen list can be found by clicking here). I let my buying decisions on other organic produce be driven by cost. If the organic for non-dirty-dozen organic produce is too expensive vs conventional, I buy the conventional. Overall, though, I try to by organic produce.

How do you approach buying organic produce vs conventional produce within your budget?