Posts Tagged ‘cancer’

Is charred meat bad for you?

Posted 06 Sep 2015 — by Todd
Category Uncategorized

imagesAs the end of summer approaches, you love to grill your food on the open flame.  You savor that char-grilled flavor on your meat or fish.  Perhaps you fashion yourself as a modern-day caveman, inspired by the Paleo Diet and getting back to Nature.

At the same time, you’ve probably heard that eating grilled meat is a bad idea, because compounds in the meat char can cause cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, grilling meat to the point of charring causes the formation of heterocyclic amines (HCAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Maillard reaction products such as acrylamide (AA) or advanced glycation end-products (AGEs).  HCAs and AGEs are formed when the amino acids, sugars and creatine in meat react at high temperatures. PAHs are formed when meat fats burn.  Maillard reaction products are those tasty brown “caramelized” substances produced by the reaction of sugars and amino acids when meats and other foods are cooked by grilling, baking, frying or toasting.

The National Cancer Institute reports that HCAs, PAHs and acrylamide have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals.  Added to this are a number of epidemiological studies purporting to show an association between consumption of cooked meats and cancer.

So you reluctantly curtail your inner caveman and carefully scrape the blackened parts off your meats, or grill them at a lower temperature.  Or perhaps you avoid grilling altogether, retreating indoors and lightly sautéing or boiling your meat dishes.

Relax. I’m here to make the case that charred meat is not to be feared.  It may actually be good for you, hormetically boosting your general ability to neutralize and dispose of dietary toxins. In this blog post, we will take a closer look at the animal and human studies, combined with a deeper look at the evolutionary record, aided by the perspective of modern toxicology.  I think it may change your mind.

Read More

Is it dangerous to skip breakfast?

Posted 08 Dec 2014 — by Todd
Category Diet, Health, Hormesis

empty_plateThere is increasing evidence from recent human and animal studies that intermittent fasting — refraining from food or caloric beverages for at least 12 hours a day, several days a week — reduces the risks of cardiovascular diseasedementia and cancer.  Those benefits are well-documented in the hyperlinked articles, so I won’t repeat them here.  Yet many nutritionists hold that skipping breakfast or other meals and snacks can lead to weight gain and metabolic imbalance.  Several recent articles have suggested that IF and breakfast skipping is a particularly bad idea for women. Much to my chagrin, this view been even embraced recently by a number of ‘Paleo’ advocates whom I respect, such as Chris Kresser and Mark Sisson.

In this post I’d like to address three main objections that have been raised against skipping breakfast and other forms of intermittent fasting:

  1. It spurs hunger cravings, leading to compensatory overeating and obesity
  2. It causes cardiovascular disease and metabolic dysregulation of blood glucose and hormone levels
  3. It’s bad for women, leading to hormone imbalance, disrupted menstrual cycle, and heightened stress response

I believe these concerns with breakfast skipping are overblown, based on an incorrect interpretation of a few animal and human studies, and flawed personal implementation.  To the contrary, adaptation to meal skipping can actually help boost stress tolerance and improve blood sugar control. If practiced correctly, intermittent fasting (IF) can actually be a powerful tool to overcome hypoglycemic symptoms, and regain control over a harried lifestyle.   And it can be particularly useful for women who are struggling with cravings, weight management and stress management.

Opposition to intermittent fasting arises from both published research and anecdotal reports.  I’d like to address both in this post.  I’ll first point out some significant flaws in the interpretation of several recent studies purporting to show negative effects of reduced meal frequency on women and other groups.  And I’ll end by pointing out how to avoid common mistakes made by many who try intermittent fasting find it to be unpleasant and unsustainable.

Approached correctly, IF can provide major health benefits for most us.

Read More

An alternative to vitamin D supplements?

Posted 11 Feb 2013 — by Todd
Category Diet, Fitness, Health, Hormesis

Screen Shot 2013-02-10 at 11.51.13 PMMy recent post on Why I don’t take vitamin D supplements generated a lot of interest and a few misconceptions.  In that article, I did not suggest any practical alternatives to taking high dose vitamin D supplements.  Here I will suggest a way that may provide the benefits of vitamin D without popping any pills, spending all day in the sun, or ingesting copious amounts of fish.

Some readers got the idea that I believe vitamin D is not beneficial, and that I discount the evidence from studies that show the benefits.  I want to dispel that notion.  I do acknowledge the key role that vitamin D and the vitamin D receptor (VDR) play in bone mineralization and regulation of  innate and adaptive immunity, and among other things.  I further acknowledge that many (but certainly not all) studies support an association between higher vitamin D3 levels and reduced incidence of diseases such as cancer.

As I wrote:

Nobody doubts the important role of vitamin D in the body. But are higher levels of a hormone like vitamin D–whether or not provided as a supplement– always a good thing?

My doubts are focused on several points:

  • Under-appreciation of the fact that vitamin D is a hormone with diverse and dose-dependent systemic effects, still not fully understood
  • Misleading  claims that vitamin D supplementation is “equivalent”  to vitamin D from sun exposure. While the two forms are chemically identical, levels of vitamin D3 synthesized from sun exposure are self-limiting due to feedback regulation.  What happens when we chronically exceed natural limits?
  • Inadequate attention to the possible effects of chronic vitamin D supplementation on homeostatic down-regulation of the VDR receptor. See this discussion bv Dr. David Agus of USC medical school.
  • Inadequate study of the possible long term adverse effects of chronic vitamin D supplementation. Few studies look beyond 4 years. Hormone replacement therapy was in favor for 50 years before the risks came to light . Things don’t necessarily look any more promising when synthetic hormones are replaced bioidentical hormones.

My article created a dilemma for several commenters. These people acknowledged the risks, but nevertheless cited  benefits they personally experienced  from supplementing with vitamin D–ranging from fewer colds and flu, to relief of autoimmune symptoms, and even lessening of depression.

For these people, a key question remains:

Is there a way to get the benefits of vitamin D supplementation, while avoiding the dependency and risks of taking vitamin D capsules daily for the rest of your life?  While I don’t have a definitive proven answer to that question, recent research leads me to speculate here that there is a promising approach that is within everyone’s reach.

It lies within a powerful natural biological process called autophagy.

Read More