Dealing with the Chemicals in Our Lives

/in /by

We began this journey with the EWG Dirty Dozen, examined common chemicals we come in contact with such as TCE, and looked at the latest threat—PFAS. These chemicals are ubiquitous, so we’re left with the challenge of how to protect ourselves.

In reality, this is nothing new. Every home and business dumped waste into the nearest body of water until relatively recently. Before companies dumped chemicals into oceans and rivers, oil deposits naturally seeped into rivers. During the 1800s coal was used for heating, and the smoke often obscured the sky over London; it looked a lot like the image above, minus the electric lights. During the 1970s, emissions from cars caused a similar haze over Los Angeles. The difference today is that we have the means to test for chemicals in our air, our water, and our food, and we know more about how environmental chemicals affect our health.

Most people survived then and most people will survive today. The question is this: at what cost to our health? Complete avoidance of chemicals isn’t going to be possible for most of us, so what should we do?

Avoid Exposure

There are several ways that we can limit our exposure to chemicals. The most common forms of exposure are as a gas we breathe, in the water we drink and bathe in, and in our food and drink. If you have to work in an environment that requires exposure to chemicals, take whatever precautions are recommended. For those of us who do not, we should still follow any directions on such products.

If you use solvent cleaners, glues, or paints, wear the correct mask and gloves as recommended. Make sure the area is well-ventilated and stays that way for as long as recommended. Even if you’re using a paint brush and roller with latex paint, wear a mask. Is that overkill? Try this: after using a roller for any color paint, blow your nose. Aerosolized droplets get airborne and travel into your sinuses and lungs. Black spray paint will give you an even more dramatic illustration of what happens without a mask.

When it comes to your home water supply, use a home filtration system that’s reverse osmosis or carbon-filter based. To be sure it traps PFAS, look for certification that rate NSF/ANSI 53 for carbon filters or NSF/ANSI 58 for reverse osmosis.

Avoiding hazardous chemicals in foods can be tricky. That’s why the EWG puts out the Dirty Dozen every year. You can always use the organic route and purchase only fruits and vegetables that were grown organically. You can also find free-range meat and poultry along with dairy that’s derived from cows raised vaccine free.

But if you like processed foods, the more highly processed foods will contain more chemicals that may be a cause for concern by some people with food sensitivities, even if they have GRAS approval from the FDA. You’ll have to find out by trial and error.

Let Food Be Your Medicine

There is one way to be proactive in dealing with chemicals in our environment, no matter what the form: eat a diet high in plant-based foods. The reason is simple: vegetables, fruits, herbs, whole grains, and nuts contain phytonutrients. Many different types of phytonutrients are involved in the detoxification processes of the body, so the more variety in your diet, the better. They will not make you immune to any damage, but they can help remove the toxic chemicals from your body. It’s beyond the scope of this Memo to cover every phytonutrient and what they might do; I say “might” because there are thousands of them. The simplest thing to do is to eat as wide a variety as you can and let your body figure it out.

If you remember the Memo on supplements from two weeks ago, the research I talked about strongly suggested that whether in fresh food or supplemental form such as powders or drinks, plant extracts are beneficial. Finding a good blend of foods and supplements should help your body deal with the chemicals in our world.

The Bottom Line

I hope this series has made you aware of the chemicals we face every day and what we can do about it. Let me leave you with two thoughts:

  • Not everyone will be impacted by chemicals in the same way. There are genetic factors in play together with your immune system that provide an immediate response from the microbiome forward.
  • The thought might have crossed your mind after reading about the Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen that you should eat only organic sources. I don’t think it matters. This is the quote from the FAQs on the EWG website when asked that question: Everyone should eat plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether organic or conventionally grown. The health benefits of such a diet outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.

Do what you should have always done: Eat your vegetables! Eat organic if you can, but quantity and variety are more important.

Spring Break is next week, and we have a lot scheduled with Riley, our grandson. We’re taking the week off and will be back April 11. We hope you all have an exciting week with wonderful weather.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Chemicals in Our Water

/in /by

Here’s one for you to mull over. We’ve been exposed to this chemical group since the 1940s. It’s not just one chemical such as TCE from Saturday’s Memo; there are thousands of forms of these chemicals. Based on samples from large groups of people, over 98% of us have them in our bodies; they’re found in rainwater all over the world. At this point, we don’t really know what diseases or conditions can result from this group of chemicals. On top of all that, it’s slow to eliminate from the body and gets worse as we get older.

The chemical group is perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, more recognizable by its acronym PFAS. This non-flammable group of chemicals is found in many products including fire retardants, stain repellents—and until recently removed—cookware covered with Teflon. You may have seen the story of how Teflon production affected West Virginians in the movie “Dark Waters.” Here in west Michigan, we’re battling PFAS released into the water supply years ago by a shoe manufacturer.

The major concern is that PFAS are in our water supply everywhere and will be there for a long time, even it were banned today. What surprised me is how little is known about the effects on our health.

There is some association with several forms of cancer such as testicular and kidney cancer. These epidemiologic studies of PFAS and cancers have been informative, but not entirely conclusive. Along with other chemicals known as hormone-disrupting chemicals, PFAS may affect fertility, contribute to miscarriages, and be a factor in early-onset puberty. It may increase non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in women. There are some associations but no overwhelming smoking gun at this point. Even with no definitive link to diseases, we don’t want them in our body. The problem is that there’s no known way of speeding up their elimination from our body. It can take years.

You may be thinking that this was less than satisfying. Yes, it was, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do; that’s how I’m going to finish up this look at chemicals on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Environ Res. 2021 Mar; 194: 110690.

Chemicals in Our Environment

/in /by

We have always lived in a world of chemicals. Some were always part of the planet, such as water and the minerals in the earth; more and more, they’re made by humans when they convert raw materials into chemicals that we can use. As you can imagine, the problem is that whether raw or processed, chemicals can be hazardous to our health. Who hasn’t heard about parabens in skincare products? Phthalates in plastic containers? Tar and carbon monoxide from cigarettes? Formaldehyde and carbon monoxide in wood smoke? For the benefits all those products may bring, they come at a cost to our health and the health of the planet.

The major concern is that exposure to environmental chemicals can be hazardous to our health. Recently researchers published an article about the potential hazards of a chemical that could increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease by 500%. I decided to find out what I could about trichloroethylene (TCE). It’s pervasive in products we all come into contact with in everyday life. A partial list includes adhesives, cleaners, solvents, lubricants, paint strippers, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and many more. If you’re alive, you’re going to get exposed to it.

In the article, the researchers used seven case studies to make their argument that TCE contributes to Parkinson’s disease. It’s a compelling observational hypothesis. As is typical in these types of papers, there’s no way to determine cause and effect. Part of the problem is that the metabolism of TCE is complex and not completely understood.

How much exposure is too much? Chronic exposure is a problem, but what about painting one room in your house? Given that it’s impossible to have zero exposure, we need that type of research, not just on TCE but on all chemicals in our environment.

Next week we’ll take a look at chemicals in our water and wrap up with what we can do about it next Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-parkinsons-disease/jpd225047
2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4619449

Chemicals in Foods

/in /by

The last Memo focused on nutrients from foods versus nutrients from supplements. Coincidently, a long-time reader sent me a link to an article about the Dirty Dozen, recently published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Paula also sent me articles to read on our exposure to chemicals in cleaning products and our environment. As a result, I’m going to write about chemicals in our food, our environment, and our water. Then I’ll cap it off with how we can deal with these chronic chemical exposures.

EWG annually publishes two lists of vegetables and fruits: The Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen (1). Topping the Dirty Dozen list this year were strawberries followed by two superfoods: spinach and kale. The top of the Clean Fifteen was avocadoes.

There are two things to understand. First, this is the EWG’s assessment of data pubished by U.S. Department of Agriculture according to standards they’ve set. Second, EWG does no testing of the foods themselves. Our taxes pay for the testing. You can read the rationale used for inclusion in the list in the EWG report (2).

The USDA Summary Report is also available for your viewing (3). Here are a couple of stats I found interesting. In 2021, over 99% of the samples tested had residues below the tolerances established by the EPA: 24.0% having no detectable residue. Residues exceeding the tolerance were detected in 0.53% (54/10,127 samples tested). The complete list of all samples tested along with results is found in the addendum to the USDA Report.

What does this mean? It depends on your point of view. If you have zero tolerance for any pesticide residues, there will be few vegetables and fruit you can eat. The question is this: what do we consider an acceptable risk? We’ll get to that, but we’ll look at chemicals in our environment on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php
2. https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
3. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2021PDPAnnualSummary.pdf

Food or Supplements? Yes!

/in /by

The results of the polyphenol study examining the impact on cardiovascular (CVD) risk factors were mixed. Here’s what the researchers found:

  • Neither the polyphenol-rich foods (berries, spices, herbs, teas, nuts, seeds, etc.) nor extracts had a significant effect on LDL- or HDL-cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, IL-6, and C-reactive protein.
  • When looking at the studies using polyphenol-rich food, there was a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic BP.
  • The polyphenol extracts had a significant effect on total cholesterol and triglycerides and had a greater reduction of waist circumference.
  • However, when both whole-food polyphenols and polyphenol extracts were used together, there was a significant reduction in systolic BP, diastolic BP, endothelial function, triglycerides, and total cholesterol.

The Upside

Polyphenols in foods and supplements were effective in reducing risk factors for CVD, both independently and when combined. This wasn’t a seminal paper that changes approaches to nutrition forever, but there were benefits. I think that’s something that was needed. It supports what my approach has always been: eat as healthy a diet as you can, and fill in the nutritional gaps with supplements.

The Problems

There were several issues. The studies included in the meta-analysis had little cohesiveness as to subjects used, sources of the foods, or the type of supplements; some used capsules while others used juices or drinks.

The issue with foods, among many, is the digestion and absorption of the active polyphenols. There’s competition with other nutrients and then the issue of the microbiome—is it functioning properly in every subject?

The issue with supplements, besides the delivery system, is whether the dose is appropriate or therapeutic. Would the amount of quercetin found in apples be the correct dose, or would you need to eat 10 apples? Would it respond the same way in the body isolated from the other polyphenols, or would another factor come into play?

The Bottom Line

In spite of its flaws, I think this study was fantastic. It demonstrated that nutrients extracted from foods can be effective in reducing CVD risk. It demonstrated that foods alone aren’t the answer and neither are supplements; it’s their use in a complementary fashion where the benefits may be found. The researchers set the stage for putting more effort into nutrition research, because there’s so much we don’t know. Yet. Until then, your best bet to support your health is to eat your vegetables and fruit, add herbs and spices, munch on seeds and nuts—and then supplement your diet with quality supplements.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323000029

Food or Supplements?

/in /by

One of the changes I’ve made in selecting topics to write about in these Memos is to read the table of contents of the scientific journals to which I subscribe, especially the nutrition journals. It’s easier to see what’s controversial by looking at news feeds, but they miss a lot of positive nutrition science. One question that’s ever-present is this: when it comes to nutrients, is getting nutrients from supplements as good as getting nutrients from food?

Researchers searched four databases of scientific journals to find randomized-controlled trials that examined the effect of either polyphenol-rich foods or polyphenol extracts on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It’s estimated that there are more than 8,000 types of polyphenols, including flavonoids, polyphenolic amides, phenolic acids, resveratrol, and ellagic acid. You’ll find polyphenols in fruits, vegetables, spices, herbs, teas, nuts, and seeds.

They found over 1,100 studies that fit the profile. Using subject, statistical, and nutrient criteria, they whittled the number of studies down to 46. Then they conducted a meta-analysis of the impact of food and supplements on the following CVD risk-factors: systolic BP, diastolic BP, endothelial function, fasting blood glucose, total-, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol, C-reactive protein, Il-6, and waist circumference.

Nutrition studies are usually messy, and this one was no exception. I spot-checked the 46 studies and found different foods for the polyphenol sources and different extracts for the supplements. Still, it was as well-done as such a study could be. I’ll give you the results on Saturday.

Tomorrow night is the Insider Conference call for March. The topic is the absorption of omega-3s, and I’ll also answer your questions. Become an Insider by 8 p.m., and you can participate in this live event.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323000029

Erythritol: Reserve Judgment for Now

/in /by

The study published in Nature Medicine on erythritol is complex to say the least. I gave you three quarters of the results. There was one more part that I want to cover and then give you my primary issues with the study. As I said in Tuesday’s Memo, I’ve posted a Straight Talk on Health podcast for Members and Insiders that gives my complete thoughts on sugar alcohols, especially erythritol (remember to log in first).

Erythritol and Clotting

The final part of the study was actually a preliminary report on a much larger study. They had eight subjects drink 30 grams of erythritol mixed with 300 ml of water. That corresponds to estimates of what a high intake would be. Then they tracked serum erythritol levels in the subjects for seven days. They also tested for indicators of blood clotting factors and found that some were increased for a few days after consuming the erythritol drink. The implication is that high intake of erythritol might contribute to blood clots forming. The question is: who is at risk?

Primary Issues

My primary concern is the lack of adequate controls. This was an observational study, not a clinical trial, so no cause and effect can be determined. Researchers took measurements on several cohorts of subjects with diagnosed coronary artery disease (CAD). Those subjects had a host of risk factors including high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, high LDL- cholesterol, and on and on. The ages in each cohort ranged from a median of 65 in the Discover cohort up to 75 in the European cohort.

They did not have a comparable cohort of apparently healthy controls in the same age group. They could have chosen a group of subjects who had blood drawn at their annual physical but no apparent diagnosis of CAD. While still not getting to cause and effect, it would have strengthened the basic observations if major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was seen or not seen in the controls.

The same is true for the study on the erythritol drink. Why not get a group with diagnosed CAD and see if the same clotting effect happened? If not that, why not just do a simple test that measures clotting time? That’s done for anyone who takes a blood thinner such as warfarin.

The Bottom Line

The researchers called for more research on erythritol to examine the increased adverse events in the present study, and I agree. Because erythritol is part of many low-carbohydrate foods and drinks designed for diabetics and those on a ketogenic diet, we need to know more about the risks. This was a good research paper but incomplete. The best we can say as to whether we should use sugar alcohols is that we must reserve judgment until a lot more research is done.

If you’re concerned about artificial sweeteners, try to cut back and use a variety of them to reduce the risks associated with any particular one. But for your health’s sake, don’t switch to sugar; the risks of high sugar consumption are even greater than those associated with artificial sweeteners. For ideas of asking the right questions in those future trials and more on sugar alcohols, check out the Straight Talk on Health just posted by becoming a Member or Insider.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Nature Medicine. 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9

Is Erythritol Safe?

/in /by

Health writers have been talking pro and con about a new study that was published about erythritol, a commonly used sugar alcohol. The paper demonstrated an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if a person had too much of the sweetener in their bloodstream. In that sugar alcohols are found in more and more products, especially those geared toward the ketogenic diet, are people really at risk for a major cardiac event, or worse, death? Let’s take a look at the results of the study.

The researchers used data collected during consecutive heart catheterizations at the Cleveland Clinic, termed the Discovery cohort, a U.S. population extracted from a large genetic study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic, called U.S. validation cohort, and a European validation cohort similar to the one selected from the population in the Discovery cohort. The two key elements were that all subjects had blood samples drawn that could be studied and all were tracked for at least three years. Researchers developed tests to specifically identify the quantity of erythritol found in subjects’ blood.

The researchers separated the subjects into quartiles and compared those with the lowest levels of erythritol with those with the most. In all three cohorts, with blood samples taken in different parts of the U.S. and Europe and over different years, the highest quartile had a significant increased risk of MACE in over three years compared to the lowest quartile—two to three times as high.

In Saturday’s Memo, I’m going to review the major issue with the study. I’ll also post a Straight Talk on Health for Members and Insiders that takes a deeper dive into all the issues surrounding the study and whether this is something to be concerned about or not.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Nature Medicine. 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9

Protein Intake: Perspective Required

/in /by

The research paper that concluded that higher protein intake was associated with muscle loss and sarcopenia seems to offer more questions than answers. That’s actually a good thing, because future research can examine those questions. But there are questions that the researchers didn’t mention.

Researcher Observations

This is an observational study. Simply put, the subjects who completed all the tests were followed for several years, depending on when they joined the study. Therefore, no cause and effect can be inferred because the researchers were watching, not intervening.

The original number of subjects with sarcopenia was low at just 4.3%. With so many subjects over 72, the number should have been closer to 10%. The researchers acknowledged as much. If the study’s subjects had less sarcopenia than the general population, it’s hard to draw conclusions that are helpful to everyone.

My Observations

The single characteristic most closely associated with loss of muscle mass and sarcopenia was age. Protein intake was a covariate for sarcopenia but it was actually in the middle of the pack as a risk; a covariate is a separate attribute that can be measured alongside the primary variable being investigated.

The study included limited data on diet and exercise. I would expect that not very many subjects were exercising at levels high enough to sustain or increase muscle mass. That conflicts with the research data from clinical trials that show that increasing protein intake in older subjects on a weight training program increases strength and muscle mass.

What stood out more than anything was the limited amount of testing for sarcopenia and the mixed bag of testing procedures. If it’s such a problem, which every researcher in aging admits is the case, why aren’t there better diagnostic tools available to diagnose the condition? How can physicians treat a disease they aren’t diagnosing?

The Bottom Line

There is no reason to worry about protein intake as we get older based on this observational study. What we need to do is begin to retain muscle mass or reclaim our muscle through resistance training, better protein intake, and the strategic use of supplements. If you’re interested in a program to do just that, the Taking Back Your Muscle is still available on my website.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280

Is High Protein Intake Associated with Sarcopenia?

/in /by

If there’s one thing I’ve learned studying health, fitness, and nutrition for 35 years, it’s this: what we thought we knew yesterday may change based on what we learn today. Given that, I was still surprised to see an article in my news feed with a title “High Protein Intake Associated With Sarcopenia.” The Taking Back Your Muscle webinar uses strategies that research has shown help increase muscle strength, including eating more protein. What gives with this latest research?

Researchers selected as their subjects from the TwinsUK cohort. Subjects must be over 60 years old and have completed specific tests since 2010. Just over 3,300 men and women were selected to be included in the data analysis. Researchers examined a variety of variables including education, income, other diseases and conditions, strength, and muscle mass. Protein intake was measured. Researchers did find the opposite of what they expected: higher protein intake was associated with sarcopenia.

Did I get it wrong? I’ll talk about the rest of the study on Saturday. I wouldn’t change your protein intake just yet because there seems to be a larger problem that looms over us as we age. The article is open access, and you can read it at this link.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280