Pages

Showing posts with label Processed Food/Meat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Processed Food/Meat. Show all posts

Friday, 9 June 2023

How obesity evolved from a lack of willpower into a disease

 Walk into your local convenience store and take a good look at the shelves. Are you looking at food? 


Obesity evolution
Obesity evolution

Walk into your local convenience store and take a good look at the shelves. Are you looking at food? Or does the brightly coloured packaging largely contain something engineered to resemble food, but with a list of unrecognisable ingredients as long as your arm? The chances are you are mainly looking at what is termed ultra processed food (UPF), and which experts believe is responsible for a grave public health crisis on a par with smoking.

Welcome to the obesogenic environment in which we all now live. Just as parking an ice cream van outside a school every day will lead inexorably to more children eating more ice cream on school days, filling our shops and food outlets with the kinds of products that make it easy to make bad choices and hard to make the right ones leads to more obesity.

At least, that is one explanation for why, as a society, we have become so overweight. In the UK, an estimated 25 per cent of adults are living with obesity, according to the NHS. By 2030, this figure is expected to rise to 35 per cent in England. As the health service points out, it is “a complex health issue with many causes.”

The NHS is yet to categorise obesity as a disease. But a growing number of health experts and organisations believe it should be viewed as such.

The World Health Organisation, European Parliament and American Medical Association (AMA) already use the term “disease” to describe what used to be regarded as the failure of individual willpower.

Time and again we were told that if only we ate a healthy, balanced diet and took regular exercise, we could more or less avoid becoming fat, or lose any excess weight we had gained. This remains the official advice in the UK. And of course, for many people, it remains true – to some extent. But as the NHS acknowledges, the obesity problem has grown because “the environment we live in makes it difficult for many people to eat healthily and do enough physical activity.”

It is here – and also in our increased understanding of the part genetics plays – that the line between personal responsibility and an affliction beyond our control becomes blurred.

It has been a decade since the AMA voted to recognise obesity as a disease, with a number of other medical societies supporting this position. We have been slower in the UK to reach this conclusion; but in 2019, the Royal College of Physicians adopted the same stance. Their reasoning? That this was the only way to ensure funding for effective treatment options that could halt the spread of obesity across society and control its health and socioeconomic costs.

Man in supermarket - Getty Images
Man in supermarket - Getty Images

“I think the scientific community is well aligned with the view [that obesity is a disease],” says Dr Simon Cork, senior lecturer in physiology at Anglia Ruskin University. “We’ve known…for a long time that body weight isn’t due to personal choice but a combination of genetics, physiology and the environment.

“I often think of body weight as like blood pressure. If your blood pressure goes too high, we use medication to artificially bring it down. Body weight is regulated in very much the same way. It’s programmed around what we call a set point. So for the vast majority of people, whether they are underweight, overweight or obese, their body weight is stable…Your body tries to protect what it thinks is your normal body weight.”

You may succeed in shedding the pounds temporarily. Keeping them off is far harder. The reasons for this, as Dr Cork explains, lie in the interplay between genetics and the environment.

There are hundreds of gene variants associated in some way with body weight so many people have a genetic vulnerability to weight gain.

In a world where energy-dense foods that are rich in refined carbohydrates, saturated fats and salt, and low in dietary fibre are widely available to the point of being impossible to avoid, the environment makes it impossible for many of these people to live at a so-called ‘healthy weight’.

“I like to count the number of opportunities to buy a can of Coke from when I arrive at an airport to when I board a plane,” says Dr Chris van Tulleken, author of Ultra-Processed People, an investigation into the science and economics of ultra-processed foods. “There are typically dozens of opportunities. These foods are everywhere in the way cigarettes were in the 1970s. And the evidence that for some people they’re addictive is very strong.”

Dr. Chris von Tulleken - Rii Schroer
Dr. Chris von Tulleken - Rii Schroer

Most of us already know that cola does not form part of a healthy diet. Fewer people may be aware how many of our daily comestibles fall into the category of UPF: from supermarket sliced bread, breakfast cereals and frozen pizzas, to fruit-flavoured yoghurts, ham, sausages and some alcoholic drinks.

These foods and beverages are everywhere – more than half our diet is now composed of UPFs – and research in recent years has linked high consumption of them with being overweight and obesity. Because these (often highly flavoured) energy-dense foods are designed to be so moreish, it is hard to regulate our intake of them.

The solution, then, is evidently nowhere near as simple as telling people to cut them out and switch to a diet of whole foods and meals cooked from scratch. (Although, ideally, this is exactly what we should do.) Not only are UPFs ubiquitous and addictive, but as Henry Dimbleby, Leon co-founder and former Government food tsar, writes in his recent book Ravenous: “The plain fact is that unhealthy processed food is cheaper per calorie than fresh food.” In other words, not everyone can afford to avoid it.

Van Tulleken, like Dimbleby and others in the public health and scientific arenas, believes it makes no more sense to blame obesity on the individual than we would cancer or any other condition.

“As a doctor, I see [people living with obesity] as having a disease caused by living in an environment that’s deeply harmful to their body,” he says. “The idea that willpower or personal responsibility has anything to do with any of this is entirely debunked.”

He cites the weight gain that was seen across all ethnic and income groups in the US from the Seventies onwards. “You can’t think of anything that suddenly created a failure of individual willpower or personal responsibility that would explain all those groups being affected together, especially when we have a robust explanation: the rise in food engineered to be eaten to excess.”

So what do we do about it? Dimbleby and van Tulleken are among those who believe far more robust regulation of the food industry is needed. Frustrated at the Government’s failure to take the required action, Dimbleby quit his role in March, blaming ministers’ obsession with “ultra-free-market ideology”. They were too worried about being seen as a “nanny state” to act, he suggested.

But van Tulleken argues we are already living in a “nanny state”, only one in which the nannying is done by the food corporations. “I’d like our elected officials to enable us to have access to good information and to make real food available,” he says. “I’d like more choice and freedom. It’s a libertarian argument.”

In the meantime, we now have effective drugs to treat the symptom of the problem – obesity – just as the lung cancer caused by cigarettes has long been treated in hospitals. At a time when the NHS is under inordinate pressure, we can hardly afford not to treat obesity before it triggers the illnesses associated with it (including cancer and cardiovascular disease). The illnesses that also cause economic inactivity.

Data shows that in 2021, the NHS spent £166 billion on the treatment of obesity and overweight across the UK. It seems clear that advising people to get off the sofa more often just isn’t working.

It is against this backdrop that a new generation of weight loss drugs has arrived. You’ve probably heard of Ozempic. Wegovy is another. Such medications are now seen as crucial weapons in our multi-pronged battle against the bulge.

Ozempic - George Frey/Reuters
Ozempic - George Frey/Reuters

“Obesity leads to disease states so we should treat it as a disease and treat it with effective, safe drugs,” says Dr Cork.

Are we satisfied they are effective and safe?

“I think we are,” he says. “As long as they are prescribed and monitored appropriately.”  Although all drugs carry the risk of potential side effects, Dr Cork believes the weight loss drugs we have now are the best yet.

“It’s not a question of ‘is [the solution] drugs or is it changes to the environment?’” says van Tulleken. “People living with obesity today need treatment now. The drugs aren’t as good as the companies say they are, but they’re among the best treatments we have, they’re good and they should be freely available and accessible to everyone.”

Failing to take action, both in treating the disease of obesity and treating its causes, is a false economy, he argues. “I want people to have real choice,” he says. “We can’t afford not to do this.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/obesity-evolved-lack-willpower-disease-171158210.html

Thursday, 17 October 2019

The Meat You Eat and Cancer

Who are we supposed to believe when it comes to our health? There is a movement towards plant-based foods with many leading physicians seeing the reversal of conditions in patients following plant-based diets. 
PEN-FM-logo
By Gary Null PhD, Amy Mitura Esq. and Neal Greenfield, Esq.
Who are we supposed to believe when it comes to our health? There is a movement towards plant-based foods with many leading physicians seeing the reversal of conditions in patients following plant-based diets. Unfortunately, people researching the subject may come across writings by Dr. Stephen Barrett. Regarding nutrition, Barrett relies on the now scientifically debunked advice of the food pyramid where meat and dairy are the top bases of the diet, followed by wheat products, such as breads and pastas. Fruits and vegetables are given less significance. As Barrett has been a primary source for health-related articles on Wikipedia, influencing a massive audience, we decided to look at a few of the statements he has made over the years. Does he deserve to be considered an unbiased, objective authority on the subject? Judge for yourself… 
In his book The Health Robbers (last edition in 1993), Barrett argues that quacks and charlatans “claim that most Americans are poorly nourished,” saying, “this is an appeal to fear that is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that the main forms of bad nourishment in the United States are undernourishment among the poverty-stricken and overweight in the population at large.” (32) Many of Barrett’s assertions are based on the U.S. government’s original Food Guide Pyramid, which, according to Harvard School of Public Health, “conveyed the wrong dietary advice. And MyPyramid, its 2005 replacement was vague and confusing.” Again Barrett was wrong. Terribly wrong. 
Barrett has also been consistently incorrect about one of the food groups in that pyramid—meat and the chemical used during the curing process, sodium nitrite. According to Barrett, “Nitrosamines have been found to cause cancer when fed in large amounts to test animals. However, sodium nitrite is a normal component of human saliva, and some 80 percent of the nitrite in the body comes from eating celery, beets, radishes, lettuce, spinach, and other commonly consumed vegetables. So it seems a bit absurd to panic about adding small amounts of substances that prevent serious health threats while remaining unconcerned about larger amounts that are present naturally.” (Barrett 70-71) 
Barrett’s comparison of nitrosamines to sodium nitrite and commonly consumed vegetables is misleading at best. According to the National Cancer Institute, “vegetables also contain compounds that prevent the formation of N-nitroso compounds (NOC), which are known to cause cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans.” Studies have shown increased risks of colon, kidney, and stomach cancer among people with higher ingestion of water nitrate and higher meat intake compared with low intakes of both. Other studies have shown modest evidence that higher nitrate intake can increase the risk of thyroid cancer and ovarian cancer among women. 
There are several notable studies that appear in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing the increased risk of cancer associated with higher nitrate intake: 
In 2013 the International Journal of Cancer published the Shanghai Women’s Health Study. The study, conducted by the University of Chicago, evaluated the effects of nitrite and nitrate from meat consumption in over 73,000 Chinese women. The researchers concluded that “women consuming higher levels of nitrite from animal sources, particularly from processed meat, may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.”
 According to the Harvard School of Public Health, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that “consumption of processed meat is ‘carcinogenic to humans,’ and…consumption of red meat is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.” The IARC Working Group, comprised of 22 scientists from ten countries, evaluated over 800 studies. “Conclusions were primarily based on the evidence for colorectal cancer. Positive associations between processed meat consumption and stomach cancer, and between red meat consumption and pancreatic and prostate cancer were also identified. “Meat processing such as curing (by adding nitrates or nitrites) or smoking can lead to the formation of potentially cancer-causing (carcinogenic chemicals such as N-nitroso-compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).” 
Other health risks associated with meat consumption include cardiovascular disease and stroke, diabetes, obesity, acne, erectile dysfunction, and Alzheimer’s. A University of Wurzburg analysis of 11,000 middle-aged people concluded that those who consumed the most red meat had a 47 percent higher risk of ischemic stroke caused by artery blockage. A more recent 2016 Mayo Clinic analysis, published under the heading “Is Meat Killing Us?” reviewed 1.5 million Americans and found that all health causes for mortality was higher among regular meat-eaters.  
In an article published this June, the Union of Concerned Scientists informs us that “guidelines reflecting up-to-date science could have saved as many as 3,900 deaths from colorectal cancer and cut related medical costs by $1.5 billion.” Despite the fact that a review of the scientific evidence concluded that a healthy diet generally means less red and processed meat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agencies that have the final say on the guidelines, chose not to recommend eating less of either. 
So perhaps it wasn’t “absurd to panic” about nitrates after all. And perhaps it wasn’t wise to assume that following the U.S. dietary guidelines would keep people well-nourished. In what seems like an attempt at humor, Barrett writes, “Every group of people on earth gets cancer. So do virtually all animals (vegetarians and meat-eaters alike)…” (Barrett 9) But perhaps they don’t get cancer “alike.” Clearly the science indicates that people who rely upon the Food Pyramid and Barrett’s suggestions get cancer more than other groups. Once again, it appears to be Stephen Barrett, and anyone using him as a source, who is the real Health Robber. 
In conclusion, it is this simple, look on PubMed or any other legitimate resource and you will find a considerable amount of peer-reviewed studies–710 studies on plant-based diets and health, 4800 on vegetarian diets and health, 1059 on vegan diets and health, and 3454 on Meditteranean diets and health. Try to find one on meat-based diets and health… 
Duke Med Health News. 2010 Jan;16(1):1-2.
http://prn.fm/meat-eat-cancer/

Friday, 4 October 2019

Could eating less meat REALLY cut your risk of cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes?

As researchers say you DON'T need to cut out beef... we reveal what they uncovered about having three fewer portions each week


  • Researchers have today published the 'most up-to-date evidence on the topic' 
  • Their analysis was based on data from 61 studies involving four million people
  • Findings showed cutting back on red meat can lower the odds of many ailments 
  • But the same scientists warned the data was so flimsy people should not worry
  • MailOnline has sifted through the five papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine

Eating three fewer servings of red meat each week could slash your risk of cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, a controversial analysis has found.
Researchers have published the 'most up-to-date evidence on the topic', based on data from 61 studies involving more than four million people.
But the same team of scientists have warned the evidence was so flimsy that people should not worry and carry on eating red meat at their current levels. 
MailOnline has today sifted through the research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, to reveal what the scientists found eating less meat can do for your health.
Eating three fewer servings of red meat each week could slash your risk of several ailments, a controversial analysis has found. Researchers published the 'most up-to-date evidence on the topic', based on data from four million people. But the same scientists warned the evidence was so flimsy that people should not worry and carry on eating red meat at their current levels
Eating three fewer servings of red meat each week could slash your risk of several ailments, a controversial analysis has found. Researchers published the 'most up-to-date evidence on the topic', based on data from four million people. But the same scientists warned the evidence was so flimsy that people should not worry and carry on eating red meat at their current levels
Results showed eating three servings less of unprocessed red meat each week was linked to a seven per cent lower risk of ever developing cancer.
It means if 1,000 people curbed back on how much they consumed, there would be seven less cases of any form of the killer disease.
The biggest reduction was for gastric or stomach cancer. Data showed eating three less servings was linked to a 14 per cent lower risk of the disease.
The researchers calculated this would lead to two fewer cases of stomach cancer, if 1,000 people scaled back on how much meat they ate.

COULD EATING THREE LESS SERVINGS OF RED MEAT EACH WEEK SLASH YOUR RISK OF KILLER CONDITIONS? 

EVIDENCE: Researchers graded the evidence, based on the quality of the studies examined, imprecision and the chance of statistical bias
REAL-TERM RISK: The number of fewer cases that would be recorded if 1,000 people consumed three less servings of unprocessed red meat. * means the figure applies to the next 11 years, as opposed to a lifetime 
DISEASE 
HEART 
Heart disease
Stroke
Heart attack
Type 2 diabetes
Death 
CANCER 
All types
Oesophageal
Gastric
Colorectal
Pancreatic
Breast
Prostate 
Death 
LOWER RISK

5%
6%
7%
10%
10% 

7%
0%
14%
0%
1%
12%
+2%
7% 
EVIDENCE 

VERY LOW
LOW
VERY LOW
LOW
VERY LOW 

VERY LOW
VERY LOW
VERY LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW 
REAL-TERM RISK

-3*
-1*
-3*
-6*
-4*

-13
0
-2 
0
0
6
+1
7 

WHAT DID HEALTH CHARITIES SAY ABOUT THE RESEARCH? 

Lauren Wiggins, from Bowel Cancer UK, said: 'This research shows that current government recommendations to limit eating red meat to three portions a week, still stand. 
'We know eating red and processed meat can increase your likelihood of developing bowel cancer. So it's important to cut down how much of this you're having.'
Cancer Research UK's Emma Shields said: 'Processed meat increases the risk of bowel cancer – there's a mass of evidence that shows this. 
'This research came to the same conclusion, the main difference being the researchers' view that eating less meat doesn't help very much.' 
Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, added: 'Studies like this make it confusing to know if you should pick up your steak knife or leave it in the drawer. 
'How much red and processed meat we should be eating has been up for debate for decades, but our advice hasn't changed.
'Most of us could benefit from eating less meat and including more plant-based protein in our diets, such as lentils, nuts and seeds, as well as fruit, vegetables and wholegrains.'
A similar reduction was seen for breast cancer (12 per cent), which would avoid six cases of the disease among a thousand people cutting back on meat.
Data also showed cutting back on unprocessed red meat was linked to a 10 per cent lower chance of getting type 2 diabetes in the next 11 years.
Consuming three less servings also cut the odds of heart disease by five per cent, as well as six per cent for stroke and seven per cent for a heart attack.
In real terms, it means there six less cases of type 2 diabetes among 1,000 people who scaled back on how much red meat they ate over 11 years. 
There would also be three less cases of heart disease or a heart attack, and one less stroke per the same amount of people and the same time frame.
Risk reductions were even greater in a review of studies that compared high and low intake of red and processed meat.  
Officials have for years tried to encourage diet changes – guidelines recommend people limit themselves to 2.5oz (70g) of red meat a day.
This is the equivalent of one lamb chop, one pork sausage, half a beef burger, or one-and-a-half rashers of bacon.
But the analysis, based on five reviews of past research, ruled that people should continue to eat the current average amount of red meat.
The panel of 14 experts from seven countries said this was between three and four portions per week for North Americans and Europeans.  
The NHS recommends people limit themselves to 70g or less of red meat each day, because eating a lot of it 'probably increases your risk of bowel cancer'. 70g works out equal to about one lamb chop, one pork sausage, half a beef burger, or one-and-a-half rashers of bacon
The NHS recommends people limit themselves to 70g or less of red meat each day, because eating a lot of it 'probably increases your risk of bowel cancer'. 70g works out equal to about one lamb chop, one pork sausage, half a beef burger, or one-and-a-half rashers of bacon
Scientists from the Dalhousie and McMaster universities in Canada led the research, as well as the Cochrane research centres in Spain and Poland.
It considered 61 studies which had monitored the health of more than four million people, as well as 12 which trialled changing the diets of about 54,000.
The risks the analysis uncovered were similar to what has been suggested before - but the researchers ruled that the odds are not that big. 
The team also found the results of past research were of too poor a quality to make any suggestions about the way people lived their lives. 
Discussing his results, study author Dr Bradley Johnson of Dalhousie told the BBC: 'We're not saying there is no risk.
'We're saying there is only low-certainty evidence of a very small reduction of cancer and other adverse health consequences of reducing red meat consumption.' 
In an editorial published alongside the papers, Dr Aaron Carroll and Dr Tiffany Doherty, from Indiana University, wrote: 'The overall recommendations, contrary to almost all others that exist, suggested that adults continue to eat their current levels of red and processed meat, unless they felt inclined to change them themselves.
'This is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date.
Research shows red and processed meat may not cause cancer
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time2:54
Fullscreen
Need Text

COULD A 'LOWER ADHERENCE TO DIETARY PATTERNS HIGH IN RED AND PROCESSED MEAT' REDUCE THE RISK OF KILLER CONDITIONS?

CONDITION
Stroke
Heart disease
Type 2 diabetes
Breast cancer
Colorectal cancer
Womb cancer
Bile duct cancer 
Gallbladder cancer 
Liver cancer 
Ovarian cancer
Pancreatic cancer 
Prostate cancer 
Stomach cancer 
Any form of cancer 
Uterine cancer 
Heart attack
PERCENTAGE LOWER
25%
13%
24%
5%
6%
1%
59% 
64% 
21%
13%
11% 
7% 
40% 
10% 
18% HIGHER
4% HIGHER 
EVIDENCE QUALITY
low
very low
very low 
low
very low 
low 
low 
low 
very low
low
low 
low
low 
very low 
low
very low 
'Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument.' 
The World Health Organization (WHO) classes red meat as probably cancer-causing and processed meat as carcinogenic.
The NHS also says that eating a lot of red meat 'probably increases your risk of bowel cancer'.
Cancer Research UK says three chemicals in meat are linked to the disease because they damage cells in the gut.
The medical community is torn over the research, describing it as 'very good quality' but hesitating to agree with telling people to cut back on meat. 
Professor David Spiegelhalter, from the University of Cambridge, described it as a 'rigorous, even ruthless, review'.
He said: '[It] does not find good evidence of important health benefits from reducing meat consumption. In fact, it does not find any good evidence at all.'
Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, also praised the study, branding it an 'extremely comprehensive piece of work'.
However, Professor Tim Key, from the University of Oxford, said: 'There's substantial evidence that processed meat can cause bowel cancer.'
He added: 'Today's new publication reports results essentially identical to the existing evidence.
'But describes the impact very differently, contradicting the general consensus among cancer research experts.'
Dr Marco Springmann, an environment and health expert at Oxford, added that the recommendation was based on a 'skewed reading'.  
He said: 'Even with this skewed way of presenting the evidence, the reviews clearly indicate the benefits of reducing red and processed meat consumption.'       

WHAT SHOULD A BALANCED DIET LOOK LIKE?

Meals should be based on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally wholegrain, according to the NHS
Meals should be based on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally wholegrain, according to the NHS
• Eat at least 5 portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day. All fresh, frozen, dried and canned fruit and vegetables count
• Base meals on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally wholegrain
• 30 grams of fibre a day: This is the same as eating all of the following: 5 portions of fruit and vegetables, 2 whole-wheat cereal biscuits, 2 thick slices of wholemeal bread and large baked potato with the skin on
• Have some dairy or dairy alternatives (such as soya drinks) choosing lower fat and lower sugar options
• Eat some beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins (including 2 portions of fish every week, one of which should be oily)
• Choose unsaturated oils and spreads and consuming in small amounts
• Drink 6-8 cups/glasses of water a day
• Adults should have less than 6g of salt and 20g of saturated fat for women or 30g for men a day
Source: NHS Eatwell Guide 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7524907/Could-eating-meat-REALLY-cut-risk-cancer-heart-disease-type-2-diabetes.html