Picture
I'm back in action in the blogosphere. I apologize for not making any new posts last week, it was partially due to the holiday, but I have also been putting some work into becoming an official resaler for the Greens products that I sell through Amazon on this website. To make a long story short, there aren't exactly a lot of massive (or even minor) profit margins available in the world of retail and shipping is not an easy feat to accomplish at a low cost. As promised though, I will now continue on with my series of diet reviews.

So today has been a particularly "Low Glycemic Index" charged day in my life. On my way to work I had a lengthy phone discussion with my mother who recently got somewhat severely injured and broke a few bones in a battle with a staircase. She has gone three weeks now living on pain medications and doing her best to force solid food down, but hasn't had much success. At the start of this weekend she went cold turkey and ditched the pain medications, and surprisingly pain was the least of the symptoms. She reported hot and cold flashes as well as extreme moodiness and inconsistent energy levels. The average person would probably write this off as a "detox" which it is, but not have a clue how to fix it other than to wait it out. As a general rule, there aren't too many quick fixes to three weeks of anti-pain medications and general starvation, but there are things you can do to speed things up. What has happened here is that she has likely consumed all of her body's Glycogen (sugar) reserves as well as depleted most of her nutritional reserves throughout the last 3 weeks. I recommended she gulp down some Gatorade for a quick spike in energy and to recover some brain power, and then force down some high fiber "Low Glycemic" nutritious foods to help level off her blood sugar levels and avoid a crash. Low blood glucose levels are likely the culprit of the most obvious symptoms of low energy levels and moodiness, but the hot and cold flashes are likely the bodies attempt to "sweat out the bad." We discussed how the hot flashes and sweat typically took place after drinking water, because the body finally had more water to use in its detox. My mother of course knew most of this being a nurse herself, and her husband had already suggested most of these things, given that he is a biology major as well as an all around educated guy, but it makes a nice segue (yes, that's how you spell "segway") into the concept of the "Low Glycemic Index Diet."

What is the Glycemic Index?
The Glycemic Index has gained popularity over recent years due to its inclusion in popular diet plans such as South Beach, Nutrisystem, The Zone, Sugar Busters, Glucose Revolution, and Ending the Food Fight. It was originally developed to help diabetics monitor blood glucose level increases from food. The basic concept is that a glass of orange juice causes a much quicker rise in blood sugar than a bowl of oatmeal, which takes longer because of the type of carbohydrate and amount of fiber. The response is affected by many factors, including the quantity of food, the amount and type of carbohydrate, the cooking method, degree of processing, and more. On the Glycemic Index scale, each food is assigned an index number from 1-100, with 100 as the reference score for pure glucose. Typically, foods are rated high (greater than 70), moderate (56-69), or low (less than 55).

There is no doubt that the Glycemic Index works well for diabetics who simply cannot handle irregularity in their blood sugar levels, but recent diets have made the assumption that monitoring blood sugar levels will help control weight gain as well. Using the Glycemic Index in diet plans is based on the concept that low-index foods are more satisfying, take longer to absorb, make you feel full longer, and therefore make you less likely to overeat. Coincidentally, most low-glycemic foods tend to be healthier, less processed, more nutrient rich, and high in fiber. 

How it Works for Weight Loss:

There is good reason to believe that combining low-glycemic carbohydrates, lean protein, and healthy fats will naturally crowd out many of the less nutritious high-glycemic foods and you will lose weight as a result. Anyone that has ever had a glazed doughnut knows that it wont satisfy you for very long and that 40 grams of sugar probably could have been better used it if were eaten 1 gram at a time over the course of 2 hours. However, the question is whether or not the Glycemic Index itself accomplishes an effective separation of these foods. 

In 2010, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found the Glycemic Index, in combination with higher protein, helped overweight adults in eight European countries maintain their weight.  However, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that "consistent evidence shows that Glycemic Index and/or glycemic load are not associated with body weight and do not lead to greater weight loss or better weight maintenance.

One might conclude from the above that the weight loss was due to an increase in protein intake.

A 2008 report, which analyzed data from 37 studies and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, linked low-GI diets to lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers. However, it was noted that they did not prove that the low-GI diets prevented those diseases.

In addition to the above controversy over the topic, there are some intuitively problematic conclusions that the glycemic index seems to draw with regard to weight loss (not diabetes). For example: 

Brown and white rice rank comparably on the index scale as do white and whole wheat bread, yet clearly the whole grain choices are healthier.


Some scores are confusing. For example, carrots are a nutrient-rich, high-fiber vegetable that can range from low to high on the GI scale. Likewise, some candy that includes nuts gets a better GI score than a potato. Ripe bananas have higher GI scores than under-ripe bananas. Cook pasta al dente and it ranks lower than fully cooked pasta.

Not only do the food scores vary within the same type of food, but so does the response from person to person. It can even vary within the same person from day to day.

My Thoughts:
Unfortunately, we haven't found our one size fits all solution to weight loss yet. The Glycemic Index is not by any means a failure though, it just won't let you ignore everything that you already know about nutrition and focus on only one thing. When we take a moment to think about our food, it doesn't require a medical journal to realize that white bread (made from highly refined and often even bleached grain) is going to break down more quickly than that chewy piece of whole grain that still has its skin intact. It should also be fairly easy to recognize that apple juice has much more readily available sugar than an apple which you only manage to chew into 1 cm chunks before it gets to your stomach. In most cases though, if you carry a Glycemic Index chart around with you, you're going to be healthier than the average American (especially if the chart is heavy), but I've seen too many dieters who see one slightly bad item that they like which falls under the diet, and they eat it for every meal causing the whole diet to be a failure.

There are a few other things to consider when adopting a diet like this though. While the foods are generally nutritious, this criteria alone does not direct you to find a balanced diet as far as nutrition goes. Also, while glucose is a major culprit in America's obesity problem, you still need to be wary of what you replace your calories with. 

Let's see if it passes my diet criteria test:
  1. The correct ratio of Carbohydrates (40%-50% of Calories), Fats (20%-30% of Calories), and Proteins (25%-35% of Calories): Possibly, but not prescribed.
  2. Very high in all nutrients, and diverse enough to include all essential nutrients: Possibly, but not prescribed.
  3. Devoid of foods that can be identified as obviously harmful: In general yes, but would still allow for low sugar processed foods like Margarine.
  4. Ideally but not necessarily, tested by centuries of tradition: No.


It is apparent to me that this diet criteria could work wonderfully for some, but unfortunately has the potential to be abused if not used in conjunction with other diet advice. I have, of course simplified the diet to focus on the Glycemic Index itself, where many of the books and diets mentioned at the start only used it to monitor the type of carbohydrates one takes in. They then recommended an overall diet with criteria for fats and protein. After all of that explanation though, it appears we keep ending up right back where we started. Eat your fruits and vegetables, monitor your calorie ratios (Carbs, Fat, Protein), and keep yourself informed enough to know when food is good or bad for you. One positive for the "Meatatarians" out there, is that this type of a diet leaves room for some lean-protein in the form of meat. I will save my comments on types of meat for a future post, but as a preview I highly recommend sticking to the grass fed or free range varieties whenever possible.    









 
Picture
Cancer is scary, sneaky, confusing, overwhelming, and in my opinion starting to get kind of annoying. While annoying is not a word that you usually hear associated with cancer, I really don't think we should have to spend so much time and energy avoiding this "condition" that we have tended to refer to as a disease. There are many different ways to describe cancer such as "a healing reaction that never stops" or "out-of-control cell growth" but what is it really? Well the source of cancer is really cellular DNA damage. 

The following is from cancer.org

"DNA is in every cell and it directs all the cell’s actions. In a normal cell, when DNA gets damaged the cell either repairs the damage or the cell dies. In cancer cells, the damaged DNA is not repaired, and the cell doesn't die like it should. Instead, the cell goes on making new cells that the body doesn't need. These new cells all have the same abnormal DNA as the first cell does.

People can inherit abnormal DNA, but most DNA damage is caused by mistakes that happen while the normal cell is reproducing or by something in the environment. Sometimes the cause of the DNA damage may be something obvious like cigarette smoking or sun exposure. But it’s rare to know exactly what caused any one person’s cancer."

It turns out that less than 15% of cancer comes from inherited genetics, and the other 85% comes from the things that happen throughout our lives. The people who make statistics say that half of men and one third of American women will develop cancer in their lifetimes (did you catch that? Okay, it was the American Cancer Society that said it). So I suppose it is reasonable to want to spend every moment of our lives avoiding cancer, but unfortunately the stress of doing that will inevitably cause cancer no matter how healthy your diet is. So I guess we should focus on things that "avoid cellular DNA damage." I wish I could tell you that were simpler than it is, but the entire health industry has spent years attempting to simplify and group together foods and activities that we know to be healthy in a campaign against cancer that I would consider to be largely unsuccessful. The simple fact is that people who continue to educate themselves about avoiding cancer and also "practice what they preach" will generally have a substantially lower chance at getting cancer, but there is no magic bullet you can do that will allow you to live the rest of your life like a typical American and still avoid cancer. The Anti-Cancer Diet acknowledges this and simply attempts to give you all the facts. 

Enter "The Anti-Cancer Diet."

Based on a book by David Servan-Schreiber, a PhD and Doctor of Medicine who defeated brain cancer and spent the next 15 years dedicating his life to the development of an Anti-Cancer lifestyle. I cannot say that I have read the book myself, but I have researched the concepts in detail and will do my best to summarize them here (A very long description can be found here).

There are a number of basic principles to the diet, most of which I agree with entirely:

  • Focus on Organic, Plant-Based Foods
  • Cut Way Back on Sugar
  • Bulk up on Fiber
  • Cut Down on, or Eliminate Meat
  • Choose your Fats Wisely (omega-3 vs omega-6 etc)
  • Choose Cancer-Fighting Foods
  • Prepare your Food in Healthy Ways
  • Reduce Stress
  • Exercise
  • Avoid Foods and Activities that Cause Inflammation


It appears that the book gives exhaustive lists and descriptions of each of these principles, a sample of which can be found here. There are lots of interesting facts such as a discussion of how the grilled part of barbecued meat is actually a notable carcinogen which contributes to the cancer increasing discussions around meats. In addition there is a discussion and a large focus on how cancer is caused by inflammation:

"Cancer cells do not behave like normal cells. They refuse to die after a certain number of divisions, and they poison the tissues around them with chemical substances, creating inflammation, which they need to sustain their growth. Recent research reviewed in the journal Science confirms that the more successful cancers are in provoking inflammation, the more aggressive the tumour and the better it is at spreading over long distances, ultimately reaching lymph nodes and spreading to other organs. Links have been found between several types of cancer and chronic inflammation caused by either a virus such as papillomavirus in the cervix or environmental factors such as asbestos or smoking. Oncologists at the University of Glasgow have been measuring inflammation levels in the blood of patients with various cancers since the 1990s and have found that patients with the lowest levels of inflammation were twice as likely as the others to live for several years."

The message of the book is that while modern medicine is attempting to figure out a method to stop inflammation of cells, there are already a number of natural ways to do this. It goes on to say:

"It’s simply a matter of eliminating certain toxins from our environment, adopting an anti-cancer diet, seeking emotional balance and getting enough exercise."

Just as with any article or book on cancer, you are likely to hear a lot of things that you already knew and a few that you didn't. While the above is not at all groundbreaking news, the book doesn't claim to have any new "magic bullet." It simply gives a description of the best natural ways humans currently known to prevent cancer, and why western medicine has learned that there are good reasons that these things work.

So let's see if it passes my test from the previous post. 

  1. The correct ratio of Carbohydrates (40%-50% of Calories), Fats (20%-30% of Calories), and Proteins (25%-35% of Calories): Yes
  2. Very high in all nutrients, and diverse enough to include all essential nutrients: Yes
  3. Devoid of foods that can be identified as obviously harmful: Yes
  4. Ideally but not necessarily, tested by centuries of tradition: Yes (not specifically this diet of course)
 
I would say that each of these could certainly be accomplished within the bounds of the Anti-Cancer Diet. The book gives a LOT more detail on the individual foods that are recommended, and a sample can be found on the page I referred to above. This can be extremely useful for someone who is looking to enhance their knowledge of health and nutrition, and who refuses to believe anything without an explanation (like any of us really know what polyphenols are anyways, but how else are they supposed to explain that green tea prevents tumor growth?). I think the book is one that would need to be read multiple times in order to ingrain the lists of foods and the reasons that they are healthy, but overall it gets my stamp of approval.

Conclusion
The Anti-Cancer Diet will undoubtedly work to keep you healthy (and probably lose weight in the process), and I highly recommend the foods and behaviors described in the book. It isn't groundbreaking information and the regimen has not been simplified in a way that makes it easy to follow without constant reference to the book or other resources, but that is largely because avoiding cancer in America is not a particularly simple task. Having not read the book myself, I did not have an opportunity to pick out any extra special sentences that might help to simplify the diet, but overall I think that the book is a great way to educate yourself on a living a healthy lifestyle and serves as an excellent "one stop shop" for natural anti-cancer resources. It's one of the next audio books I will be ordering when I finish the incredibly long "Atlas Shrugged."

P.S. The new revised addition currently available adds a few newer pieces of research, but was largely rewritten to make sure that the "Mind-Body Connection" portion of the book was more effectively received, focusing on avoiding feelings of helplessnes 




 
Picture
A good friend of mine recently sent me an email asking that I put together a diet comparison for some popular diets, specifically with the goal of General Health and Anti-Disease. She suggested reviewing the Alkalizing Diet, The Anti-Cancer Diet, and the Low Glycemic Index Diet. I would like to add the Paleo diet as well. I spent some time contemplating the best way to put this together, making sure that each diet is thoroughly researched, the blog post isn't too long, and most importantly, it remains objective and doesn't play any favorites. As I started doing research on some of the suggested diets, I began to realize exactly how lightly I will need to tread when reviewing these diets in order to maintain credibility.

Allow me to explain further. You've heard me explain that it is important to Alkalize your body in my previous posts Body Basics Part 1 and Part 2 (this post won't completely make sense if you haven't read those). And some of you may have found yourselves saying that this is an entirely foreign concept to you, so you headed to the University of Google to get some answers. You would find lots of sites in favor of the diet, with tons of testimonials, but you would likely also find sites like Quackwatch or an article like this (which is extremely long but worth reading) explaining the story of a now famous Kim Tinkham who was enthralled by the book The Secret (a book that takes the power of positive thinking to the point of literal control of the universe) and opted out of traditional cancer treatment, going for an Alkalizing Diet regimen only to die 3.5 years later. These sites typically criticize folks like Robert O. Young, who is attributed with being the founder of the Alkalizing Diet (his book The pH Miracle) because he has a Nutritionist degree from a university that no longer exists, he sells the products that he promotes, he provides enthusiastic anecdotal evidence but rarely publishes data, and unfortunately does not appear to be willing to negotiate any of his premises when people challenge his results. Admittedly, there he could do a better job of defending the diet that he promotes. The nail in the coffin is that he claims unwaveringly that an alkaline diet can prevent and entirely reverse cancer. I personally think it is extremely important to remain open to disagreements and other opinions, but I don't think that any of the above reasons should necessarily discredit a person who has been working with patients in person for 40 years simply because he isn't capable of producing PhD level laboratory results. For example, the fact that I don't use citations or bibliographies on my blog posts doesn't necessarily mean that I am giving incorrect advice and evidence would still be required to prove that I am. 

Let's Talk about Curing Cancer
I'll start by tackling the biggest reason for disagreement with the Alkalizing Diet; its claims to prevent and cure cancer. There is a large amount of debate over the term "Cancer Survivor" ranging from anyone who is currently alive that had cancer at some point, all the way to including friends and family members who have helped the diagnosed individual go through the emotional and psychological process of cancer treatment. "Cancer Survival Rates" are quite a bit more standardized though. In 1996 the definition of a cancer survival rate was redefined by the National Cancer Institute to include any individual who lived for more than 5 years after diagnosis. That patient was considered successfully cured, despite what they died from in the future. It's not a surprise that there was a massive increase in the cancer survival rate when this definition was changed. Previously, it had taken into account what the individual eventually died from but until they did actually die of cancer, they were a survivor from the moment that they were diagnosed. I can understand why they did this, because the statistical inaccuracies of the previous definition had to be absolutely awful given the difficulty of tracking someone's cause of death 20 years after their treatment. We still have to be aware of it though when we hear statistics that say that cancer survival rates are increasing. 

So the next question would be, how long do people live when they don't treat their cancer? There's a study for that. The following is regarding a classic study examining the natural history of untreated breast cancer:

Published in 1962 by H. J. G. Bloom, W. W. Richardson, and E. J. Harries, and examined data from Middlesex Hospital from 1805 to 1933 where 250 cases of untreated breast cancer were identified and studied. They calculated survival as the period of time from onset of symptoms to death. What they found was that 18% of the 250 patients survived five years; 3.6% survived 10 years; and 0.8% survived 15 years. Of note, it was 19 years before all patients were dead. Overall, the median survival was 2.7 years. A survival graph from this classic paper is below:



Now I know things have changed since 1933 and untreated cancer today could mean drinking water with flouride, breathing polluted air, eating processed foods, and living a sedentary lifestyle. So I would expect the survival period to go down in a 2012 undiagnosed cancer patient. 

So What Prevents Cancer?
We are all too familiar with the types of cancer treatments that are approved in today's world: Surgery, Radiation, Chemotherapy. With very few exceptions for specific types of cancer, those are in fact the only treatments that it is legal for any doctor to prescribe in America. It is, in fact, illegal for a doctor to prescribe nutritional therapy in place of any of the above mentioned treatments. To clarify though, I am not an advocate of turning down any of these treatments if you are diagnosed with cancer. Most people however, pursue diets to help prevent cancer or keep it dormant after it is put into remission. As you will see in my next post on The Anti-Cancer Diet nearly all of the foods approved in the Alkalizing Diet are in fact cancer preventing foods, regardless of whether you agree with the pH scale as an effective way to decide what to eat. To give a few examples as well as a preview of The Anti Cancer Diet:

Taken from this page on the Anti-Cancer Diet:

GREEN TEA
Rich in polyphenols that reduce the growth of the new blood vessels needed for tumour growth, green tea is also a powerful antioxidant and activates mechanisms in the liver which help to eliminate cancerous toxins from the body more rapidly. In mice it has been shown to block the effects of chemical carcinogens responsible for breast, lung, oesophageal, stomach and colon cancer.

TURMERIC
The most powerful natural anti-inflammatory identified today. In the laboratory it enhances the effectiveness of chemotherapy and reduces tumour growth. To be assimilated by the body tumeric needs to be mixed with black pepper and, ideally, it should be dissolved in oil.

GARLIC, ONIONS, LEEKS, SHALLOTS and CHIVES
These all help to regulate blood sugar levels, which in turn reduces insulin secretion and thus the growth of cancer cells. They promote the death of cancer cells in colon, breast, lung and prostate cancer

CRUCIFEROUS VEGETABLES
Cabbages, sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower contain powerful anti-cancer molecules. But boiling will destroy them — steam briefly or stir-fry rapidly in a little olive oil.

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES  RICH IN CAROTENOIDS
Carrots, yams, sweet potatoes, squash, tomatoes, apricots, beets and all the brightly colored fruits and vegetables contain vitamin A and lycopene, which have the proven capacity to inhibit the growth of particularly aggressive cancers.

MUSHROOMS
Shiitake, crimini, portabello and oyster mushrooms stimulate the reproduction and activity of immune cells. They are often used in Japan as a complement to chemotherapy to support the immune system.

HERBS AND SPICES
Rosemary, thyme, oregano, basil and mint are rich in essential oils of the tarpene family which reduce the spread of cancer cells by blocking the enzymes they need to invade neighboring tissues.

CITRUS FRUIT
Oranges, tangerines, lemons and grapefruit contain anti-infammatory flavonoids which are also present in the skin. So buy organic, unwaxed citrus fruit and add the zest to salad dressing or steep the skins in hot water or tea.

Every one of the foods on that list is either neutral or alkaline. Now while there is no mention of alkalinity in any of those paragraphs, it starts to appear to be more than a coincidence when the batting average is near 100%.

Conclusion
As a wrap up on the Alkalizing Diet post as well as a framework for the future diet reviews, I have some criteria. It is my belief that any healthy diet must absolutely have the following things without compromise:
  1. The correct ratio of Carbohydrates (40%-50% of Calories), Fats (20%-30% of Calories), and Proteins (25%-35% of Calories).
  2. Very high in all nutrients, and diverse enough to include all essential nutrients.
  3. Devoid of foods that can be identified as obviously harmful.
  4. Ideally but not necessarily, tested by centuries of tradition.


That's not rocket science, but the Atkins Diet didn't seem to pull it off, and it is actually extremely difficult to accomplish without what would be considered a massive amount of fruits and vegetables by today's standards. It happens that the criteria of the pH level of food when digested in your body seems to lend itself to foods that meet these criteria in nearly all cases. This is likely due to the fact that the most alkaline parts of foods are in fact minerals themselves. One could spend all of their time isolating exactly which chemical in each food seems to be the one preventing cancer, but the stress alone from that could lead to cancer growth. Ultimately, I fully approve of the Alkalizing Diet with the exception of one claim:

Alkaline Water: There are good alkaline waters on the market, which are simply mineral rich water from springs that get their minerals from the mud that naturally filters them. However, there are also people on the web trying to sell water ionizers that add hydrogen molecules to your water and blatantly manipulate the pH scale. There is little to no evidence anywhere that this is even possible to sustain chemically, let alone that it has any benefits. There is nothing wrong with putting pH drops in your water, but know that those "trace minerals" are doing little more than a multivitamin would and your body likely cannot work with most of the minerals if not taken with the proper enzymes in food. Ultimately, the best way to get a concentrated dose of alkaline nutrition other than food itself is through whole food based supplements such as the green powders recommended on this website or any other greens on the market. Ionized water is a clear misunderstanding of the reason why the pH scale is generally a good gauge of how healthy a food is for our body.

P.S. Tune in for my next posts which will introduce and compare The Anti-Cancer Diet, The Low Glycemic Index Diet, and the Paleo Diet! I realize I did not provide a description of the Alkalizing Diet in this post, but this is only in the spirit of keeping the post relatively short and this diet has been covered in other posts.