Organic - It's the Pesticides, not the Nutrition

Dr. Harriott's Comment:

It has been said that organic produce has higher nutrient value because it is grown in better soil. That is the result of a logical train of thought that is not regulated or even proven. This study suggests that the only differences in the organic v. non-organic foods is related to the fertilizers used (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc) and does not affect the quality of the nutrition. OK, I can accept that. But that isn't the reason why I choose local organics over mass-farmed foods. It's the pesticides and herbicides that cause untold damage to our bodies through estrogen mimicry and liver toxicity and ground water contamination that I am concerned with. So... move along... nothing to see here.

==================================================

Organic No More Nutritional than Conventional Foods

By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: July 30, 2009
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and
Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner
Earn CME/CE credit
for reading medical news


LITTLE FALLS, N.J., July 30 -- When it comes to nutrition, there's no difference whether patients consume organic or conventionally produced foods, researchers say.

A review of more than 50 studies found no difference in nutrient content -- including vitamin C, calcium, potassium, and zinc -- between the types of food, Alan Dangour, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, and colleagues reported.

The study appears in the September 2009 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, an expert on nutrition and food studies at New York University, disputed the scope of the findings. Action Points
Explain that a large review found no overall difference in nutritional content between organic and conventionally produced foods.


Note that there were differences in nitrogen and phosphorous content, but that was likely due to the type of fertilizer used.
"Plenty of studies have shown organics to have higher levels of nutrients," she said. "Nutrient levels ought to be higher in plants grown on better soils."

The "organic" label is reserved for farms that limit pesticide and herbicide use in crops and drug use in livestock.

Organic foods are typically more expensive, but sales have been booming because of the perception that they're healthier than conventionally produced foods.

So, to determine whether there is a difference in nutritional benefits, the researchers conducted a review of 55 studies published between Jan. 1, 1958 and Feb. 29, 2008.

They evaluated foods' nutrient content, including vitamin C, phenolic compounds, magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc, copper, and total soluble solids.

They found no evidence of a difference between organic and conventional crops in terms of eight of those nutrient categories.

Conventional crops contained more nitrogen, while organics had more phosphorus and greater acidity.

The researchers said the differences were likely due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness of fruits and vegetables at harvest.

But they said it's "unlikely that consumption of these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods in this study provide any health benefit."

Nor did the researchers find nutritional differences with regard to animal-source foods -- although they noted that there were far fewer studies on these foods compared with produce. That made analysis was more limited, they said.

Also, the researchers did not include an analysis of contaminants or chemical residues used in the food products.

Chemical fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides may also affect the chemical content of foods, they said, and the organic foods may have an advantage because of their controlled use of chemicals and medicines. That warrants further study, the researchers said.

Niyati Parekh, PhD, professor of nutrition at New York University who was not involved in the study, said the findings regarding nutritional content are not surprising. The larger concern with organic versus nonorganic foods is chemical content.

"The person who spends the extra $5 to buy organic is not doing it for the nutrients," Dr. Parekh said. "They're concerned with the chemicals."

She said there is not a large body of literature on the chemical content of organic versus nonorganic food because organic labeling is still a "gray area."

"No one has defined what organic is," Dr. Parekh said. "Until we do that, it's hard to study."

Maria Romano, MS, RD, clinical nutritionist for adult oncology at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said that even though they're difficult to design and execute, studies comparing organic and nonorganic products are important.

"We know pesticides pose a risk to human health even in small doses, or those considered safe by industry," she said. "They can have toxic effects and in the long term can contribute to cancer."

Meanwhile, Dr. Nestle emphasized that "organics aren't about nutrients. They are about cleaner and more sustainable production methods," including "lower levels of pesticides and herbicides, which seems like a good idea."

The authors noted the possibility of reporting bias, which is a potential limitation of systematic reviews.

Flax Reduces Blood Cholesterol

Dr. Harriott's Comment:
In reviewing this article referenced below the interesting take away points are: 1) Flax oil did not render the benefit that whole flax seed did. 2) It appears that the benefit is only towards lowering cholesterol and LDL, not towards increasing HDL, and 3) the effects on women appear to be on the order of 3 times higher than the the effects on men. Interesting stuff...

=====================================

Flaxseed Reduces Blood Lipids
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706641?sssdmh=dm1.506978&src=nldne

July 29, 2009 — Whole flaxseed and flaxseed lignans significantly reduce circulating total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, showing their greatest effect in postmenopausal women and individuals with high initial cholesterol concentrations, according to the results of a meta-analysis published in the August 2009 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

...

There were no significant changes in HDL cholesterol or triglyceride levels.

Interpret Findings With Caution

The authors point out that the limitations of their study include the heterogeneity of the studies in the meta-analysis, and a lack of information on the quality, quantity, and bioavailability of the flaxseed that was used. Therefore, they write, their findings must be interpreted with caution.

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that flaxseed consumption may be a useful dietary approach for the prevention of hypercholesterolemia, especially in some patient subgroups, the authors conclude. They add that further studies should be done to investigate the effectiveness of flaxseed supplementation on cardiometabolic risk factors other than blood lipids and, ultimately, on cardiovascular disease–related morbidity and mortality.

Lower Your Risk of the Leading Cause of Death 50%

Dr. Harriott's commentary:

Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. In the general population that risk at the age of 40 years old is about 20%. The study below reports that the risk drops to about 10.1% for men who adopt 4 out of 6 of the following lifestyle modifications:

1. Recommended body weight,
2. Non-smoking,
3. Regular exercise,
4. Moderate alcohol intake,
5. consumption of breakfast cereals, and
6. consumption of fruits and vegetables.

So, question for you to ponder if you are not doing this already... What other benefits do you suppose you would enjoy if you were to be in a low cardiac risk category? We always seem to focus on the end, but I want you to think about what happens between now and then. A healthy lifestyle means, more activity, better sleep, better sex, fewer medications, more vacations. Get on the wagon everyone :) !!!!


======================================================================

Relation Between Modifiable Lifestyle Factors and Lifetime Risk of Heart Failure
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/4/394?etoc

Luc Djoussé, MD, ScD, MPH; Jane A. Driver, MD, MPH; J. Michael Gaziano, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2009;302(4):394-400.

Context The lifetime risk of heart failure at age 40 years is approximately 1 in 5 in the general population; however, little is known about the association between modifiable lifestyle factors and the remaining lifetime risk of heart failure.

Objective To examine the association between modifiable lifestyle factors and the lifetime risk of heart failure in a large cohort of men.

Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective cohort study using data from 20 900 men (mean age at baseline, 53.6 years) from the Physicians' Health Study I (1982-2008) who were apparently healthy at baseline. Six modifiable lifestyle factors were assessed: body weight, smoking, exercise, alcohol intake, consumption of breakfast cereals, and consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Main Outcome Measure Lifetime risk of heart failure.

Results During a mean follow-up of 22.4 years, 1200 men developed heart failure. Overall, the lifetime risk of heart failure was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.9%-14.7%) at age 40 years. Lifetime risk remained constant in men who survived free of heart failure through age 70 years and reached 10.6% (95% CI, 9.4%-11.7%) at age 80 years. Lifetime risk of heart failure was higher in men with hypertension than in those without hypertension. Healthy lifestyle habits (normal body weight, not smoking, regular exercise, moderate alcohol intake, consumption of breakfast cereals, and consumption of fruits and vegetables) were individually and jointly associated with a lower lifetime risk of heart failure, with the highest risk in men adhering to none of the 6 lifestyle factors (21.2%; 95% CI, 16.8%-25.6%) and the lowest risk in men adhering to 4 or more desirable factors (10.1%; 95% CI, 7.9%-12.3%).

Conclusion In this cohort of apparently healthy men, adherence to healthy lifestyle factors is associated with a lower lifetime risk of heart failure.

You'll Never Guess What Else Causes Heartburn and Acid Reflux!!

Dr. Harriott's Commentary: this is why you are stonger and healthier when you heal and recover naturally, without dependence on medical procedures or lotions and potions. The body does what it does for a reason. You can often jumper past or bypass a system to force a response, but there will be ramifications that the MD cannot often predict. It's often like a toss of the dice...

Rebound Acid Reflux with PPIs May Induce Dependence

SAN FRANCISCO, July 2 -- Proton-pump inhibitors (Nexium) may cause or aggravate the very acid-reflux symptoms they're used to treat, according to a randomized trial.

Nexium Causes Gerd?

Apparently, a double-blind, placebo controlled trial showed that 44% of people with no heartburn to begin with, developed heartburn after taking Nexium for two months. Wow, who'd have thunk it?