Gut Check

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of media coverage on the new guidelines for mammograms and breast self exams. Analysis of scientific research indicates that mammograms can do more harm than good. This is not what anti-breast cancer crusaders like the Susan G. Komen Foundation want to hear. Women are worried and confused because they have been told that they must have mammograms to detect and prevent breast cancer. Now the scientists are saying that is not the case and that, in fact, they can be counter-productive.

For every women correctly diagnosed with cancer after a mammogram there are significantly more women who endure the trauma of a false positive reading. They have no disease but undergo what turn out to be needless breast biopsies where they run the risk of a lung puncture from a poorly-performed needle biopsy. Unless a woman has a family/genetic history of breast cancer, the odds of her getting it prior to age 70 are actually quite low.

No one wants to be the one to tell the average 40-year-old woman without a family history of breast cancer to stop getting mammograms and then find out 3 years later that she developed breast cancer. But, again, the odds of her developing it are low. The cancer foundations and some health professionals appear to be operating under the “better safe than sorry” mantra while ignoring the fact that false positives can also lead to a sorry situation.

In 2002, Gerd Gigerenzer, author of Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You, pointed out that the general public and many medical professionals do not really understand statistics. This lack of understanding leads them to judge inaccurately the actual risks and benefits of health screenings.

According to Gigerenzer, the vast majority of physicians who participated in the research described in his book cannot accurately determine risks and benefits when these are presented in the form of probabilities. (e.g. There is a 25% risk reduction in death from breast cancer with mammography.) Only when the results are presented in the form of natural frequencies do the risks and benefits become clear. (e.g. 1000 women got mammograms each year for 10 years and 1000 women did not. At the end of 10 years, 3 women in the first group and 4 women in the second group died of breast cancer.) If we and our physicians cannot accurately determine risks and benefits when they are presented as probabilities, we could be unnecessarily risking our health. How many of the 997 women who got mammograms each year for 10 years also had false positives during that time? How many experienced the trauma, pain, and potential negative outcomes of the additional testing required to rectify that false positive?

Rather than relying on mammograms (and other types of screenings) to safeguard their health, it would be better for women in their 40s and 50s to actively employ measures that we know can help prevent cancer. These measures include eating plenty of richly-colored fruits and vegetables; eliminating dairy and other saturated fats; getting plenty of exercise; sleeping around 8 hours each night; and taking a minimum supplement of 1000 IU/day of vitamin D3. More vitamin D supplementation may be required to get the blood levels of 25 OHD to the optimal level of 50 ng/mL.

By following these preventive measures all women, even those with a family history of breast cancer, will reduce their odds of developing the disease. And those without a family history will be able to ignore their guts and go with their brains in accepting the scientific data which states that we in the United States have been over-using mammograms. Look at the natural frequency data. Mammograms haven’t been as much help as we thought. Eat right, exercise, sleep well, and take vitamin D. That’s where the science is.

Eat for Health: A Review

Dr. Joel Fuhrman (Eat for Health) is one of the major proponents of a predominantly vegetarian diet he calls nutritarian. At first blush, his diet is very similar to that which I have long promoted: eat lots of fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts while eliminating dairy and grain-based foods. Dr. Fuhrman also allows very limited amounts of eggs, fish/shellfish, and poultry, but would essentially eliminate red meat. It is at the level of protein intake that Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Fuller differ. Dr. Fuhrman wants proteins to be essentially vegetable-based, while Dr. Fuller knows that humans also need animal-based proteins.

Both of us recognize that humans are primates and that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. Therefore, we both look to the chimpanzee diet for guidelines as to what our ancient ancestors ate. However, Dr. Fuhrman seems to conflate the diet of the gorilla with that of the chimpanzee. He also ignores a major difference we have with our fellow apes and the implication that has for human diets: our much larger brains.

Gorillas eat a lot of leafy vegetation; they are vegetarians. Chimps eat very little leafy vegetation. The major components of the chimp diet are fruits and nuts, but they also eat as much animal-based protein as they can find: ants, termites, eggs, monkeys, bush pigs, etc. Dr. Fuhrman combines the gorilla’s leafy diet with the chimp’s fruits and nuts and concludes that this is the proper diet for humans. In the wild, generally the only time chimps eat leaves is when they eat meat (except for certain unpalatable leaves eaten to remove intestinal parasites). Chimps and humans do not have the same ability that gorillas have to process large quantities of leafy vegetation through their guts.

Archaeological evidence shows that hominin (humans and their ancient ancestors) brains did not begin to enlarge until animal-based protein (primarily fish/shellfish and water fowl eggs) became a larger component of the diet. These foods are excellent sources of omega-3 fatty acids, necessary for proper brain growth, development, and function. Some plant-based foods such as tree nuts and flax seeds do provide omega-3 fatty acids, but research shows that these are not a good source: humans (and other mammals) cannot efficiently convert the plant-based fatty acids into the forms required for use in the brain. With the development of agriculture and an increasing reliance on plants in human diets, the size of human brains has actually decreased over the past 10,000 years.

In chapter 13 of Eat for Health, Dr. Fuhrman has an entire section inveighing against eating fish and shellfish because of mercury contamination. Mercury is a problem in large, long-lived fish. However, it is not a problem in shrimp and sardines, and other small, short-lived varieties. Is it worth relegating fish and shellfish to a very minor part of your diet if it also means that you are not providing your brain with enough omega-3 fatty acids?

Overall, Dr. Fuhrman’s book is full of good advice for those who are overweight and have chronic health problems. However, his nutritarian program is too close to that of a vegetarian/vegan if you want to have an optimally functioning brain. A few modifications will bring Dr. Fuhrman’s plan into line with Dr. Fuller’s Premier Nutrition Plan [http://www.anthrohealth.net/AHNews%20V6N7.htm]: a plan that keeps you healthy and brainy.

Flexibility for Life

When I was 32 I realized that I was not as flexible as I had once been. This disturbed me because at that time my grandmother was having increasing difficulty moving. Her shoulders were becoming stiff and inflexible. She needed a knee replacement. My grandmother was only 75. I loved her dearly, but I didn’t want to have the same problems with my body. From that point, I put together a series of joint movements I call Flexibilities; and I began doing them every morning when I first arose.

Over the next several weeks, I noticed that not only was I becoming more flexible, but I felt less achy and stiff when I awoke each morning. Doing the movements in the morning meant that I felt loose, alert, and ready for the day ahead. I walked a little taller with a bounce in my step.

Through the intervening years, I’ve continued to do the flexibilities each morning. On those days that for some reason I do not do the movements, I feel a little off. I’ve also found that if I do not do the flexibilities first thing in the morning, I am less likely to do them at all that day.

In addition to doing the joint movements, I do two other things to aid joint health. Each day with my breakfast (blueberries and bananas, tomato salsa omelet, and grapefruit juice) I take a vitamin D3 supplement. Vitamin D3 is vital for skeletal and muscle strength (and many other aspects of health). For lunch I eat water-packed sardines. Sardines are a super food: they are a great source of protein, calcium, vitamin D3, and omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids help reduce joint inflammation (along with many other benefits).

Following this program for over two decades, I have great flexibility, no signs of osteoarthritis, and good overall health. Two research studies provide support for my anecdotal experience.

The first, published about one year ago by UC San Diego researchers, found that flexing joints prompts chondrocytes (cartilage cells) to produce a lubricating substance that keeps the joint surfaces smooth. The more the joint was flexed, the greater the percentage of chondrocytes that produced lubrication, keeping the glassy surface of the joint smooth. Joints that are not flexed produce very little lubrication resulting in an erosion of the smooth cartilage and, eventually, the pain of osteoarthritis.

The second study was published earlier this month in the American Journal of Physiology. These researchers in Texas and Japan found that an individual’s degree of flexibility could be positively correlated with that individual’s degree of arterial flexibility. That is, the most flexible adults had the best arterial condition and the lowest risk for having a heart attack or stroke. Those adults with the greatest joint stiffness were at highest risk of suffering from a heart attack or stroke.

Do you want to live a longer, healthier life? Then you need to add daily flexibilities to your routine. If you would like a PDF copy (for $3.00) of my Flexibilities booklet which includes photos and directions for each movement, click here. http://www.anthrohealth.net/ahflexbooklet.htm

Genes are not Paint Pots: Part 2 Polygenic Traits

Articles on genetics make it seem that every trait is a single gene trait. Single gene traits are easier to understand and seem easier to manipulate. I imagine that most geneticists would be thrilled if all our traits were caused by single genes. Unfortunately for them, that is not the case. In fact, for most traits of interest multiple genes are involved. They are polygenic traits: the result of the interaction of multiple forms of multiple genes with the environment in which that individual and/or his/her ancestors live/lived. The proportion of genes to environment varies with each trait. In most cases, we really have no idea of the true proportion. Regardless, it is important to remember that these traits are not simple and, therefore, we are a long ways from being able to fully understand and manipulate them.

Polygenic traits exhibit continuous variation: there are no distinct boundaries between one form of the trait and another. Unlike the blood type example from the Part 1 blog [below] where one is either Type A or Type O, polygenic traits can seem like blends. Some examples of polygenic traits include: height, weight, intelligence, hair color, and eye color. Adults are not 5’, 5.5’, or 6’ tall with no heights between. Height is continuously distributed. Although we say a woman is blond or brunette, we know that the range of variation within each category is large. Another example of a polygenic trait is skin color.

Geneticists have spent years trying to figure out the genetics of human skin color. They’ve found genes that affect skin color, but they have not yet been able to fully explain the genetics that produce the variation we see. Nor can they confidently predict what color the offspring will be of parents with markedly different skin colors. If genes were paint pots, this should be easy to do. Take one very dark parent and one very light parent, and the offspring should be halfway between. Sometimes this looks to be the case, but the children can range in skin color from light to dark. There is no way to tell ahead of time. I know a couple where the wife has very dark skin color and black hair, while the husband has very light skin color and blond hair. One child has medium brown skin color and wavy brown hair while the other child has very light skin color and tightly curled blond hair.

Some geneticists have talked about parents choosing their baby’s traits. If traits were of the single gene variety this might barely be possible. But with polygenic traits, it is not going to happen. At least, not in the foreseeable future. If you look a great deal like your mate, your child may look a great deal like you. But it isn’t guaranteed. [See the Part 1 blog below.] If you and your mate are quite dissimilar in looks, each birth will be an unexpected mix of traits. Your child will not be a blend. Genes are not paint pots. And that is a great thing because we do not know what the future will bring. The more variation there is in your offspring, the better the chance that they will do well in that unknown future.

Genes are not Paint Pots: Part 1 Genetics and Genealogy

Even though everyone graduating from high school is supposed to have taken biology, there is still much that remains misunderstood among the general public about many topics in biology, including genetics. Mendel would be so disappointed.

Prior to Mendel’s research with pea plants in the mid-1800s, it was assumed by everyone that offspring were a blend of their parents’ traits. Mendel found that this assumption was false. Purebred tall pea plants crossed with purebred short pea plants did not produce medium-sized offspring. They produced tall offspring. Traits did not blend. The world changed! NOT! No one even paid any attention for about 50 years. And then, it was only a few scientists (who became geneticists) who really noticed.

To understand this better, let’s start with a simple Mendelian (single gene trait) example: ABO blood type. You get half of your chromosomes (23) from your mom and half (23) from your dad. Both sets of chromosomes have the same genes, BUT they may have different forms of those genes. In our example, your chromosome #9 from your mom contains the ABO blood type form O. The one from your dad is A. Your blood type is not a blend of O and A. It is A (because A is dominant over O). But your genotype is AO.

Now, it is years later and you are ready to have a child. Your mate is blood type O. That means your mate has a genotype of OO. Due to the randomness of meiosis (cell division that produces gametes: eggs or sperm), your gamete contains the O form from your mom. Your mate also provides an O, so your child will have blood type O and genotype OO. Not only is your dad’s gene for ABO not passed on to his grandchild child, neither are any of the nearby genes on that chromosome. And if your dad’s chromosome #9 did not undergo recombination during meiosis (exchanging material with the other chromosome #9s), all your dad’s genes on that chromosome are absent from his grandchild child. It is possible, although improbable, that your child contains chromosomes and genes ONLY from your mother. It is also possible, although improbable, that the only chromosome your child inherited from grandma is #9. There is no blending of the grandparents’ traits in the grandchild.

What this means is that in only two generations, traits can be lost from a family line. In our example, you know who your parents are, but it is possible that the traits of one of your parents will not be evident in your child, which is your parent’s grandchild. The big point? Genetics and Genealogy do not match.

Maybe you are really into genealogy and have a family tree dating back a couple of hundred years. You know who your ancestors are. But you decide it would be cool to have genetic testing done too. SHOCK!! According to the genetic testing, you do not have any Native American ancestry. But you know that your mom’s grandmother was Sioux. You have a picture of her! What gives?!
What gives is that since genes don’t blend, they can be lost to subsequent generations. Also, current genetic testing is only able to look at a subset of all your genes. Maybe your maternal grandma’s genes that you did inherit aren’t in that tested subset. Who knows?

Genetic information provides additional insights to your ancestry, but is not a substitute for genealogy. You need both types of information to fully understand your personal past.

Takeaway message: If you read an article, or see a show that states, “Based on genetic testing, there is no evidence that Population A is in the ancestry of Population B” remember that not all genes get passed down to all descendants, and that genetic testing only examines a subset of genes. Contrary to what that genetic test showed, it is quite possible that Population A is indeed in the ancestry of Population B. Genetics and Genealogy are different, complementary ways of knowing the past.

Brainercise

At ever-increasing rates, the population of the United States is becoming overweight and obese. There are two simple explanations for this: lack of exercise and too much high-calorie, low-nutrition food. These are obviously important factors. Exercise and a high-quality, properly-portioned diet need to be at the top of anyone’s weight-loss agenda. But these two factors may be related to two other interacting factors: learning and sleeping.

The brain uses about 20% of the body’s energy budget to maintain itself and to process information. When learning a new task, particularly a difficult one, the brain uses more energy. Once the task is learned, the energy level drops back to baseline. Researchers have found that the best way to consolidate learning, to put it into long-term memory, is to get a good night’s sleep.

Obtaining adequate levels of sleep has many beneficial outcomes. I’ve discussed this topic in some detail in an issue of AnthroHealth News: http://www.anthrohealth.net/AHNews%20V7N1.htm But in this blog I am bringing up a different benefit: weight loss. Researchers have found that individuals who obtain an adequate night’s sleep (around eight hours) are less likely to have weight problems. The reason given for this is that inadequate sleep and/or sleep disruption also disrupt the hormones that control appetite. If appetite is not suppressed, over-eating results.

This sounds reasonable, but I am proposing a different, additional connection. Too many Americans do not want to learn anything new, particularly if it is difficult. There is even an entire class of American citizens who are proud that they know very little. Charles P. Pierce’s Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free describes this group in disturbing detail.

Learning new, challenging things uses more energy and requires more sleep for the new thing to actually stick. Failure to really learn anything new (as opposed to the process of cramming and regurgitating where anything “learned” is quickly lost) puts no energy demands on the brain, so an individual thinks he/she needs less sleep. Less sleep results in hormone disruption leading to loss of appetite suppression and obesity.

Now, I am not saying that all individuals who are overweight or obese are failing to adequately exercise their brains. Each individual has his/her own complexity of factors involved in weight issues. However, it is a real shame that there are humans who, despite having a large brain capable of learning complex ideas and activities, choose not to bother to use their brains to their highest capacity. It is frightening that so many individuals actually take pride in this failure.

In conclusion, if you want to lose some weight, in addition to getting exercise and eating nutritious food, you might try exercising your brain and then getting a good night’s sleep. I recommend doing it every day. Not only will you have the joy of learning something new, but you also may lose some weight.

Let me know if it works for you.

[Bed in graphic is from SLMetalWorks.com.]

Seasonal Immunity

Labor Day has passed. Students should all be back to school now. The days are getting shorter. The leaves are beginning to change color. It is time to think about how to forestall illness.

Wow. What a downer, associating Autumn with illness; but, unfortunately, that’s the way it is. What’s the connection? Sunshine, or the lack thereof. More specifically, it is the reduction of UVB radiation striking the Earth as its angle relative to the Sun limits our exposure.

Now, what does reduced exposure to UVB radiation have to do with increased levels of illness? Isn’t UVB radiation a bad thing? As regular readers of my blog and newsletter know, no, UVB radiation is actually necessary to maintaining good health.

The cells of your immune system contain Vitamin D Receptors (VDR). This means that the optimal functioning of your immune system requires optimal levels of vitamin D in your blood. If your immune system is not optimized, you are more likely to become ill. Viruses and other pathogens will have relatively free rein in your body because your defense system is sub-par.

Unprotected skin exposed to UVB radiation activates the vitamin D system, increasing blood levels of vitamin D. However, numerous factors inhibit this natural system including: over-protection of the skin (see my blog “Dermatological Purdah”); dark pigmentation at high latitudes; old age; and life spent indoors. Current estimates are that the majority of Americans have sub-optimal levels of vitamin D and are, therefore, at high risk for having a sub-optimal immune system.

If Americans aren’t getting enough vitamin D the natural way, then they will have to use supplementation. The current US recommended levels are much too low to optimize vitamin D levels. Dr. Cannell, physician and vitamin D researcher living in California, recommends that children receive 1000 IU of vitamin D3/day for each 25 lbs of weight. He takes 5000 IU/day during the winter months. The minimum recommended dose for adults, according the Canadian Cancer Society, is 1000 IU/day, year-round. Dr. Vieth, Canadian vitamin D researcher, recommends a minimum daily dose of 4000 IU/day during the winter months.

As a child, teen, and young adult, I caught pretty much every pathogen that passed by me. It wasn’t until years later, when I began my research on vitamin D, that I realized that I suffered from sub-optimal levels of vitamin D. My two big fixes for the problem were to eat sardines every day and to move to Arizona. While this did work, after several years I ended up moving back to the Midwest to be near my family. The move resulted in having to tinker some with vitamin D supplementation to achieve optimization. What appears to work for me is this: every day I eat a can of sardines. In addition to providing several hundred IU/day of vitamin D, I also get a good dose of omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, and protein. However, in the Midwest, sardines do not provide enough vitamin D. Therefore, during the summer months, I take 2000 IU/day of vitamin D3. [I just do not get out enough in the sun during the summer to optimize my vitamin D levels naturally.] In the autumn, I increase this to 3000 IU/day, then to 4000 IU/day, and finally, during the depths of winter, to 5000 IU/day. While this does not prevent every cold, I am far, far healthier than I was during my previous sojourn in the Midwest.

While this dosing schedule works for me, you will need to develop one individualized for your own set of variables. Also, if you are on any medications, you will need to discuss it with your physician. Do not wait until the leaves have all fallen to begin optimizing your vitamin D levels. It takes a few weeks to achieve optimization. If you want to have the best chance to avoid the season of colds and flu, you need to begin now. Here’s To Your Health!