What did you get for / from your valentine this year?  Hopefully not a box of cheap chocolates.  I only bring this up because two days ago the British Medical Journal published a study called Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk....  Although you intuitively knew this, there is some real "meat" (ULTRA-PROCESSED MEAT) in this study that you can take home to your family (and it's all free online).  But the first thing we have to do before proceeding is to create a clear definition of ultra-processed food (UPF).  Most of us know what processed foods are, but what in the heck are "ultra" processed foods?

According to natural health expert, Dr. Adrew Weil (What are Ultra-Processed Foods?), UPF's "include soft drinks, packaged snacks and baked goods, and reconstituted meat products such as chicken and fish nuggets. Instant noodles and commercially produced soups also qualify."  But as you'll soon see, UPF's go far beyond the obvious foods seen on this list.  Another study from BMJ (this one published in 2016 --- Ultra-Processed Foods and Added Sugars in the US Diet...) concluded that......

"Ultra-processed foods were defined as industrial formulations which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations.  Ultra-processed foods comprised 57.9% of energy intake, and contributed 89.7% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods was eight-fold higher than in processed foods.  High intake of added sugars increases the risk of weight gain, excess body weight and obesity; type 2 diabetes, higher serum triglycerides and high blood cholesterol; higher blood pressure and hypertension; stroke; coronary heart disease; cancer; and dental caries. Moreover, foods higher in added sugars are often a source of empty calories with minimum essential nutrients or dietary fiber, which displace more nutrient-dense foods and lead, in turn, to simultaneously overfed and undernourished individuals."

Over-fed and under-nourished.  That pretty much sums up a huge and growing segment of Western society (no pun intended).  And even though it's on this two year old list, the latest study is specifically about the relationship between UPF's and CANCER.  Speaking of UPF's and cancer; while most people have at least heard that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER, the medical community has been slow to embrace Dr. Otto Warburg's work --- odd considering he won the Nobel Prize for Medicine back in 1931 (HERE).  Once you realize that added sugar makes up the largest portion of UPF's, it's not difficult to argue that the medical community needs to step up to the plate and change the way they deal with their average patient (HERE).

An interesting "proof" of a phenomenon routinely found in EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE is that less than six months ago the American Journal of Nutrition (Ultra-Processed Foods in Human Health: A Critical Appraisal) said this about the ADDICTIVE NATURE (or non-addictive as their authors determined) of UPF's.  "This commentary challenges many of the basic arguments of [the relationship between] the link between food and health. We believe that there is no evidence to uphold the view that ultra-processed foods and drinks give rise to hyper-palatable foods associated with a quasi-addictive effect."  This statement becomes especially interesting once you realize the study's lead co-author, Dr. Michael J. Gibney, "had primary responsibility for final content... serving on scientific committees for Nestlé and Cereal Partners Worldwide."  Here's an article about NESTLE that will make you puke, and the CPW is a joint effort between Nestle and General Mills to develop BREAKFAST CEREALS.

After looking at 105,000 people without cancer and adjusting for confounders (sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, age, sex, occupation, educational level, smoking status, number of children, height, weight, dietary intakes, physical activity, personal and family history of diseases, drug use including use of hormonal treatment for menopause and oral contraceptives, and menopausal status) these authors determined that (quote is somewhat cherry-picked)......

"Main food groups contributing to ultra-processed food intake were sugary products (26%) and drinks (20%), followed by starchy foods and breakfast cereals (16%) and ultra-processed fruits and vegetables (15%).  Ultra-processed food intake was associated with increased risks of overall cancer and breast cancer. The association with overall cancer risk was statistically significant in all strata of the population investigated.  Ultra-processed foods have also been associated with a higher glycemic response and a lower satiety effect [it never makes you "full"].  Excessive energy, fat, and sugar intakes contribute to weight gain and risk of obesity, with obesity recognized as a major risk factor for breast, stomach, liver, colorectal, esophagus, pancreas, kidney, gallbladder, endometrium, ovary, liver, and (advanced) prostate cancers and hematological malignancies [leukemia].  For instance, body fatness in post-menopausal women is estimated to contribute 17% of the breast cancer burden."

And this is just for starters.  The authors went on to talk about the effects of plastics, chemicals, and other "ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING" packaging materials commonly used in UPF's, as well as the effects that additives such as dyes, MSG, ASPARTAME, and several others, have on PHYSIOLOGY / HOMEOSTASIS, particularly when it comes to GUT HEALTH and MICROBIOME (remember that 80% of your immune system is found in the Gut --- HERE).  Although you could correctly guess what the most common UPF's are (see pics at top of page), some might surprise you.  The list included "fried potatoes, biscuits, bread, coffee, sweet pastries, dairy desserts, ice cream, fruit purée, fruit in syrup, fruit and vegetable juices, soups and broths, sandwiches, pizzas, salted pastries [crackers]."  Also mentioned were processed "starchy foods (cereals, legumes, or potatoes)."

What's the solution to this mess?  First, control your BLOOD SUGAR.  This is done via controlling your intake of simple carbohydrates.   Secondly, because generic LOW CARB DIETS can be loaded with all sorts of garbage, including TRANS or other junk fats, I suggest you go PALEO.  Some of you might do great with a KETOGENIC DIET as well (click THIS LINK to watch a cool video by a researcher at Pitt using Ketogenic Diets in his lab to successfully address cancer).  And for those of you struggling with serious chronic health issues and rampant inflammation (HERE), be sure and take a look at THIS POST for a nice little protocol that will at least point the average person in the right direction.

As I mentioned the other day, "Sustainable" has become one of the catchphrases of the 21st century. But what does it really mean --- particularly in terms of healthcare?  According to the huge drug company AbbVie it's, "The adoption of people-centric innovative strategies that safeguard health of individuals and society by providing prevention and care adapted to evolving care needs today and tomorrow."  Because that was one of the biggest batches of touchy-feely mumbo jumbo I've ever heard in my life, let's try again.  Dartmouth-Hitchcock's definition is much more vague.  "A commitment to improving the lives of the people and communities we serve, for generations to come."  Both of these examples, as well as the next, ignore the elephants in the room --- something we'll discuss shortly.

Many companies see sustainability as "going Green" (whatever that really means as it pertains to healthcare).  Mostly, they tout it as doing things like talking the local hospital board into switching to the newer energy-efficient light bulbs, or putting solar panels on the roof.  For instance, in an article called Advancing Sustainability in Health Care, pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson says of the research they commissioned on the subject.........

"A study found that hospitals are placing greater emphasis on “green” products used both in patient care and throughout facilities, such as cleaning products and office supplies.  More than half of respondents report their hospitals currently incorporate sustainability into purchasing decisions, and 80 percent expect that to be the case within two years.  About eight in ten respondents said sustainable products help protect hospital staff and seven in ten said they make good financial sense; more than half said ‘green initiatives’ are an important factor for patients when choosing a hospital and that they help improve health outcomes."

Sounds nice, but I would argue that this isn't really "sustainability".  As I introduce you to the first elephant in the room --- the one named "Fiscal Responsibility," let me share my definition of sustainability as it relates to healthcare.  Not only is it quite short, it's also quite simple.  Sustainability in healthcare is all about whether or not we as a nation can pay for it.  Unfortunately, it's become all too  obvious that we can't --- a fact easily noted by browsing 2009's GAO Report --- Government Accountability Office (HERE).  This report should scare the pants off every single taxpaying American (not to mention those who don't pay taxes), because in it the authors admit outright that our nation is on a "fiscally unsustainable" trajectory.

Think about it for a moment.  We are currently "officially" almost 20 trillion dollars in debt (HERE).  But thanks to shady government accounting, our "Off Balance-Sheet" debt is universally believed to be at least an order of magnitude (10x) greater than that (HERE).  And because "illions" all sound alike after awhile; in case you are not quite sure how a trillion differs from a billion, click the first link in this paragraph for an interesting one minute videographic on the subject.

Just one year after the aforementioned report was released, past chairman of 'The Fed', Alan Greenspan, wrote an article in a June 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal comparing us to that bastion of European socialism; Greece.  In it he stated, "Only politically toxic cuts or rationing of medical care, a marked rise in the eligible age for health and retirement benefits can close the deficit.  If significant reforms are not undertaken, benefits under entitlement programs will exceed government income by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years."  Forget 75 years folks, it is happening in front of your very eyes --- even as you read this post.  The whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite movies --- 1994's hit comedy, Dumb & Dumber. Let me set the scene for you. 

Two bumbling roommates (Lloyd Christmas played by Jim Carey, and Harry Dunn played by Jeff Daniels) end up traveling halfway across the country via the "Mutts Cutts" van and a vintage 1971 minibike, in order to return a briefcase to a woman that Lloyd had become smitten with while working as a chauffeur.  While trying to find the woman (Mary Swanson played by Lauren Holly) in Vail, CO, they accidentally break open the briefcase, discovering it's full of cash --- millions upon millions of dollars in cash.  As they are flat broke and freezing to death, they vow to sensibly and frugally spend only what they need to survive, promising each other they will pay back every penny as soon as they find the briefcase's owner.  Much of the second half of the movie focuses on the hijinks surrounding their outrageous spending spree.  Playing Time: One Minute

Couple the fact that nearly one out of five dollars spent in this country is being spent on healthcare, with the fact that one out of three dollars being spent by our government is borrowed (or created out of thin air via printing presses or a keystroke on a bureaucrat's computer), and you start to see just how unsustainable this problem really is ---- a problem that can't be solved with curly cue light bulbs, a backyard windmill, and super extra-biodegradable toilet paper.  Which begs the question of whether or not anything could potentially be done to make American Healthcare truly 'sustainable'?  

In answer to this question, 'there certainly is'.  But we don't seem to have the stomach for doing what has to be done, collectively or individually.  In fact, we are moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  Case in point; just two short weeks ago, the British Medical Journal released a study called Ultra-Processed Foods and Added Sugars in the US Diet: Evidence From a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Study.  Using statistics that are a minimum of five years old (in other words, the problem has significantly worsened over the last half decade), Dr. Carlos A. Monteiro of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, came to some startling conclusions about our national love affair (ADDICTION would be a much better word) with "ultra-processed foods". 

"Ultra-processed foods comprised 58% of energy intake, and contributed 90% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods was eight-fold higher than in processed foods and five-fold higher than in unprocessed or minimally processed foods.  82% of Americans in the highest quintile exceeded the recommended limit of 10% energy from added sugars"

I already know what you are wondering, because I was wondering the very same thing........  What are ultra-processed foods?   It's easy. Beyond what we typically think of when we think of processed foods, the author defined ultra-processed foods as "industrial formulations which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include substances not used in culinary preparations."   In English, he's not talking about things like home-baked items such as cakes, pies, cookies, pizza, or bread here.  He is talking about commercially-prepared foods that beyond things like sugar and bleached flour, also contain fun ingredients like ASPARTAME, MSG, artificial flavors, artificial colors, and any number of others.  The sorts of things you would probably not incorporate into a dish you were going to serve the in-laws.  Please note that this doesn't even begin to deal with the plethora of substances on food labels that you have no idea what they are because you can't pronounce them.

Part of the reason that we are not turning this problem around has to do with the incredible amount of MISINFORMATION BEING PROMOTED CONCERNING NUTRITION.  I can tell you from personal experience that much of what is being taught in our university systems concerning nutrition is flat out wrong.  It was wrong back when I was learning it thirty years ago (HERE), and it's wrong now (HERE'S SOME MORE).  A recent article by Leah Samuel helps prove this point. 

Writing about the study we just discussed in a recent edition of the medical 'daily' STAT (Deep Dive Into Diets Shows Just How Much Processed Food Americans Eat), she let the proverbial cat out of the bag.  In her article she quoted Dr. Connie Weaver, a Professor of Nutrition Science at Indiana's Purdue University as saying, "Just because a food is highly processed and sugary doesn’t necessarily mean it’s lacking in nutritional value.  You can’t just rule out processed food, because you’ll end up malnourished.  Given what Americans eat now, they are getting a lot of nutrients from processed food."  Gulp!  Maybe Weaver was misquoted or taken out of context, but I doubt it.   Honestly, with friends like that, who needs enemies?  Although Americans are certainly getting a lot of calories from processed foods, this is the sort of misguided thinking that brought us any number of 'food fiascoes,' including the fifty year WAR ON FAT.

Sure, people are getting a lot of nutrients from processed foods --- macro nutrients (fats, carbohydrates, and proteins).  But as far as real nutrition --- the micro-nutrients, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and FIBER that only come from WHOLE FOODS........  Are you joking me?  Cheap, SYNTHETIC VITAMINS are just that; cheap, synthetic vitamins.   We eat and eat, but are starving for REAL NUTRITION.  LIVING THE HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE provides the classic example of overfed and undernourished. 

Of the thousands of individuals looked at in Monteiro's study, only twenty percent of the group who consumed the lowest amounts of ultra-processed foods managed to stay under the government's recommendations of less than 10% of one's total calories coming from added sugar.  This is essentially the same thing that I showed you a year ago in a different study (HERE).  In other words folks, the problem is not fixing itself.  What does this mean for the future of sustainable healthcare?  Do I even need to show you?  Allow me to introduce you to our second elephant --- the one named "Personal Responsibility".

Those with any degree of intelligence and honesty can read the writing on the wall.  I'm not sure there is a better example of a more unsustainable industry than medicine (BIG PHARMA included) as it is currently being practiced.  In fact, "Big Oil" is more sustainable than the trajectory that healthcare is on.  By definition, sustainability requires a significant amount of personal responsibility.  It is impossible to argue that Americans --- especially OUR YOUTH (or HERE) --- are getting more responsible in any arena, let alone this one.  This decrease of personal responsibility is at least partially the by-product of the last three or four generations growing up in an environment that does not require them to pay their own way (HERE).  But there's much more to it than that.

I showed you JUST A FEW DAYS AGO that healthcare has an incredible over-reliance on technology. This would be fine if said technology was cheap and actually worked.  Unfortunately, it is expensive and rarely works as touted by industry (THESE POSTS BEAR THIS OUT REPEATEDLY).  And because "Prevention" was mentioned in one of the earlier definitions of 'sustainability,' lets get it on record right now that Prevention is in no ways what we have been taught it is (HERE).  Whether you are interested in getting healthy as a duty to your government (ha) or whether it's just for you, YOU GO ABOUT IT THE SAME WAY.

I'll admit it.  My name is Russell Schierling and I am a CARBAHOLIC.  The truth is, I could probably sit down and devour a whole package of Oreos before I even realized I just made myself sick. This is because, according to Connecticut College's professor of neuroscience Joseph Schroeder, "High-fat, high-sugar foods stimulate the brain in the same way that drugs do. It may explain why some people can’t resist these foods despite the fact that they know they are bad for them".  

I am sort of like that "dry alcoholic".  As long as I never touch it, I don't really crave it.  But give me that first Oreo (or doughnut, or bite of cheesecake, or whatever) and I want more.  And the more that I want is not just here-and-now today.  I promise that I'll want it tomorrow as well.  It's the nature of an addiction. The more you eat, the more you want.  This is why you will almost never see me eating desert or junk --- I can't afford to ignite those cravings!

Using modern medical technology, Schroeder and his team at CC proved that Oreo Cookies (admit it ---- you can't eat just one yourself) actually activate a greater number of neurons that either cocaine or heroin / morphine.  Stop and re-read that sentence and let the magnitude of it sink in.  Here is the thing ---- you already knew this!  Otherwise, pushing away from the table, saying no to junk, LOSING WEIGHT AND GETTING IN GREAT SHAPE would be so simple that everyone would be jumping on the bandwagon.  Instead, if you count those who are SKINNY FAT, we are a society where nearly 4 of 5 adults are either OBESE OR OVERWEIGHT.  For those of you who have done everything but still can't lose the weight, be sure and take a look at THIS POST.

Who could forget the old TV ad from above?  Hilarious wasn't it?  The problem is, in all reality, it hits just a bit too close to home.  You've all heard of the term "Mystery Meats"?  Chicken Nuggets take this concept to a whole new dimension.

Dr. Richard D. DeShazo and his team of researchers from the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, recently went to two fast food restaurants who are well known for their chicken nuggets (although they did not say which eateries these were, we can probably McGuess one of them).  They took the nuggets back to their lab, took them apart, stained them, and then looked at them under a microscope.  Their conclusions were published in this month's issue of the American Journal of Medicine.

Only 40-50% of the nuggets were made up of meat (muscle tissue).  The other 50 to 60% was made up of yummy things like fat, blood vessels, cartilage, nerves, ground up bones, and even tissues that line the skin and internal organs.  Although these products do not come to the fast food joint fully cooked, in the grocery store, they typically do.  This means that on top of everything else, they are being fried in TRANS FATS (partially hydrogenated oils), as well as being supplied with a heavy dose of artificial flavors and EXCITOTOXINS / MSG in order to fool our taste buds and brains.  They are then put into packages to get your children's attention and sold as something wholesome ---- chicken. 

Unfortunately, we cannot leave this subject without first discussing Poultry Paste --- better known as Pink Slime.  As crazy as it sounds, the process used to make these nuggets remains almost exactly as it was 25 years ago ---- as described in the quote from the top of the page.

Once the 'parts' are processed off the chicken into one large mass, it is blended together into huge vats and eventually becomes something called "Pink Slime".  This gooey mess (seen below) can then be shaped, formed, flavored, and breaded in any way the food manufacturer wishes.  By the way; hot dogs, lunch meats such as bologna, and all sorts of other meat products are made the same way --- only they use parts from a wider array of animals.  Hey; it's true.  Parts really is parts!  Rather than me talking about it, just take a look at the first two minutes of this video.

"As a physician, I realize the importance of healthy eating, and as an obstetrician, I’ve seen how the WIC program helps empower families receiving assistance to use taxpayer dollars to purchase healthy, wholesome foods.  If these guidelines are good and healthy enough for women and children, then SNAP recipients should also benefit from adhering to the same standards."  From Congressman Roe's Website

For those of you who are not in the 'know', our FOOD STAMP PROGRAM is now known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), with almost 1 in 6 Americans enrolled.  Recently, Dr. David Phillip Roe (retired OB / GYN), who happens to be a U.S. Representative in the state of Tennessee, proposed legislation that put many people around the country into a tizzy.  What was this legislation that has so many people up in arms?  He simply wanted to curtail the junk food being bought with tax payer dollars.

After looking at a study that showed how many billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on junk food (candy, soda, ice cream, cookies, cake, chips, etc, etc,), he suggested that the SNAP program adopt similar guidelines to WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children program).  As crazy as it sounds, the opposition is massive. I am not surprised.

This, like the proposed legislation making those on welfare eligible for random drug-tests, makes perfect sense.  I mean after all; the program (SNAP) actually contains the word 'Nutrition' in its name. And let's be real.  It's not like all of the foods that one can purchase on the WIC program are healthy.  Many of these are HIGH GLYCEMIC INDEX sugar bombs.  I, for one, do not wish to see anyone starve.  However, if the government is going to provide food to people, let's see it limited to NUTRITIOUS FOODS. This not only benefits taxpayers, it benefits those whose eating habits are government-subsidized.  Hopefully, they will end up with less CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES than they otherwise would have.

Researchers found a direct correlation  between the amount of sugar and TRANS FATS foods that they students stated they consumes and their (lack of) performance on the tests. Students who said that they ate “junk food” 4 to 6 times each week scored an average of 6.96 points lower in reading, while the pupils who stated that they ate “junk food” daily were were 16.07 points below average.  Test subjects who ate fast food at every meal were, not surprisingly, the worst: 19.34 points below average.

For the mathematics tests, students who consumed fast food 4 to 6 times each week had scores 6.55 points below average.  Daily consumption equated to a drop of 14.82 points, while the three-”junk food”-meals-a-day students scored 18.48 points below average.

This is not rocket science people!   For information on how to eat healthier, visit my WHOLE FOODS PAGE.  Oh, what do I recommend diet-wise?  Try going PALEO for a month and watch your INFLAMMATION and CHRONIC PROBLEMS start to dissipate.