A recent study in the British Journal of Nutrition demonstrated the benefits of grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef. Many of us have heard that grass-fed meats are superior to grain-fed meats for a variety of reasons, and demand for grass-fed beef is definitely increasing. Environmentalists tell us that mass-production of corn for the purpose of feeding animals in confined feeding operations (CAFOs) is bad for the topsoil. Moralists tell us that forcing cattle to live in these conditions is inhumane. Nutritionists (well, nutrition scientists, there is a big difference there!) tell us that feeding cattle grain obliterates the fatty-acid composition of the meat such that instead of having an omega 6 / omega 3 ratio of 2 or 3 to 1 (as it would when pastured), the ratio skyrockets. Nutrition researchers report that grain-fed meat is fattier and less nutrient-dense than than grass-fed meat (see citations on the eatwild page for peer-reviewed research, and another study here). To be sure, the grain-fed cattle industry has not wanted this kind of research to come forth, and they’ve even gone so fat as to declare that grass-fed meats contain more trans-fatty acids than grain-fed meats. The grain-fed cattle industry, of course, neglects to mention, however, that conjugated linoleic acid (classified as a trans fat, but it is naturally occurring) is among the most promising anti-carcinogenic compounds that we know of.

Importantly, there is a growing consensus that it is the last weeks of a cow’s life that make the difference in this lipid profile. Specifically, if one feeds a cattle grass all of its life but grain for the last few weeks of its life, the beneficial lipid profile will deteriorate to that of a cattle who was grain fed for its entire life. The opposite also holds: If you feed a cattle grain all of its life and then grass for the last few weeks of its life, the beneficial lipid profile appears. Hence the term, “grass-finished.”

The study? Researchers wanted to know if eating grass-finished animals instead of grain-finished animals would provide a significant increase in omega 3 in the animal meat and if this increase would actually make a difference in blood counts of those consuming the meat. Two groups of Irish people (all with good cholesterol and blood pressure numbers and without any prescription medications) were given weekly portions of beef and lamb, either grass-finished or grain-finished. The animals were “finished” for a minimum of six weeks. Both groups were told to avoid fatty fish and oils rich in omega 3 for the duration of the study. Both groups of people ate roughly 469 grams of red meat a week for four weeks.

Data indicated that grass-finished meat experienced improved plasma and platelet fatty acid composition such that their blood contained less omega-6 and more omega-3. This increase in omega 3 is associated with a more balanced inflammatory response and subsequent better health.

Other important findings: Lipid profiles of the meat-eaters did not significantly differ (HDL, LDL, triglycerides). The serum and platelet fatty acid content was what changed. Those who consumed grass-finished meat experienced higher levels of EPA, DPA, DHA, stearic acid, long-chain omega 3 fatty acids, and total omega 3, along with a reduced omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. Importantly, the omega 6 to omega 3 ratios in our fat cells determine what kind of inflammatory cytokines our platelets will secrete in an inflammatory response, so having too much omega 6 in our platelets results in an unhealthy, overly-inflammatory response.

Of course, at the end of the day, fatty fish still reign king (wild-caught salmon, and other wild fish) with respect to omega 3 content.

Read the study in the British Journal of Nutrition here.

It’s common sense that when stressed, people often turn to food for comfort. Interestingly, people are often stressed because they are dieting, and engage in yo-yo diet behavior. But how harmful is this cycle, really? Turns out, while calorie restriction may work, it might increase stress and depression levels. Tracy Bale and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania looked at associations between behavior and hormone levels in mice fed limited diets. According to Bale, “after three weeks of fewer calories, the mice lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, similar to human diet weight loss. These results suggest that dieting not only increases stress, making successful dieting more difficult, but that it may actually ‘reprogram’ how the brain responds to future stress and emotional drives for food.” Dr. Zigman, another researcher on the study, stated that “this study highlights the difficult road that human dieters often travel to attain and maintain their weight loss goals.” Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Zigman stated that “it also suggests that management of stress during dieting may be key to achieving those goals.” Keep in mind, however, that this study was a mouse design, and that conditions were controlled in ways that we could never implement with people. What’s more important: Losing a few pounds, or avoiding feeling stressed and depressed? Perhaps (duh) the solution is to develop a better healthstyle, and not to rely on strict diets and calorie counting. Read more at The Journal of Neuroscience.

First, I must state that I was a vegetarian for roughly three years, from ages 20 – 23. I did not eat red meat (or much of any animal products) until this past summer, 2010, when I became aware of the option to buy locally raised, grassfed beef. In no way to I condone feedlot or CAFO animal operations.

Keith opens The Vegetarian Myth stating that “For many of you, it won’t be an easy book to read. I know. I was a vegan for almost twenty years. I know the reasons that compelled me to embrace an extreme diet and they are honorable, ennobling even. Reasons like justice, compassion, a desperate and all-encompassing longing to set the world right” (p. 1). My jaw dropped page after page while reading this book, which I did in September of 2010. It has taken me this long to write the review because checking a bunch of the sources and people she cites throughout the book was a time-consuming endeavor. The book, which is divided into three sections (Moral Vegetarians, Political Vegetarians, and Nutritional Vegetarians), is a book in which it is ok to skip around. She cites research, farmers and other agricultural experts, scientists, and physicians throughout, although I would have preferred more straightforward bibliographic citation style.

This controversial book presents an historical account of the destructive nature agriculture. Agriculture as we know it has led to the devastation of prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, changed the climate, and pillaged the topsoil. Keith believes that in order to save our earth, we need to procure our food from within our own communities – essentially, she makes the “locavorian” argument: Build relationships with local food producers, and obtain food from them. She also does an excellent job of describing the risks of vegan diets, and makes compelling arguments about how the health of the soil affects the plants, the non-human animals, and of course, us humans.

Here, I’ll present a few of the juicy (read: controversial, fire-igniting) tidbits.

The Fertile Crescent, Keith explains, was indeed fertile at one point in time. In the words of Mark Sisson, “Animals grazed on perennial grasses, pooped out nutrients, and gradually those nutrients would work themselves back into the soil. It was a beautiful, natural life cycle that worked great for millennia.” Now? It is a desert. Mono-crop grain agriculture changed everything – People replaced perennial renewable grasses with annual grains, flooding and riverbeds were forever altered, and animals were cleared from the land. The top soil – which Keith argues is the most crucial measure of the planet’s health – eroded by the foot. Animals provide  key nutrients to soil – and Keith details her voyage to discover what soil needs most to reach health – and in the end, discovers death. Soil, by nature, is healthiest when it both provides for, and receives the remains of, the animals who live on it.

According to Keith, annual grain crops have killed the North American Prairie, in addition to entire ecosystems and millions of animals, bugs, and birds. That soy burger? The machines that harvested and processed those soybeans were essentially oiled with the blood of thousands of organisms. Soy, as a crop, was initially farmed to improve the soil – and not for human consumption. For all intensive purposes, giving a baby a bottle of soymilk is akin to giving the baby a couple of birth control pills. Soy, as we eat it today, may as well be an industrial byproduct – not fit for human consumption.

I’ve provided just a taste of what I’ve gleaned from this book, and I’m eager to hear your thoughts – especially the thoughts of vegans and vegetarians. Thus far I’ve broached the subject with one such person – who sticks to statistics about how much water it takes to feed cattle, how much oil it takes to ship meat. Unfortunately, there was no consideration of how much water it takes to grow rice, and how much oil it takes to maintain a mono-crop agricultural environment… I’ll reiterate – I do not condone the feedlot animal operations described in various books, such as Food Inc, Omnivore’s dilemma, and Eating Animals.

You can read the first 14 pages of the book on Keith’s website.

Although not overtly stated by authors of recent studies on sugar and cancer, links between sugar consumption and cancer proliferation are appearing in the cancer research literature under the guise of pharmaceutical research. Earlier in August I posted about the unique ways in which fructose, but not glucose, contributed to accelerated tumor growth. Research from the Yokohama City University School of Medicine in Japan and the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda recently published their findings concerning the effects of a drug often administered to Type II diabetics, called Metformin, on colon cancer lesions and lung cancer cells, respectively, in the journal Cancer Research Prevention. Metformin was derived from the French lilac plant (Galega officinalis) in France in the 1950s, and entered the US drug market in 1994 as Glucophage, which means “glucose eater.” The drug, later generically released as Metformin, assists in stabilizing blood sugar by limiting the liver’s output of glucose and increasing the use of sugar by muscle tissue. The authors discuss complex protein activation pathways as potential mechanisms of action, but in my view, failed to take a step back and consider the mechanistic process on a more macro level.

Although the authors of these studies did not focus on the previously established findings that Metformin inhibits the formation of Advanced Glycation Endproducts, or AGEs, this is an important avenue to consider. AGEs and reactive oxygen species*, which are both potentially toxic, are formed when we consume and digest sugars. AGEs are produced through a process called glycation, in which a sugar molecule attaches to protein. If blood sugar levels are low, this initial bond can be broken. If blood sugar is high, the process progresses such that these combined AGE molecules bond to each other repeatedly, and sugars continually link proteins together that were never meant to be together (referred to as “cross-linking“). This is problematic, as these proteins (that never should have crossed paths) are now bound together. The A1C test is a direct test of how much glycation is occuring in one’s body, and this measure is generally some 3x higher in Type II Diabetics (who are not receiving treatment).

Understandably, cross-linking introduces cellular changes that were never meant to exist. AGEs have been linked to Type II Diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, cancers, neuropathy, and other sensory deficits.

What can we take from this? If metformin inhibits glycation, which decreases the amount of AGEs produced, which in turn leads to fewer incidences of altered gene expression, cross-linking, and other altered cellular properties – all of which are associated with uncontrolled cellular growth (cancer), then perhaps the critical aspect to understand is that metformin inhibits glycation. Hence, it might behoove us to decrease our rates of glycation. How can we do that? One sure way to do this is to decrease dietary carbohydrate (that is, decrease sugar consumption). Of course, the powers that be (Government(s) with research-grant money) would not be huge fans of this interpretation of the data, given the associations between food industries and governments. Perhaps that is why the authors, who would probably like to receive federal/government funding in the future, avoided a straightforward presentation of the logic that follows from their findings.

*Reactive oxygen species are formed when we burn glucose for fuel at the cellular level, and have been associated with a number of diseases, including diabetes. In this process, electrons attach to oxygen atoms, and this renders them able to react with other molecules (they were previously inert). Free radicals are an example of reactive oxygen species. All reactive oxygen species are all called oxidants (hence, lay references to anti-oxidants as being good, as they are thought to neutralize reactive oxygen species).

Earlier this month I posted (8/13/10) about new developments in using bacteria to fight melanoma, but a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a new drug may change the the way that doctors treat melanoma. Researchers administered a new drug (designed to target a gene called BRAF that exists in some 50% of melanoma patients) to some 48 patients, and of these, 37 evidenced shrunken, and in some cases, eradicated, cancer growths. This new study builds on recent findings that Gleevec (commonly used to treat Leukemia) and ipilimumab are effective treatments for people with certain genetic mutations and/or specific strains of melanoma. Image of a melanoma cell captured by ScientificRelevance. Read more at Science News…

Most of us have heard of the “slow food” movement, the “eat local” mantra, and the “eating sustainably” lifestyle, but the list of ways to dissociate yourself from the commercial food industry is growing. For example, check out Protein University, a website for independent/organic/sustainable butchers to network and learn from each other – one of these butchers might do business near you. Then there’s a growing industry of Organic Gardening Experts who can help you design your fruit and/or vegetable garden with your interests – be they aesthetic appeal or yield size – in mind. You’ve probably heard of local Community Supported Agriculture chapters, to which you can subscribe and from which you receive a box of locally grown produce each week. Too much produce for one week? Many people have taken to cooking large batches of food and swapping amongst a group of friends – voila, a variety of homemade dinners for a whole week. One perhaps lesser-known way to find locally and sustainably raised meats is to search databases like EatWild, which, upon entering your location information, provide names and locations of local ranchers and farmers who sell grass-fed beef, lamb, goat – you name it. There are also online databases like the EatWellGuide, which are dedicated to helping you find restaurants and farmers’ markets, and other websites like Organic Holidays that locate bed and breakfasts and other lodging that use local, organic, and sustainable ingredients. Photo of Tecumela Farmers’ Market in California captured by Chris Fritz. What are your favorite ways to obtain food outside of the commercial food industry?

I’d like to think that the authors of this article that appeared in the American Journal of Cardiology were being facetious, because they literally suggested that making statins available at fast food restaurants (e.g., like condiments) would help mitigate the damage done to the body by consuming food produced there. The authors literally say, “Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments.” This article is BS on so many levels, it is difficult to begin addressing its problems. The authors state that the damage done by this food is a direct result of the saturated fat content of the food, while an overwhelming body of literature has recently shown no association between saturated fat and heart disease – indeed, these authors clearly didn’t read the study that they cited as evidence for the link between saturated fat and heart disease, because that study didn’t find any relation between saturated fat and heart disease. The problem, we all know, is the fast food itself: A concoction of highly refined carbohydrates, chemicals, and sugar. Dozens of studies like this one have shown that cultures that haven’t adopted fast-food industries are almost entirely free from heart attacks. If only the government would stop subsidizing corn, soybeans, and wheat, maybe fast food wouldn’t be so cheap, and wholesome foods could compete. We need to stop making business so cheap for companies that produce food that makes us sick. Read the original review here…

Despite widespread belief that saturated fat consumption is related to cardiovascular disease, research has not uncovered any association between the two. Recently, in a major Japanese study on saturated fat intake published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers measured the dietary habits of 58,453 men and women and followed up with them for 14.1 years. Data indicated that people who ate the most saturated fat did not differ from those who ate the least with regard to heart attack risk. In fact, those who ate the most saturated fat were less likely to experience a cardiovascular event than those who ate the least (although this finding was not statistically significant). Notably, people who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least, and stroke is a larger public health threat in Japan than cardiovascular disease. Read the original empirical article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

A recent study found that people suffering from both major depression and diabetes were more likely to develop dementia than those who suffered only from diabetes. The study authors accounted for a slew of variables known to affect health, such as BMI, blood sugar, physical activity, smoking, and more – this means that being both diabetic and depressed significantly increased one’s changes of developing dementia despite a number of health factors (BMI, blood sugar, etc.). Read more in the Journal of General Internal Medicine…

A new kind of hamburger restaurant, 4food, opens in New York City at 40th and Madison Avenue this fall. This will be no regular burger joint: You will be able to custom-order your burger online, and there will be more than 140 million possible burger combinations. Employees will use iPads to take orders, and will cook with local, high-quality ingredients – they’ll even compost everything that’s thrown away. Burgers will range in price from $5 to $10, and that’s not bad for a gourmet burger in NYC. To earn money, the restaurant will allow customers to create their own burgers and name their burgers – and when others purchase said burgers, the creator will earn a $0.25 credit toward a future purchase. In other words, the restaurant will be relying on customers to advertise their own creations. The big question is: Will this business model work? You can tweet messages to @4foodNYC about your ideas on how to de-junk NYC, and read other peoples’ messages on their homepage. Read more at the 4food homepage or at CNET…