lundi 31 décembre 2018
lundi 17 décembre 2018
mercredi 5 décembre 2018
samedi 24 novembre 2018
jeudi 22 novembre 2018
Les excès des activistes verts les mènent très loin de la vérité
Le récent commentaire de Ségolène Royal, ancien ministre de l'Écologie auprès des gouvernements français, sur la cancérogénicité de différents aliments et du glyphosate nécessite quelques précisions (https://twitter.com/i/status/1065231286376243203):
1 / Café
"À ce jour, le CIRC n'a classé qu'une substance dans le groupe 4. En juin 2016, le CIRC a rétrogradé sa classification de 1991 du café appartenant au groupe 2B (" potentiellement cancérogène pour l'homme ") au groupe 3" non classifiable en ce qui concerne la cancérogénicité "." (https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2016/pdfs/pr244_E.pdf)
Soyons clairs: le café n'est plus classé comme cancérogène possible par le CIRC depuis la mi-2016. Malgré les sous-produits de la torréfaction à haute température, y compris l'acrylamide, il n'y a aucune preuve scientifique que le café soit cancérogène. C'est l'évidence scientifique. Mais les activistes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2018/02/18/in-california-coffee-may-soon-be-listed-as-a-carcinogen/#20e6559d48f4) tentent actuellement de pousser l'interdiction du café en raison de la présence d'acrylamide.
C'est paradoxal et idéologique:
"Ces méta-analyses et analyses qualitatives montrent que la consommation de café est associée à une réduction du risque de plusieurs cancers, notamment les cancers de l'endomètre, du cancer colorectal, du foie et du cancer du sein postménopausique. Dans le cas du cancer du foie, les buveurs de café ont une réduction d'environ 50%. Pour d'autres cancers, notamment la vessie, les reins, la prostate, le pancréas et les ovaires, il n'y a pas de preuve constante d'association.
Dans le cadre d’une discussion rationnelle, il convient de souligner l’existence de preuves épidémiologiques solides ne montrant aucune association positive entre consommation de café et risque de cancer et d’aider à la consommation de café. "
Contrairement à l'hypothèse de Mme Royal, le café biologique contient la même quantité d'acrylamide dans les mêmes conditions de torréfaction. Le café biologique n’est donc pas une réponse à la présence d’acrylamide. La solution à cette présence qui est sans conséquence délétère décelable pourrait être un café non torréfié, appelé café vert et produisant un goût très amer. Je parie que cela ne sera pas adopté bientôt.
2 / Jambon et saucisses
Ces produits sont fabriqués à partir de viande transformée à laquelle sont ajoutés des nitrates. Ils sont considérés comme cancérogènes selon les dernières études épidémiologiques (cancer du côlon) et le risque relatif mesuré est d'environ 25%.
3 / Le glyphosate n'est pas présent dans le café.
Dans le café, la raison en est simple: le glyphosate est un herbicide toxique pour le caféier (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357514001382).
Le glyphosate est présent en très faibles concentrations dans les aliments et par conséquent dans la viande.
L'une des raisons est l'alimentation du bétail avec des céréales contenant du glyphosate. La raison pour laquelle les concentrations sont minimes est que le glyphosate est rapidement décomposé dans l'environnement et excrété chez les animaux. Comme l'a rappelé Van Eenennaam (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727079):
"Avec des techniques d'analyse suffisamment sensibles, un grand nombre de produits chimiques peuvent être détectés dans n'importe quel aliment. En fait, Ames et al. (1990) ont estimé que 99,99% (en poids) des pesticides dans notre aliment sont des produits naturels que les plantes produisent Le concept toxicologique important est que la dose produit le poison. Par conséquent, des modèles sont nécessaires pour estimer avec précision les expositions (McQueen et al., 2012) et déterminer le risque. "
À propos du risque de cancérogénicité du glyphosate, cet auteur a résumé la littérature de la manière suivante:
"Les préoccupations concernant les résidus de glyphosate dans les aliments ont été exacerbées en 2015 lorsque le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC) de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a reclassifié le glyphosate comme" probablement cancérogène pour l'homme (Groupe 2A) "(CIRC, 2015). Il est important de noter que Les scientifiques et les agences internationales continuent d'affirmer qu'il est peu probable que le glyphosate soit génotoxique ou pose un risque cancérogène pour l'homme du fait d'une exposition alimentaire, sur la base des données disponibles (JMPR, 2016). États-Unis (USEPA, 2016) et Europe (EFSA, 2015; Agence européenne des produits chimiques, 2016), Canada (Agence canadienne de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire, 2015), Japon (Commission japonaise de la sécurité alimentaire, 2016), Nouvelle-Zélande (Nouvelle-Zélande Environmental Protection Authority, 2016) et en Australie (autorité australienne des pesticides et des médicaments vétérinaires, 2016) ont réaffirmé que les données ne suggéraient pas que le glyphosate était cancérigène à ce niveau d'exposition physique. En outre, quatre panels d'experts indépendants sur la glyphosate, la cancérogénicité, la génotoxicité et les études épidémiologiques chez les animaux, mis en place à la suite de la décision du CIRC, n'ont pas permis de confirmer la conclusion du CIRC et ont montré que le glyphosate n'était pas un carcinogène. chez des animaux de laboratoire et "a conclu en outre qu'il était peu probable que le glyphosate pose un risque cancérogène pour l'homme" (Williams et al., 2016, p. 3). "
En conséquence, Mme Royal pourrait améliorer les conseils qu'elle veut donner à ses partisans:
1- ils peuvent boire du café conventionnel ou biologique, ni l'un ni l'autre ne sont scientifiquement considérés comme cancérigènes
2- la viande transformée comporte un petit surrisque de cancer du côlon qui est principalement dû à l'ajout de nitrates lors du processus de transformation. Ceci n'a rien à voir avec le caractère conventionnel ou biologique de l'élevage.
3- Le glyphosate n'est pas une molécule préoccupante pour le risque de cancer par le biais des aliments, en particulier dans le café et la viande transformée.
4- Concernant le risque pour les femmes enceintes: "Dans une étude d'évaluation de l'exposition maternelle et prénatale au glyphosate chez l'homme, 75% des 20 échantillons d'aliments composites analysés présentaient des résidus quantifiables de glyphosate dans une large gamme de faibles concentrations." Étant donné que la quantité moyenne de glyphosate ingérée est de 0,4% (moins de 1%) de la dose maximale, il est prudent de considérer que la présence de glyphosate dans les aliments ne présente aucun risque pour les femmes enceintes.
1 / Café
"À ce jour, le CIRC n'a classé qu'une substance dans le groupe 4. En juin 2016, le CIRC a rétrogradé sa classification de 1991 du café appartenant au groupe 2B (" potentiellement cancérogène pour l'homme ") au groupe 3" non classifiable en ce qui concerne la cancérogénicité "." (https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2016/pdfs/pr244_E.pdf)
Soyons clairs: le café n'est plus classé comme cancérogène possible par le CIRC depuis la mi-2016. Malgré les sous-produits de la torréfaction à haute température, y compris l'acrylamide, il n'y a aucune preuve scientifique que le café soit cancérogène. C'est l'évidence scientifique. Mais les activistes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2018/02/18/in-california-coffee-may-soon-be-listed-as-a-carcinogen/#20e6559d48f4) tentent actuellement de pousser l'interdiction du café en raison de la présence d'acrylamide.
C'est paradoxal et idéologique:
"Ces méta-analyses et analyses qualitatives montrent que la consommation de café est associée à une réduction du risque de plusieurs cancers, notamment les cancers de l'endomètre, du cancer colorectal, du foie et du cancer du sein postménopausique. Dans le cas du cancer du foie, les buveurs de café ont une réduction d'environ 50%. Pour d'autres cancers, notamment la vessie, les reins, la prostate, le pancréas et les ovaires, il n'y a pas de preuve constante d'association.
Dans le cadre d’une discussion rationnelle, il convient de souligner l’existence de preuves épidémiologiques solides ne montrant aucune association positive entre consommation de café et risque de cancer et d’aider à la consommation de café. "
Contrairement à l'hypothèse de Mme Royal, le café biologique contient la même quantité d'acrylamide dans les mêmes conditions de torréfaction. Le café biologique n’est donc pas une réponse à la présence d’acrylamide. La solution à cette présence qui est sans conséquence délétère décelable pourrait être un café non torréfié, appelé café vert et produisant un goût très amer. Je parie que cela ne sera pas adopté bientôt.
2 / Jambon et saucisses
Ces produits sont fabriqués à partir de viande transformée à laquelle sont ajoutés des nitrates. Ils sont considérés comme cancérogènes selon les dernières études épidémiologiques (cancer du côlon) et le risque relatif mesuré est d'environ 25%.
3 / Le glyphosate n'est pas présent dans le café.
Dans le café, la raison en est simple: le glyphosate est un herbicide toxique pour le caféier (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357514001382).
Le glyphosate est présent en très faibles concentrations dans les aliments et par conséquent dans la viande.
L'une des raisons est l'alimentation du bétail avec des céréales contenant du glyphosate. La raison pour laquelle les concentrations sont minimes est que le glyphosate est rapidement décomposé dans l'environnement et excrété chez les animaux. Comme l'a rappelé Van Eenennaam (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727079):
"Avec des techniques d'analyse suffisamment sensibles, un grand nombre de produits chimiques peuvent être détectés dans n'importe quel aliment. En fait, Ames et al. (1990) ont estimé que 99,99% (en poids) des pesticides dans notre aliment sont des produits naturels que les plantes produisent Le concept toxicologique important est que la dose produit le poison. Par conséquent, des modèles sont nécessaires pour estimer avec précision les expositions (McQueen et al., 2012) et déterminer le risque. "
À propos du risque de cancérogénicité du glyphosate, cet auteur a résumé la littérature de la manière suivante:
"Les préoccupations concernant les résidus de glyphosate dans les aliments ont été exacerbées en 2015 lorsque le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC) de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a reclassifié le glyphosate comme" probablement cancérogène pour l'homme (Groupe 2A) "(CIRC, 2015). Il est important de noter que Les scientifiques et les agences internationales continuent d'affirmer qu'il est peu probable que le glyphosate soit génotoxique ou pose un risque cancérogène pour l'homme du fait d'une exposition alimentaire, sur la base des données disponibles (JMPR, 2016). États-Unis (USEPA, 2016) et Europe (EFSA, 2015; Agence européenne des produits chimiques, 2016), Canada (Agence canadienne de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire, 2015), Japon (Commission japonaise de la sécurité alimentaire, 2016), Nouvelle-Zélande (Nouvelle-Zélande Environmental Protection Authority, 2016) et en Australie (autorité australienne des pesticides et des médicaments vétérinaires, 2016) ont réaffirmé que les données ne suggéraient pas que le glyphosate était cancérigène à ce niveau d'exposition physique. En outre, quatre panels d'experts indépendants sur la glyphosate, la cancérogénicité, la génotoxicité et les études épidémiologiques chez les animaux, mis en place à la suite de la décision du CIRC, n'ont pas permis de confirmer la conclusion du CIRC et ont montré que le glyphosate n'était pas un carcinogène. chez des animaux de laboratoire et "a conclu en outre qu'il était peu probable que le glyphosate pose un risque cancérogène pour l'homme" (Williams et al., 2016, p. 3). "
En conséquence, Mme Royal pourrait améliorer les conseils qu'elle veut donner à ses partisans:
1- ils peuvent boire du café conventionnel ou biologique, ni l'un ni l'autre ne sont scientifiquement considérés comme cancérigènes
2- la viande transformée comporte un petit surrisque de cancer du côlon qui est principalement dû à l'ajout de nitrates lors du processus de transformation. Ceci n'a rien à voir avec le caractère conventionnel ou biologique de l'élevage.
3- Le glyphosate n'est pas une molécule préoccupante pour le risque de cancer par le biais des aliments, en particulier dans le café et la viande transformée.
4- Concernant le risque pour les femmes enceintes: "Dans une étude d'évaluation de l'exposition maternelle et prénatale au glyphosate chez l'homme, 75% des 20 échantillons d'aliments composites analysés présentaient des résidus quantifiables de glyphosate dans une large gamme de faibles concentrations." Étant donné que la quantité moyenne de glyphosate ingérée est de 0,4% (moins de 1%) de la dose maximale, il est prudent de considérer que la présence de glyphosate dans les aliments ne présente aucun risque pour les femmes enceintes.
mercredi 21 novembre 2018
The excesses of green activists lead them very far from the truth
The recent comment of Ségolène Royal former minister of "écologie" in French governments about the carcinogenicity of different foods and of glyphosate needs some precisions (https://twitter.com/i/status/1065231286376243203):
1/ Coffee
"To date, IARC has only classified one substance in Group 4. In June 2016, IARC downgraded their original 1991 classification of coffee from Group 2B ('possibly carcinogenic to humans') to Group 3: 'Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity'."
So let us be clear, Coffee is no longer classified as a possible carcinogen by IARC since mid-2016. Despite by-products of high-temperature roasting including acrylamide, there is no scientific evidence that coffee is carcinogenic. This is the scientific evidence. But activists (https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2018/02/18/in-california-coffee-may-soon-be-listed-as-a-carcinogen/#20e6559d48f4) are presently trying to push a ban on coffee because of the presence of acrylamide.
It is paradoxical and ideological:
"What these meta-analyses and qualitative reviews show is that coffee drinking is associated with reduced risk of several cancers, including endometrial, colorectal, liver, and postmenopausal breast cancer. In the case of liver cancer, coffee drinkers have roughly a 50 percent reduction in risk. For other cancers, including bladder, kidney, prostate, pancreas, and ovary, there is no consistent evidence of an association.
In a rational discussion, the existence of solid epidemiologic evidence showing no positive association of coffee-drinking with the risk of cancer should be highlighted and should help to put the presence of acrylamide in coffee in its proper perspective."
Contrary to the assumption of Mrs Royal, organic coffee contains the same acrylamide quantity in the same conditions of roasting. So organic coffee is not an answer to the presence of acrylamide. The solution for this inconsequential presence could be non-roasted coffee which is called green coffee and produce a very bitter taste. I bet that it will not be adopted soon.
2/ Ham and sausages
These products are made of processed meat which is added with nitrates. They are considered carcinogenic using the last epidemiological studies (colon cancer) and the measured relative risk is about 25%.
3/ Glyphosate is not present in coffee. In coffee the reason is simple, glyphosate is a herbicide and it is toxic to coffee plant (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357514001382).
Glyphosate is present in very small concentrations in foods and consequently in meat.
One reason is cattle feeding with cereals containing glyphosate. The reason why concentrations are tiny is that glyphosate is rapidly broken down in the environment and excreted in animals. As recalled by Van Eenennaam (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727079):
"Given sufficiently sensitive analytical techniques, a large number of chemicals can be detected in any food. In fact, Ames et al. (1990) estimated that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in our food are naturally occurring chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. The important toxicological concept is that the dose makes the poison. Therefore, models are required to accurately estimate exposures (McQueen et al., 2012) and determine the risk."
About the risk of carcinogenicity of glyphosate this author summed the literature as follows:
"Concerns around glyphosate residues in food were heightened in 2015 when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)” (IARC, 2015). It is important to note that this hazard classification is not a health risk assessment. International scientists and agencies continue to maintain that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic or to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans through dietary exposure based on the available data (JMPR, 2016). Other regulatory agencies in the United States (USEPA, 2016) as well as Europe (EFSA, 2015; European Chemicals Agency, 2016), Canada (Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 2015), Japan (Japan Food Safety Commission, 2016), New Zealand (New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, 2016), and Australia (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 2016) have reaffirmed that data do not suggest that glyphosate is carcinogenic at typical levels of exposure. Furthermore, 4 independent expert panels pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies that were convened in the wake of the IARC decision did not support IARC's conclusion and, in concordance with previous regulatory assessments, showed that glyphosate is not a carcinogen in laboratory animals and “further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (Williams et al., 2016, p. 3)."
Consequently, Mrs Royal could improve the pieces of advice that she wants to give to her supporters:
1- they can drink coffee conventional or organic, it is not scientifically considered as a carcinogen
2- processed meat carry a small risk of colon cancer which is mainly due to adding nitrates for the curing process.
3- glyphosate is not a molecule of concern for cancer through food, especially in coffee and processed meat.
4- regarding the risk for pregnant women: "In a survey-based study to assess maternal and prenatal glyphosate exposure in humans, 75% of the 20 composite food samples analyzed showed quantifiable glyphosate residues across a wide range of low concentrations."
As the mean quantity of glyphosate ingested is 0,4% (id est less than 1%) of the maximal dose, it is prudent to consider that glyphosate in food is not a risk for pregnant women.
mardi 20 novembre 2018
Extensive farming should be reinforced in front of CAFO
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44503112?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44503108?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817674/
Immo Lünzer
https://www.abebooks.de/buch-suchen/autor/immo-lunzer/
Does extensive agriculture have a positive calorie balance sheet?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44503108?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817674/
Immo Lünzer
https://www.abebooks.de/buch-suchen/autor/immo-lunzer/
Does extensive agriculture have a positive calorie balance sheet?
lundi 19 novembre 2018
Just look at this figure in order to understand that NOT ALL TUMOURS decrease with a ketogenic diet!
 |
" Finally, in mammals and other species, different dietary-restriction regimens can all extend lifespan. It would be interesting to test whether different regimens could also reduce PI3K-dependent cancer expansion, as only some regimens might be realistically applicable to humans — for instance, feeding every other day rather than a 40% restriction every day. "
Preterm birth slashed by LCW3PUFA
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003402.pub3/full
1/ is it old science?
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0424e.pdf
2/ not for B12
"In addition, the Agency emphasises that spirulina is not a reliable source of vitamin B12 for populations avoiding consumption of products of animal origin, as it is mostly in the form of an inactive analogue."
https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/NUT2014SA0096EN.pdf
3/ For vit A
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191887
1/ is it old science?
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0424e.pdf
2/ not for B12
"In addition, the Agency emphasises that spirulina is not a reliable source of vitamin B12 for populations avoiding consumption of products of animal origin, as it is mostly in the form of an inactive analogue."
https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/NUT2014SA0096EN.pdf
3/ For vit A
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191887
dimanche 18 novembre 2018
Low carb diets increases energy expenditure: beyond anti-storage effect
Carbs stimulate storage and hunger: they are anabolic macronutrients
Ludwig's team nicely discovers that LC diets increase energy expenditure.
"Introduction
Main finding (primary outcome):
"total energy expenditure was significantly greater in participants assigned to a low carbohydrate diet compared with high carbohydrate diet of similar protein content."
Explanation(s)
"ghrelin has been reported to lower energy expenditure and promote fat deposition,6465 providing another mechanistic explanation for our primary outcome."
"Leptin (an adipocyte hormone that signals body energy stores) was also lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet, suggesting improvement in leptin sensitivity.66Prospective studies have observed that people with the greatest declines in leptin levels after weight loss have the lowest risk for weight regain"
Ludwig's team nicely discovers that LC diets increase energy expenditure.
"Introduction
Evidence from animal and human studies shows that biological factors strongly influence body weight.1 With weight loss, hunger increases and energy expenditure decreases—physiological adaptations that defend against long term weight change.2 Genetic factors are known to affect body weight, explaining some of the variance in body mass index (BMI) among people. However, genetic factors cannot explain why the average person today, compared with 40 years ago, seems to be “defending” a much higher body weight.
According to the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity,3456 the increased ratio of insulin to glucagon concentrations after consumption of a meal with a high glycemic load directs metabolic fuels away from oxidation and toward storage in adipose tissue. This physiological state is hypothesized to increase hunger and food cravings,7 lower energy expenditure, and predispose to weight gain, especially among those with inherently high insulin secretion. The carbohydrate-insulin model offers a physiological mechanism for understanding why obesity rates have increased since the 1970s in the United States, as dietary fats were replaced with high glycemic load foods, including refined grains and added sugars.89
This model has been challenged, primarily owing to lack of evidence from controlled feeding studies.1011121314 A recent meta-analysis reported no meaningful difference in energy expenditure between low carbohydrate and low fat diets.11 The studies included in that analysis, however, were short term (mostly <2 a="" adapting="" at="" carbohydrate="" class="xref-bibr" diet="" fat="" high="" href="https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583#ref-6" id="xref-ref-6-2" least="" low="" of="" or="" process="" seems="" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a6ebb; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: 0.4em;" take="" the="" three="" to="" two="" weeks.="" weeks="" whereas="">6
15161718 For this reason, transient effects of macronutrients cannot be distinguished from long term effects on the basis of existing evidence. We compared the effects of diets varying in carbohydrate to fat ratio on energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance through 20 weeks."Main finding (primary outcome):
"total energy expenditure was significantly greater in participants assigned to a low carbohydrate diet compared with high carbohydrate diet of similar protein content."
Explanation(s)
"ghrelin has been reported to lower energy expenditure and promote fat deposition,6465 providing another mechanistic explanation for our primary outcome."
"Leptin (an adipocyte hormone that signals body energy stores) was also lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet, suggesting improvement in leptin sensitivity.66Prospective studies have observed that people with the greatest declines in leptin levels after weight loss have the lowest risk for weight regain"
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Aug 1;178(8):1098-1103. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2933.
The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity: Beyond "Calories In, Calories Out".
Abstract
Despite intensive research, the causes of the obesity epidemic remain incompletely understood and conventional calorie-restricted diets continue to lack long-term efficacy. According to the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM) of obesity, recent increases in the consumption of processed, high-glycemic-load carbohydrates produce hormonal changes that promote calorie deposition in adipose tissue, exacerbate hunger, and lower energy expenditure. Basic and genetic research provides mechanistic evidence in support of the CIM. In animals, dietary composition has been clearly demonstrated to affect metabolism and body composition, independently of calorie intake, consistent with CIM predictions. Meta-analyses of behavioral trials report greater weight loss with reduced-glycemic load vs low-fat diets, though these studies characteristically suffer from poor long-term compliance. Feeding studies have lacked the rigor and duration to test the CIM, but the longest such studies tend to show metabolic advantages for low-glycemic load vs low-fat diets. Beyond the type and amount of carbohydrate consumed, the CIM provides a conceptual framework for understanding how many dietary and nondietary exposures might alter hormones, metabolism, and adipocyte biology in ways that could predispose to obesity. Pending definitive studies, the principles of a low-glycemic load diet offer a practical alternative to the conventional focus on dietary fat and calorie restriction.
The Ludwig's Box of recos
Dietary Recommendations Based on the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model
• Reduce refined grains, potato products, and added sugars—high-glycemic load (GL) carbohydrates with low overall nutritional quality
• Emphasize low-GL carbohydrates, including nonstarchy vegetables, legumes, and nontropical whole fruits(a)
• When consuming grain products, choose whole kernel or traditionally processed alternatives (eg, whole barley, quinoa, traditionally fermented sourdough made from stone ground flour(b)
• Increase nuts, seeds, avocado, olive oil, and other healthful high-fat foods
• Maintain an adequate, but not high, intake of protein, including from plant sources (c)
• For individuals with severe insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, or type 2 diabetes, restriction of total carbohydrate intake, and replacement with dietary fat, may provide greatest benefit (Feinman RD, Pogozelski WK, Astrup A, et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. Nutrition. 2015;31(1):1-13.)
(a) Tropical fruits (eg, banana, papaya) have higher GL than temperate fruits (eg, berries, apple).
(b) Because digestion rate is inversely related to particle size, coarsely milled flour has a lower GI than finely-milled modern industrial flours. Long fermentation reduces rapidly digestible carbohydrate content and produces organic acids, thereby lowering GI.
(c) By eliciting glucagon secretion, protein tends to balance carbohydrate from a metabolic perspective. However, large amounts of protein can also raise insulin secretion. Preliminary evidence suggests plant proteins stimulate less insulin, and may have a lesser anabolic effect, than animal proteins (Sanchez A, Hubbard RW. Plasma amino acids and the insulin/glucagon ratio as an explanation for the dietary protein modulation of atherosclerosis. Med Hypotheses. 1991;36(1):27-32.).
And some tech data are in this paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163108/
The recent paper of Ludwig
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583vendredi 16 novembre 2018
jeudi 15 novembre 2018
An anti-meat activist recites the little green vegan book to sell insects
https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2018/10/17/My-ethics-epiphany-Former-beef-specialist-chef-launches-cricket-protein-brand-to-combat-damaging-meat-industry?utm_source=EditorsSpotlight&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-11-14&c=dC5HnbRQjqlEfEnFPS7Kwve8V%2B91RbIo#
Indeed a lot of assertions about meat and beef are FALSE! Especially the quantum of water and feed to get 1 pound of beef...
Then to make adopt the entomophagy by the vegans it twists the neck to the meaning of the words and invents the neologism: entovegan ...
Indeed a lot of assertions about meat and beef are FALSE! Especially the quantum of water and feed to get 1 pound of beef...
Then to make adopt the entomophagy by the vegans it twists the neck to the meaning of the words and invents the neologism: entovegan ...
mardi 13 novembre 2018
A low carb diet is a better advice than a high fat one...
 |
| A lot of misconceptions about risk factors and atheroma |
Sat fats
Patients with type 2 diabetes or with a metabolic syndrome under a high-calorie diet (1000 calories per day supplement) have signs of intrahepatic TG storage. Not new. The fact that this intrahepatic lipidogenesis is greater with carbohydrates is conventional. Except we do not know the% of fructose.
The amount of saturated fat in those who are in the SAT group is considerable: 39% to 59% ... Who eats as refined fat as it is coconut fat, butter? Palmitic acid seems to induce favours lipolysis and patients in the SAT group do have higher fasting insulinemia. This is not clear to me. But we know that replacing unsat fats by sat fats is favourable to CVD (Siri Tarino), so don't eat sat fats if you have a high carb diet. Otherwise, you can, because I think it is neutral for CVD.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2018/05/24/dc18-0071.supplemental
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/suppl/2018/05/24/dc18-0071.DC1/DC180071SupplementaryData.pdf
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.00902/full
lundi 12 novembre 2018
Your brain without animal foods
http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201709/the-vegan-brain
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201709/the-vegan-brain
Paleo recipe for veggies
 |
| Side dish for tuna and other fatty fishes |
Steamed Broccoli, onions or Echalottes with "confits" lemons, very easy to cook. Use a slow cooking of Echalottes and small lemons in olive oil but in separate casseroles...
vendredi 9 novembre 2018
Le journalisme du copier/coller: régime paléo et intérêts commerciaux
https://www.cheriefm.fr/reveil-cherie-fm/actualites/revue-de-presse-du-jour-les-regimes-alimentaires-en-vogue-71392374
Les régimes alimentaires en vogue
Nombreux sont les régimes à la mode, pour le soit disant bien être. Selon L’Express, il y a pourtant des inconvénients à prendre en compte. (On apprécie le selon l'Express... et non selon X dans l'Ex.) (Bien sur pas de lien)
- Le régime sans gluten : Hors maladie, il n’y aurait aucun intérêt à se passer de gluten ! Ce n’est pas l’arrêt du gluten en lui-même qui fait maigrir mais le fait de stopper les gâteaux ou le pain. (Tiens et de quoi sont faits tous ces produits céréaliers, que contiennent ils en grande quantité? Motus)
- Le régime cétogène : Ce régime repose sur le fait d’arrêter de manger équilibré (Equilibré pour nos diététiciens de pacotille c'est des glucides aka sucres d'abord, peu de viande/poisson et pas de graisses saturées, il faut le rappeler comme cela vous savez maintenant comment détériorer votre santé) et de consommer peu de glucides mais beaucoup de protéines et de graisses. A terme, il provoque des risques cardio-vasculaires (c'est totalement faux le principal pourvoyeur de MCV est le diabète sucré) et est source de mauvaise haleine (pas de manière certaine et surtout chez ceux qui boivent trop peu d'eau, donnez leur le conseil bon sang!).
- Le régime paléolithique : Il s’agit de manger comme les hommes préhistoriques ! Finis les sucres, céréales, féculents, produits laitiers… Ce qui peut provoquer des carences en calcium, minéraux et vitamines.
Le régime paléo ne peut provoquer de carences en raison de sa solide base d'aliments entiers. Il n'y a en effet pas de "produits" et les méthodes de cuisson sont à basse température. On peut se demander, tant le texte est répétitif à travers le web, s'il s'agit d'un narratif journalistique ou d'un copier/coller...
Quelques plats paléo...
 |
| Entrée de petites toamates |
 |
| Nous étions plusieurs |
 |
| Coquilles Saint Jacques |
 |
| Fricassée au naturel, cuisson lente... Huile d'olive ou bien coconut |
 |
| Guacamole et concombre |
 |
| Bavette de boeuf (élevé en demi montagne en extensif) au couteau sel et poivre avec quelques oignons cuits à basse température... |
Vous les voyez les micronutriments dans ces aliments entiers? Non alors goutez les...
Grace au supercapitaliste Google on retrouve l'article de l'Express.
https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/sante/les-dangers-des-regimes-sans_2045329.html
4. Paléolithique : c'est pas automatique
Sortez la pierrade et les silex. Pour les adeptes du régime paléo, il s'agit de revenir 2,5 millions d'années en arrière, quand l'homme n'était qu'un chasseur-cueilleur (en réalité même il y a 12000 ans nous étions au paléolithique). Pour les Pierrafeu modernes, point de céréales, de sucres, de féculents, de produits laitiers bovins et d'aliments industriels. Que se mettent-ils sous la dent ? Tous les légumes, les fruits de saison, l'huile d'olive (plutôt des olives), les noix et le tiercé protéiné oeufs, viande, poisson. L'objectif de la démarche est triple : se rapprocher des besoins primaires de l'organisme, perdre du poids et prévenir certaines maladies modernes dites "de civilisation" comme le diabète ou l'hypertension. Encore faut-il éviter "certaines carences en calcium, minéraux ou vitamines", prévient Raphaël Gruman, diététicien-nutritionniste (Qui est ce spécialiste du paléo? Un "spécialiste" de la Cryolipolyse! Vous n'en aurez pas besoin avec le paléo. En fait c'est le représentant de sa boite, de ses livres et de ses méthodes qui sont totalement basées sur des découvertes ou données scientifiques inexistantes. Donc bien sur aucun risque de déficiences avec le paléo, en revanche les vegans ne sont pas exempts de plusieurs déficiences, Fer, vitamines B et particulièrement B12, dépression), et réussir à adapter cette diète ancestrale à un mode de vie contemporain. A moins de fuir la cantine du bureau et de refuser tous les apéros, difficile d'échapper aux produits transformés.
Ils se moquent de nous ces journaleux de l'Express...
ouvrez vos yeux
* Les intervenants déclarent sur l'honneur n'avoir aucun conflit d'intérêts avec l'industrie agro-alimentaire, à deux exceptions près : Raphaël Gruman représente le kiwi et les amandes en France. Dominique Cassuto est médecin consultante pour les sucriers.
 |
| Gruman vend des kiwis selon sa "déclaration" de conflit d'inrtérêt... |
 |
| Toujours Gruman qui n'est pas médecin et qui vend des kiwis et des amandes |
Pour autant il ne risque rien il n'y a pas d'ordre des D.U.T Génie Biologique, Spécialité Diététique son diplome académique. Il a raison de se saisir de cet avantage concurrentiel.
Trendy diets and dysnutrition
https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2018/11/06/Trendy-diets-lead-to-dangerous-disorders-warns-nutritionist?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06-Nov-2018&c=dC5HnbRQjqkrJeWsXedzEhtKkK0PNcBO&p2=
lundi 5 novembre 2018
Sugar not GMO are harming zoo animals
https://www.newsweek.com/zoo-weans-animals-fruit-because-its-increased-sugar-makes-them-fat-and-rots-1145259?fbclid=IwAR3LlsCZKYRDYJuI4iJON-XFJw4y9OwH2KCQdfVS4-AYD8Gn7VYc-jOhDMI
Atheroma: in search of the Graal, is CRP the new LDLc?
This is a huge collaborative work but... Is CRP the new LDLc?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30388399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEMOSfvmT8&feature=youtu.be
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/13652796/2015/278/5
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30388399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEMOSfvmT8&feature=youtu.be
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/13652796/2015/278/5
Obesity and risk: measuring it in years of life
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30288-2/fulltext
"Causes of death with weak or no biological link to excess bodyweight, such as mental health, behavioural, neurological and accidental causes, and suicide, were not associated with increased BMI, but with underweight (<18 kg="" m="" p="">
"In this study, the J-shaped association between BMI and all-cause mortality was partly driven by the associations between lower BMI or underweight and increased mortality from mental and behavioural, neurological, and external causes. There is a high likelihood that these associations reflect methodological issues such as reverse causation (ie, low BMI is the consequence rather than the cause of these conditions), but further research is needed to disentangle complex associations between these mental health and neurological conditions and bodyweight."
"This study also quantified the population attributable fraction (PAF), an estimate of the contribution of overweight and obesity to total mortality, or the potential population-level reduction in mortality given the hypothetical scenario in which everyone had been of optimal bodyweight. Because this metric accounts for the prevalence of exposure in the population, it arguably better reflects the disproportionate burden for underweight versus overweight and obese categories than the J-shaped association. As such, the authors estimated that, assuming causality, overweight and obesity (BMI ≥25 kg/m²) contributed to 5·5% of total deaths, whereas underweight contributed to 0·7%, in their UK-based study population. The estimate for excess bodyweight with mortality is similar to that of the 2015 Global Burden of Disease Study,3 which estimated that, globally, overweight and obesity contributed to approximately 7·1% (95% uncertainty interval 4·9–9·6) of total deaths."
"Although the debate might persist as to the precise point at which the association between continuous BMI with excess mortality becomes statistically significant, it is important to note that most people will gain weight throughout midlife, which is associated with increased subsequent risk of chronic diseases and mortality."
"Many individuals with a BMI in the range of overweight (25·0–29·9 kg/m²) are already on a trajectory of gaining more weight that will transition them into the BMI range of obesity (≥30·0 kg/m²). Therefore, although the excess mortality associated with overweight is relatively small, it is important for overweight individuals to prevent further weight gain. Even among older populations, a plateau or decline in bodyweight often masks a trajectory of fat mass gain, offset by losses in lean body mass (ie, decreases in muscle tissue and bone density).6 Therefore, it is important for older individuals to prevent an increase in waist size, a marker of abdominal obesity, while minimising loss of muscle mass. Additional studies might shed more light on the role of body fat distributions and different fat depots in chronic disease morbidity and mortality. Meanwhile, current efforts need to be intensified to identify more effective and impactful strategies for prevention of weight gain and obesity-related comorbidities. "
Excellent editorial piece by Tobias and Hu
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30309-7/fulltext
"Causes of death with weak or no biological link to excess bodyweight, such as mental health, behavioural, neurological and accidental causes, and suicide, were not associated with increased BMI, but with underweight (<18 kg="" m="" p="">
"In this study, the J-shaped association between BMI and all-cause mortality was partly driven by the associations between lower BMI or underweight and increased mortality from mental and behavioural, neurological, and external causes. There is a high likelihood that these associations reflect methodological issues such as reverse causation (ie, low BMI is the consequence rather than the cause of these conditions), but further research is needed to disentangle complex associations between these mental health and neurological conditions and bodyweight."
"This study also quantified the population attributable fraction (PAF), an estimate of the contribution of overweight and obesity to total mortality, or the potential population-level reduction in mortality given the hypothetical scenario in which everyone had been of optimal bodyweight. Because this metric accounts for the prevalence of exposure in the population, it arguably better reflects the disproportionate burden for underweight versus overweight and obese categories than the J-shaped association. As such, the authors estimated that, assuming causality, overweight and obesity (BMI ≥25 kg/m²) contributed to 5·5% of total deaths, whereas underweight contributed to 0·7%, in their UK-based study population. The estimate for excess bodyweight with mortality is similar to that of the 2015 Global Burden of Disease Study,3 which estimated that, globally, overweight and obesity contributed to approximately 7·1% (95% uncertainty interval 4·9–9·6) of total deaths."
"Although the debate might persist as to the precise point at which the association between continuous BMI with excess mortality becomes statistically significant, it is important to note that most people will gain weight throughout midlife, which is associated with increased subsequent risk of chronic diseases and mortality."
"Many individuals with a BMI in the range of overweight (25·0–29·9 kg/m²) are already on a trajectory of gaining more weight that will transition them into the BMI range of obesity (≥30·0 kg/m²). Therefore, although the excess mortality associated with overweight is relatively small, it is important for overweight individuals to prevent further weight gain. Even among older populations, a plateau or decline in bodyweight often masks a trajectory of fat mass gain, offset by losses in lean body mass (ie, decreases in muscle tissue and bone density).6 Therefore, it is important for older individuals to prevent an increase in waist size, a marker of abdominal obesity, while minimising loss of muscle mass. Additional studies might shed more light on the role of body fat distributions and different fat depots in chronic disease morbidity and mortality. Meanwhile, current efforts need to be intensified to identify more effective and impactful strategies for prevention of weight gain and obesity-related comorbidities. "
Excellent editorial piece by Tobias and Hu
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30309-7/fulltext
FAQ: sugar in fruits
Does the sugar in fruit cause insulin to spike in the same way as regular sugar?
Reader Question • 693 votes
A
Not if the fruit in question is whole fruit. Unlike honey, cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other forms of sugar that are added to many processed foods, the sugar naturally found in fruit is consumed in the company of fiber, which helps your body absorb the sugar more slowly.
When you consume a food or beverage that contains carbohydrates, your digestive system breaks the carbs down into a type of sugar called glucose, which enters the bloodstream. When blood sugar levels rise, the pancreas produces the hormone insulin, a signal to your cells to absorb the glucose so it can be used immediately as energy or stored in the liver and muscles for later use. Repeatedly eating foods that cause surges in blood sugar makes the pancreas work harder. Over time, that can lead to insulin resistance and an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.
Refined grain products like white bread, crackers, and cookies, which tend to be low in fiber, deliver large amounts of carbohydrates per serving and are digested very quickly, raising blood sugar and insulin levels. Sugars enter into the bloodstream especially rapidly when you consume carbohydrates in liquid form, such as in sugary sodas.
But it’s not as simple as adding fiber to starchy foods or soda — the quality and physical form of carbohydrates are critical, which means favoring whole foods over processed foods and added sugars. That includes favoring whole fruit over fruit juice: Fruit juices can contain fiber, but some of that fiber is broken down in the juicing process, reducing the metabolic benefit compared with intact fruit.
To minimize spikes in insulin, it’s best to eat fruit whole. That’s because with whole fruit the cell walls remain intact, said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. This is how fiber can offer the greatest benefit, he explained, because the sugars are effectively sequestered within the fiber scaffolding of the cells, and it takes time for the digestive tract to break down those cells. Four apples may contain the same amount of sugar as 24 ounces of soda, but the slow rate of absorption minimizes the blood sugar surge.
“If we take a nutrient-centric approach, just looking at sugar grams on the label, none of this is evident,” Dr. Ludwig said. “So it really requires a whole foods view.”
dimanche 4 novembre 2018
Organic food consumption and cancers
1/ The volunteers of the study represent a very highly biased population as 78.0% of 68 946 participants were female. Only 22% of male volunteers is by itself a great explanation of the results.
2/ 1340 first incident cancer cases were identified, with the most prevalent being 459 breast cancers (34.3%), 180 prostate cancers (13.4%), 135 skin cancers (melanoma and spinocellular carcinoma) (10.1%), 99 colorectal cancers (7.4%), 47 NHLs (3.5%), and 15 other lymphomas (1.1%).
3/ The reduction of risk associated with OFC is only about postmenopausal breast cancer (232/459), NHL, and all lymphomas (62 cases)
For NHL and lymphomas, the risk reduction with OFC is not linear and in lymphomas, the Q3 has a trend of higher risk!
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
1 [Reference]
0.80 (0.35-1.81)
1.21 (0.61-2.43)
0.27 (0.07-0.96)
.23
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.009
All lymphomas
1 [Reference]
0.56 (0.27-1.17)
0.97 (0.54-1.74)
0.23 (0.08-0.69)
.05
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.03
4/ Among the participants consuming OF, physical activity and alcohol consumption are different... But we know that those factors are highly important and definitively more important than pesticides in cancer promotion and development.
5/ In the figure, several unlikely findings are against all other evidence in the literature.
- Sex. In males who do have a higher rate of cancers, there is no difference between the Q4 vs Q1.
In females who do have a lower rate of cancers the Q4 women do have a lesser risk than the Q1 ones... This is suggesting OFC lowers the risk in female only.
- Age. Q4 vs Q1 OFC is associated with a lesser risk only in postmedian age participants. Which means that in the time interval cancers which are the slowest to develop, I mean cancers in older people would have been reduced and the others that grow faster in younger people, wouldn't.
- BMI ≤25 0.81 (0.66-0.99)
BMI >25 to <30 0.66="" font="">
BMI ≥30 0.57 (0.35-0.93)
It is very improbable that people with BMI >30 would have been "protected" when consuming OF in the Q4, considering the evidence about the link between obesity and cancer.
- OFC do have an undifferentiated effect in non-smokers and former or current smokers which is very unlikely regarding that we know about smoking and cancer and the quantitated effect of carcinogens...
For those reasons and for the eminent question of the evidence-based quantitated effect of protection, people should be advised to implement a healthy lifestyle based on efficient measures:
No smoking,
Moderate to high physical activity
Normal weight and hip/waist ration even at old age
Fewer carbohydrates and especially added sugars
Less processed foods including processed meats.
Other comments:
"Please, correct me if i'm wrong, but this study has a very strange and weak design.
The dietary profile of participants was assessed only once ("Two months after enrollment, volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 labeled organic products").
Moreover, while the authors state that they used a somewhat validated questionnaire, in their commentary Drs. Hemler, Chavarro and Hu, write:
"Most salient among the weaknesses is the fact that the organic food questionnaire was not validated; therefore, it is unclear what the intended exposure, organic food consumption, was actually measuring."
So, how could anyone draw any conclusions based on a single assessment made with an unvalidated questionnaire?"
"In that regard, in supplemental table 7, we can see that other variables change between the quartiles. For example milk, legume and poultry consumption. However, the models did not adjust for these. Red and processed meat were adjusted for, I assume because higher cancer risk was associated with these food categories, however one should not assume that because it has not been described, milk, poultry or legumes might not have an effect of their own, and the model should have been adjusted for that.
... An extra analysis of interest would be to see if there are specific food groups where organic vs conventional sourcing has a higher impact on the incidence of the reported cancers. According to the methods paragraph, the authors should have this kind of data. Does a PCA or MFA suggest any link? This would be particularly interesting as it could indirectly point towards a more specific subgroup of pesticides (organic eggs or milk are not exposed to the same pesticides as cereals or legumes), and perhaps support the authors' claim of pesticide involvement."
" The study referenced in the article included 68,946 patients, 78% women with a mean age at baseline of 44.2 years. According to the article, women are more prone than men to develop cancer. This helps to solidify the authors’ claims but does not take into account other age groups—particularly those more vulnerable like children or the elderly."
Finally interpretation by the authors of their study is biased by a classical issue in epidemiology:
reverse causation.
It is more probable (regarding the different discrepancies between non organic food consumers and the volunteers of the study) that the culture, healthstyle and other factors are the cause of their decreased risk and OFC.
1 / Les volontaires de l’étude représentent une population très fortement biaisée puisque 78,0% des 68 946 participants étaient des femmes. Seulement 22% des volontaires masculins constituent à eux seuls une excellente explication des résultats.
Deux cas sur 1340 cancers ont été identifiés, les plus fréquents étant: 459 cancers du sein (34,3%), 180 cancers de la prostate (13,4%), 135 cancers de la peau (mélanome et carcinome spinocellulaire) (10,1%), 99 cancers colorectaux (7,4 %), 47 LNH (3,5%) et 15 autres lymphomes (1,1%).
3 / La réduction du risque associé aux CPO ne concerne que le cancer du sein post-ménopausique, le LNH et tous les lymphomes (62 cas)
Pour les LNH et les lymphomes, la réduction du risque avec OFC n’est pas linéaire et dans les lymphomes, le Q3 a une tendance de risque plus élevé!
Lymphome non hodgkinien
1 [Référence]
0,80 (0,35-1,81)
1,21 (0,61-2,43)
0,27 (0,07-0,96)
.23
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.009
Tous les lymphomes
1 [Référence]
0,56 (0,27-1,17)
0,97 (0,54-1,74)
0,23 (0,08-0,69)
0,05
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.03
4 / Parmi les participants consommant du thé, l’activité physique et la consommation d’alcool sont différentes… Mais nous savons que ces facteurs sont très importants et nettement plus importants que les pesticides dans la promotion et le développement du cancer.
5 / Dans la figure, plusieurs conclusions peu probables vont à l’encontre de toutes les autres preuves présentées dans la littérature.
- le sexe. Chez les hommes qui ont un taux de cancer plus élevé, il n'y a pas de différence entre le Q4 et le Q1.
Chez les femmes qui ont un taux de cancer plus faible, les femmes du quatrième trimestre ont un risque moins élevé que celles du premier trimestre ... Cela suggère que l'OFC réduit le risque chez les femmes uniquement.
- l'âge. Q4 vs Q1 L'OFC est associé à un risque moindre que chez les participants d'âge médian. Ce qui signifie que, dans l'intervalle de temps, les cancers les plus lents à développer, je veux dire les cancers chez les personnes âgées auraient été réduits et les autres qui se développent plus rapidement chez les personnes plus jeunes, non.
- IMC ≤25 0,81 (0,66-0,99)
IMC> 25 à <30 0="" p="">IMC ≥30 0,57 (0,35-0,93)
Il est très improbable que les personnes ayant un IMC supérieur à 30 aient été "protégées" lorsqu'elles consomment du OF au 4ème trimestre, compte tenu des preuves relatives au lien entre obésité et cancer.
- Les CFO ont un effet indifférencié chez les non-fumeurs et les fumeurs anciens ou actuels, ce qui est très peu probable en ce qui concerne nos connaissances sur le tabagisme et le cancer et sur l'effet quantifié des substances cancérogènes ...
Pour ces raisons et pour la question éminente de l’effet quantitatif de la protection fondé sur des preuves, il convient de conseiller aux personnes d’appliquer un mode de vie sain reposant sur des mesures efficaces:
Ne pas fumer,
Activité physique modérée à élevée
Poids normal et ration hanche / taille même à un âge avancé
Moins de glucides et surtout de sucres ajoutés
Moins d'aliments transformés, y compris les viandes transformées.
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2707943
2/ 1340 first incident cancer cases were identified, with the most prevalent being 459 breast cancers (34.3%), 180 prostate cancers (13.4%), 135 skin cancers (melanoma and spinocellular carcinoma) (10.1%), 99 colorectal cancers (7.4%), 47 NHLs (3.5%), and 15 other lymphomas (1.1%).
3/ The reduction of risk associated with OFC is only about postmenopausal breast cancer (232/459), NHL, and all lymphomas (62 cases)
For NHL and lymphomas, the risk reduction with OFC is not linear and in lymphomas, the Q3 has a trend of higher risk!
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
1 [Reference]
0.80 (0.35-1.81)
1.21 (0.61-2.43)
0.27 (0.07-0.96)
.23
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.009
All lymphomas
1 [Reference]
0.56 (0.27-1.17)
0.97 (0.54-1.74)
0.23 (0.08-0.69)
.05
0.75 (0.60-0.93)
.03
4/ Among the participants consuming OF, physical activity and alcohol consumption are different... But we know that those factors are highly important and definitively more important than pesticides in cancer promotion and development.
5/ In the figure, several unlikely findings are against all other evidence in the literature.
- Sex. In males who do have a higher rate of cancers, there is no difference between the Q4 vs Q1.
In females who do have a lower rate of cancers the Q4 women do have a lesser risk than the Q1 ones... This is suggesting OFC lowers the risk in female only.
- Age. Q4 vs Q1 OFC is associated with a lesser risk only in postmedian age participants. Which means that in the time interval cancers which are the slowest to develop, I mean cancers in older people would have been reduced and the others that grow faster in younger people, wouldn't.
- BMI ≤25 0.81 (0.66-0.99)
BMI >25 to <30 0.66="" font="">
BMI ≥30 0.57 (0.35-0.93)
It is very improbable that people with BMI >30 would have been "protected" when consuming OF in the Q4, considering the evidence about the link between obesity and cancer.
- OFC do have an undifferentiated effect in non-smokers and former or current smokers which is very unlikely regarding that we know about smoking and cancer and the quantitated effect of carcinogens...
For those reasons and for the eminent question of the evidence-based quantitated effect of protection, people should be advised to implement a healthy lifestyle based on efficient measures:
No smoking,
Moderate to high physical activity
Normal weight and hip/waist ration even at old age
Fewer carbohydrates and especially added sugars
Less processed foods including processed meats.
Other comments:
"Please, correct me if i'm wrong, but this study has a very strange and weak design.
The dietary profile of participants was assessed only once ("Two months after enrollment, volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 labeled organic products").
Moreover, while the authors state that they used a somewhat validated questionnaire, in their commentary Drs. Hemler, Chavarro and Hu, write:
"Most salient among the weaknesses is the fact that the organic food questionnaire was not validated; therefore, it is unclear what the intended exposure, organic food consumption, was actually measuring."
So, how could anyone draw any conclusions based on a single assessment made with an unvalidated questionnaire?"
"In that regard, in supplemental table 7, we can see that other variables change between the quartiles. For example milk, legume and poultry consumption. However, the models did not adjust for these. Red and processed meat were adjusted for, I assume because higher cancer risk was associated with these food categories, however one should not assume that because it has not been described, milk, poultry or legumes might not have an effect of their own, and the model should have been adjusted for that.
... An extra analysis of interest would be to see if there are specific food groups where organic vs conventional sourcing has a higher impact on the incidence of the reported cancers. According to the methods paragraph, the authors should have this kind of data. Does a PCA or MFA suggest any link? This would be particularly interesting as it could indirectly point towards a more specific subgroup of pesticides (organic eggs or milk are not exposed to the same pesticides as cereals or legumes), and perhaps support the authors' claim of pesticide involvement."
" The study referenced in the article included 68,946 patients, 78% women with a mean age at baseline of 44.2 years. According to the article, women are more prone than men to develop cancer. This helps to solidify the authors’ claims but does not take into account other age groups—particularly those more vulnerable like children or the elderly."
Finally interpretation by the authors of their study is biased by a classical issue in epidemiology:
reverse causation.
It is more probable (regarding the different discrepancies between non organic food consumers and the volunteers of the study) that the culture, healthstyle and other factors are the cause of their decreased risk and OFC.
1 / Les volontaires de l’étude représentent une population très fortement biaisée puisque 78,0% des 68 946 participants étaient des femmes. Seulement 22% des volontaires masculins constituent à eux seuls une excellente explication des résultats.
Deux cas sur 1340 cancers ont été identifiés, les plus fréquents étant: 459 cancers du sein (34,3%), 180 cancers de la prostate (13,4%), 135 cancers de la peau (mélanome et carcinome spinocellulaire) (10,1%), 99 cancers colorectaux (7,4 %), 47 LNH (3,5%) et 15 autres lymphomes (1,1%).
3 / La réduction du risque associé aux CPO ne concerne que le cancer du sein post-ménopausique, le LNH et tous les lymphomes (62 cas)
Pour les LNH et les lymphomes, la réduction du risque avec OFC n’est pas linéaire et dans les lymphomes, le Q3 a une tendance de risque plus élevé!
Lymphome non hodgkinien
1 [Référence]
0,80 (0,35-1,81)
1,21 (0,61-2,43)
0,27 (0,07-0,96)
.23
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.009
Tous les lymphomes
1 [Référence]
0,56 (0,27-1,17)
0,97 (0,54-1,74)
0,23 (0,08-0,69)
0,05
0,75 (0,60-0,93)
.03
4 / Parmi les participants consommant du thé, l’activité physique et la consommation d’alcool sont différentes… Mais nous savons que ces facteurs sont très importants et nettement plus importants que les pesticides dans la promotion et le développement du cancer.
5 / Dans la figure, plusieurs conclusions peu probables vont à l’encontre de toutes les autres preuves présentées dans la littérature.
- le sexe. Chez les hommes qui ont un taux de cancer plus élevé, il n'y a pas de différence entre le Q4 et le Q1.
Chez les femmes qui ont un taux de cancer plus faible, les femmes du quatrième trimestre ont un risque moins élevé que celles du premier trimestre ... Cela suggère que l'OFC réduit le risque chez les femmes uniquement.
- l'âge. Q4 vs Q1 L'OFC est associé à un risque moindre que chez les participants d'âge médian. Ce qui signifie que, dans l'intervalle de temps, les cancers les plus lents à développer, je veux dire les cancers chez les personnes âgées auraient été réduits et les autres qui se développent plus rapidement chez les personnes plus jeunes, non.
- IMC ≤25 0,81 (0,66-0,99)
IMC> 25 à <30 0="" p="">IMC ≥30 0,57 (0,35-0,93)
Il est très improbable que les personnes ayant un IMC supérieur à 30 aient été "protégées" lorsqu'elles consomment du OF au 4ème trimestre, compte tenu des preuves relatives au lien entre obésité et cancer.
- Les CFO ont un effet indifférencié chez les non-fumeurs et les fumeurs anciens ou actuels, ce qui est très peu probable en ce qui concerne nos connaissances sur le tabagisme et le cancer et sur l'effet quantifié des substances cancérogènes ...
Pour ces raisons et pour la question éminente de l’effet quantitatif de la protection fondé sur des preuves, il convient de conseiller aux personnes d’appliquer un mode de vie sain reposant sur des mesures efficaces:
Ne pas fumer,
Activité physique modérée à élevée
Poids normal et ration hanche / taille même à un âge avancé
Moins de glucides et surtout de sucres ajoutés
Moins d'aliments transformés, y compris les viandes transformées.
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">
<30 0="" p="">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2707943
samedi 3 novembre 2018
Caffeine and sport
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=9000&issue=00000&article=96763&type=Abstract
Try to avoid dehydration and high caffeine intake during sport. This is about a maximal cycle ergometer test.
Try to avoid dehydration and high caffeine intake during sport. This is about a maximal cycle ergometer test.
vendredi 2 novembre 2018
Senescence, food and drug: use of senolytics
https://medium.com/lifeomic/dont-be-a-zombie-senolytics-exercise-and-fasting-fight-off-senescent-cells-cc720d88240
https://www.livestrong.com/article/301326-foods-with-the-highest-content-of-quercetin/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0092-9
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02848131
10.1038/nrd2135
https://www.livestrong.com/article/301326-foods-with-the-highest-content-of-quercetin/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0092-9
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02848131
10.1038/nrd2135
jeudi 1 novembre 2018
Cancers France: les cancers et leur mortalité diminuent
| Sexe | Annee | N_inc | N_mor | Tsm_inc | Tsm_mor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexe | Année d'estimation | Nombre de cas incidents annuels | Nombre de décès annuels | Taux standardisé d'incidence | Taux standardisé de mortalité |
| Homme | 1980 | 96506 | 76772 | 283.5 | 214.6 |
| Homme | 1990 | 122558 | 85525 | 317.8 | 209.3 |
| Homme | 2000 | 158333 | 88687 | 351.7 | 183.2 |
| Homme | 2005 | 193631 | 88626 | 396.1 | 164.0 |
| Homme | 2010 | 194051 | 86816 | 364.6 | 142.3 |
| Homme | 2012 | 200350 | 85255 | 362.6 | 133.6 |
| Femme | 1980 | 73314 | 52481 | 176.4 | 100.4 |
| Femme | 1990 | 92681 | 55696 | 203.2 | 93.6 |
| Femme | 2000 | 119842 | 58254 | 234.9 | 85.2 |
| Femme | 2005 | 137487 | 60202 | 248.8 | 80.6 |
| Femme | 2010 | 149914 | 62450 | 251.2 | 75.3 |
| Femme | 2012 | 155004 | 63123 | 252.0 | 73.2 |
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
Articles
