Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

BMJ Editorial: Is ethnicity linked to incidence or outcomes of covid-19?

Dear Editor
COVID-19 (Coronavirus) mortality disproportionately impacts BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) UK individuals, African Americans, Swedish Somalis,[1] and the institutionalised; particularly care-home residents. COVID-19 severity and mortality, appear related to vitamin D deficiency, [2 -12] helping explain higher COVID-19 mortality rates in BAME and the obese.[13]

Obesity is a strong COVID-19 risk factor, as are co-morbidities, including diabetes, cardio-vascular disease; and sedentary lifestyle; all are dependent on mitochondrial functionality (Gnaiger).[14] Fat cells accrete vitamin D.[15] The obese consistently have proportionately lower vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]).[16]

Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone with various skeletal and non-skeletal effects including regulation of innate and adaptive immune responses. Vitamin D, by binding to the vitamin D response element in various gene-promoter-regions, decreases expression of pro-inflammatory-cytokines and increases production of antiviral and antibacterial[17] proteins, suggesting an important role in antiviral innate adaptive immunity.[18] Importantly, vitamin D is also involved in renin–angiotensin system regulation,[19] which is regulated by entry of the SARS-Cov-2 virus into cells via the ACE2 receptor, leading to cytokine storms, with subsequent fatal respiratory distress syndrome.[20]...

Currently, no effective COVID-19 treatment exists. Vaccines present enormous possibilities, but equally-large hurdles, and require time. Vitamin D biology, is a mature well-researched field, dating back 100 years. Doses, and risks, within clinical parameters, are established and well quantified. Governmental intake guidance exists. Vitamin D deficiency is a medically accepted condition, requiring treatment. Existing blood samples from COVID-19 hospitalized patients could be retrospectively tested for 25(OH)D and linked to outcomes.[25]

We and others (Grant, Lahore)[9, 34] hypothesize vitamin D may have clinical COVID-19 relevance. Vitamin D deficiency may biomark risk of sepsis in all populations; 25(OH)D was significantly lower in patients that died within 30 days.[35, 36] A French clinical RCT recently started, testing effects of a large single vitamin D dose, administered early in infection, compared to a standard dose, on the mortality of older COVID-19 infected adults deficient in vitamin D (Annweiler).[37]

Whilst clinical studies have potential, vitamin D deficiency is an existing, ubiquitous and pressing issue. Deficiency is variable, but widespread globally. BAME people in high latitudes are a group at high risk of deficiency, as observed by NICE[38] and others (Rhein).[39] Surprisingly, vitamin D may be a larger relative COVID-19 causative agent than socioeconomic-factors.[40] Importantly, vitamin D supplementation determinants should include basal level, genetic background, metabolic status and gender.

Albeit vitamin D deficiency most likely accounts for a greater COVID-19 impact on BAME, older, institutionalised and obese persons, COVID-19 severity would undoubtedly be exacerbated by, often socioeconomic related, general micro-nutrient inadequacies.[41, 42]...

Recognition (subject to proof by research), that vitamin D deficiency contributes to COVID-19 infection, progression, severity and mortality would demand policy rethinking on: the seasonality of COVID-19,[43] outdoor access, motivation for physical exercise, food fortification, supplementation, clinical treatment, and provision of free vitamin D supplements to institutions, front-line health and care workers. Sensible (according to latitude and weather) sun exposure is free, available to all and quickly improves vitamin D status, but is inhibited by lock-down...

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Meta-analysis: Do nuts make you fat?

Nuts are supposed to be good for you (I recently posted on a meta-analysis that found that walnuts lower total and bad cholesterol and triglycerides), but they are high in calories. Do they make you fat and bushy like a well-fed squirrel?

A new meta-analysis of thirteen randomized clinical studies (741 people) looked at the issue. It found that nut consumption did not affect body mass index (BMI), weight, percent body fat, or waist circumference. So if you like this kind of food and think it's beneficial, go nuts. 

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Meta-analysis: Fruits, not vegetables, lower triglycerides

Don't make the mistake of assuming this is a health blog when you see two health posts in a row.  I do have the goal of reporting the results of new, interesting meta-analyses. If you focus on one study, you can find whatever results you'd like, but dozens of studies, especially large, random clinical trials? That's more convincing. Facebook should give me a fantastic reputation score. No Fake News here.

This new meta-analysis is not great, but its five cross-sectional and two intervention studies are worth mentioning. Both types of studies find that greater intake of vegetables does not lower triglycerides--the major form of fat stored by the body, which my doctor keeps telling me is way high in my blood. (Turns out, I have a bad gene.)

On the other hand, the more servings of fruit you eat per day, the lower your triglycerides. Two trials is not nearly enough, but, still, the results are interesting.

The authors do not have much of an explanation of how fruit helps, but they do describe an animal trial that found that high fruit fiber intake lowered triglyceride levels in the following order: pomegranate > apple > strawberry > guava > papaya > mandarin and orange.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Which oil for cooking is the healthiest? A meta-analysis of 54 trials

This new meta-analysis of 54 randomized studies looked to see which oils improve your cholesterol the best.

The authors found that you can bring down your bad cholesterol (LDL) by eating the following oils instead of butter: safflower, sunflower, canola, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, coconut, and even beef fat. All these were better than butter for total cholesterol, and safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean oil beat lard for total cholesterol.

Compared to lard, safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean did better on LDL. And sunflower was better than olive and palm oil.

For raising the good cholesterol (HDL), safflower turns out to be the loser. Sunflower, olive, palm, coconut and even beef fat are improvements. Sunflower, olive and beef fat are better than soybean. Coconut and palm beat soybean as well as corn oil. The researchers, however, say there's evidence that high HDL might not reduce your cardiovascular disease risk, so LDL seems to be more important.

For triacyglycerols--fat levels--sunflower, soybean, and palm oil are superior to butter, while safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, and palm are better than beef fat.

Maybe you didn't need all that, but the big depressing news is that butter--which I love--stinks, and it looks like sunflower oil is the grand champion. I don't see it around as much as other oils, but according to experimental research, it seems to be the healthiest choice.

Myself, I like it when science contradicts the cool people who tell me I need to eat olive and coconut oil 24/7.

UPDATE: The Russians like sunflower oil, but I swear I did not post this research because they have something on me.

Monday, July 16, 2018

Meta-analysis of clinical trials: Eat walnuts

I am always looking for easy eating choices that are good for you. This new meta-analysis of 26 clinical trials looked to see if walnuts make a difference. The authors found that daily consumption of walnuts significantly lowered total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol--the "bad" stuff that clogs arteries. It also reduced triglycerides or fats in the blood. HDL, the "good" cholesterol, remained unchanged.

The researchers found that subjects who ate enough walnuts so that it was 10-24% of their daily energy intake got more benefit than those at the 5% level. So for someone about my size--5' 10", 180 pounds--you should probably eat roughly 2 ounces per day.

Of course, all of this assumes that conventional medicine is right about cholesterol and triglycerides.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Poor nutrition and antisocial behavior

We emphasize genes on this blog, but far be it from me to dismiss the environment as sociologists dismiss genetic influence.  This study shows that even after we control for genes and shared environment, poor nutrition predicts antisocial behavior among children.  So feed your kiddies good stuff.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235215300155

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Vitamin B12 and infant brain development

In a new study in the European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, cranial MRI images were taken of 15 infants with vitamin B12 deficiency.
In our study, thinning of the corpus callosum was detected in 6 (40%), cortical atrophy in 5 (33.3%), ventricular dilatation in 3 (20%), large sylvian fissures in 5 (33.3%), hydrocephalus in 3 (20%), asymetric large lateral ventricule in 2 (13.3%) and retardation in myelination in 2 (13.3%) patients and 4 infants had normal MRI findings, respectively.
In conclusion, vitamin B12 is important for development of brain. Severe and various neurological and neuroradiological findings may be seen in infants due to vitamin B12 deficiency. Vitamin B12 deficiency should be considered in infants with hypotonia or neurodevelopmental retardation and with neuroradiological findings such as thinning of the corpus callosum, cortical atrophy and retardation in myelination. The early diagnosis and treatment of vitamin B12 deficiency is crucial for significant neurological impairment and long-term prognosis. Vitamin B12 supplementation of pregnant women may prevent neurological and neuroradiological findings of the infants.
It is infants breastfed by vegetarian mothers who are most at risk of vitamin B12 deficiency. This is true in both undeveloped and developed countries.

Are gun owners mentally ill?

  Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...