We're Moving!

Hello World. We have moved to 

nutritionasiknowit.com

Join us over there for more updates.

A Tale of Low Carb Diets and Gestational Diabetes

With the rising popularity of low carb/paleo type diets has come a curious unintended consequence: expecting mothers receiving a false positive on their Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) test. 

The Rise in Popularity of the Paleo Diet

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)

GDM is diabetes (“Type 4 Diabetes”) diagnosed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy that is not obviously type 1 or 2 [1]. Women with diabetes in the first trimester would be classified as having type 2 diabetes [1]. The essential contributing factor to GDM is pancreatic insufficiency [2]. Basically, your pancreas is not making enough insulin for your body to overcome the increased insulin resistance due to the placental hormones of pregnancy and increased maternal adipose tissue, which could potentially cause your blood glucose levels to remain high. 

GDM = weak pancreas. Not making enough insulin for you and the baby. 

GMO’s Cause Cancer, Part II: Much Ado About Monsanto

In my last post we took a look at the infamous Séralini study, Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize [1]. The study was poorly conducted and ultimately added little to the scientific understanding of the safety of Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize. You can read my full analysis of the paper here. 

This article will examine the original Monsanto paper that spawned this GMO melodramatic episode [18]. I'll also be using this post to deliver some broader educational points about the safety, science, and regulations behind genetically modified organisms.

GMO’s Cause Cancer, Part I: The Curious Case of Séralini’s Rats

Gilles-Éric Séralini had some rats. He fed them some GMO corn and some Roundup herbicide and they got cancer and died. Therefore, GMO’s cause cancer.

I think you'll find it’s a bit more complicated than that.

What follows is an attempt to thoroughly dissect the Séralini paper and subsequent republication. This will be a gloriously meticulous exercise in demonstrating how bad science can muddy the public’s scientific understanding.

Background

Séralini is professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, France, and president of the scientific board of CRIIGEN (Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering). He published a study in 2012 in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) that was supposed to be a replication of a 2004 study conducted by Monsanto looking into the safety of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready resistant corn (NK603 R-tolerant maize) [1,2]. Séralini’s study has since been retracted by FCT and republished in another journal but before we dive into the meat of the paper let’s take a brief look at Séralini’s history and potential conflicts of interest.

Is Alcohol Healthy or Not? The Saga Continues

There have been a fair number of epidemiological trials that show light (up to 2/day) to moderate (up to 4/day) drinking is associated with reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and increased longevity [1,2,3]. Anything above 4 drinks a day and you are increasing your risk of cancer, liver disease, stroke, etc [1]. This is what we call a J-shaped curve. At a lower dose we see benefits but as the dose gets higher we see relative risk increase.

But these trials don’t actually prove alcohol reduces certain risk factors, it only shows us an association that should be looked into further. Enter the latest study [4]:

CETP TaqIB genotype modifies the association between alcohol and coronary heart disease: The INTERGENE case-control study

Science Checkup: Does Sugar Kill Your Sex Drive?

Do you remember your English classes back in high school? The teacher would assign you some droll book to read and warn you of an impending test on said book. The night before the exam, you would sit down and Google as hard as you could to try and find the Cliffs Notes. Upon finding one, you would read through the summaries and hope it was enough to pass the test. This strategy would usually yield mediocre results. A passing grade but nothing too fancy. Sometimes, this strategy would earn you a big old F. 

Some science writers never grew out of the Cliffs Notes phase and employ this strategy when reporting on journal articles. They will read through the abstract, the summary of a paper, and base their article on that single paragraph. Just like your high school English tests, these articles end up misinterpreting and misrepresenting the full context of the study. 

Enter Dr. Mark Hyman and his latest article, Killing Your Sex Drive One Bite at a Time: 5 Surprising Ways Sugar Lowers Libido [1]. In the opening salvoes of his article he makes the following claim:

“The biggest culprit that continually knocks sex hormones out of balance is sugar in all its many forms (including all flour products), which raises insulin and creates a hormonal domino effect. Once you understand how insulin can impact other hormones, you begin to connect the dots about how excessive sugar can wreck your sex life.”

He then gives 5 reasons for how sugar kills your sex drive. Let’s review them to see if he was able to make it past the abstracts, shall we?

The Nutrition Overlords Knowledge Bombs® - The ‘Natural’ Label: What In The Fresh Hell Does That Even Mean?!?!

Welcome to another edition of The Nutrition Overlords Knowledge Bombs®: Natural Label Edition

I promise to keep this one short(ish).

So you're walking down the aisle of your local grocery store and you pass by the eggs. Other than there being approximately 30 different brands, you notice some of them carry this fancy 'natural' label (and probably cost $2 more per dozen). So what does this ambiguous label mean anyway?

First, we have to break foods into one of two categories, because heaven forbid food labeling be simple. In the first group, we have meat, poultry, and egg products. In the second group we have everything else. When the term 'natural' is applied to meat, poultry, and eggs it actually means something! In the USDA's Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book (a joyous read, I assure you) under the Natural Claims section (page 116) it states that meat/poultry/egg products carrying the natural label must meet these two standards [1]:

The Nutrition Overlords Knowledge Bombs® – The Natural Vs. Artificial Flavor Smack Down

Natural vs. artificial flavorings, what’s the deal?

Both of these are terms regulated by the FDA (the term "all-natural" is a different story). The definition of a natural flavoring is anything derived or extracted from a "spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional" [1]. An artificial flavor is anything that is not derived from the items listed above, but rather synthesized in a laboratory. Don't freak out, it's not nearly as scary as it sounds! Read on to find out why.

So which one is healthier or better? Well, the answer to that isn't so simple. The first step is to understand that both natural and artificial flavors are just made up of various chemicals. This is not a bad thing! Everything is made up of chemicals. That banana you had for lunch, that avocado you ate for a snack, you, me, and Oprah are all made of chemicals. Chemicals = not inherently evil. The second step is to understand the basic principles of toxicology, or what the effects of chemicals are at certain doses. For example, we can all agree that ~90 milligrams of Vitamin C a day is healthy for you [2]. However, 10,000 milligrams a day will give you diarrhea, nausea, headaches, cramps and possibly kidney stones [3,4]. As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison [5].

Toxicology of Man-Made and Natural Chemicals

The US Is Throwing Measles a “Welcome Back” Party!

I consider America to be a very hospitable place, which is why I'm thrilled to see the US welcoming measles back into the country after 20 years of banishment. Good to have you back measles! You've been missed.

Plus, I think the red splotches all over your body make for a bold fashion statement.

Ok but seriously, let’s talk about this recent resurgence of measles. Measles is an infectious virus that usually manifests as a red, itchy rash 8-12 days after exposure [8,9]. It is highly contagious, can be spread through coughing and sneezing, and will remain alive for up to two hours outside the body [8,9]. It’s a nasty little bugger and complications can include ear infections, diarrhea, pneumonia (infection of the lungs), encephalitis (swelling of the brain), seizures, and death [7].

Measles was declared eliminated back in 2000 within US borders by the CDC [1]. By 2002, it had been eliminated in North and South America [1]. Elimination of infections is defined as “reduction to zero…the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required” [2]. In the US, the overall measles incidence remained less than 1 case per 1,000,000 people from 1997 through 2013 [3]. Of the cases reported, 65% were in unvaccinated patients and 20% had an unknown vaccination status [3]. In all likelihood, the measles occurrences in the unvaccinated patients probably came from the 6 to 11 month (4.1 cases per 1,000,000) and 12 to 15 month age groups (3.6 cases per 1,000,000), as children younger than 12 cannot get the vaccination while others are delayed in their vaccination schedules [3,4]. Don't freak out over these unvaccinated infants getting infected from parents that refuse to give their kids the MMR vaccine. Remember, these numbers are from when measles was still classified as eliminated. The effects of vaccinophobia did not manifest via increased measles cases until 2014.

That Time I Got Involved In An Anti-Vaccination Comment Flame War

Normally I never get sucked into the comment flame wars on FaceBook. I usually read them for amusement and never write anything myself. The trolls got me this time.

I happened to be looking through the comments on an anti-vaccination thread. In these threads, people never link to any legitimate scientific sources to back up their arguments. It just so happened that one woman attempted to back up her anti-vaccination beliefs by providing a link to an FDA document that she says provides "pretty incriminating evidence AGAINST vaccine safety". Stunned by seeing a link to a credible source, I decided to read this document to see if her claims were justified. Below is the exchange that took place.