Better Bones Basics
Capturing the innate healing process
by Dr. Susan E. Brown, PhD
How the study of bone health around the world led to a surprising new path to bone health
Capturing the innate healing process
In a perfect world, the bones can manage wear and tear quite efficiently but when they are bombarded daily by large concentrations of toxins, chemicals, or even prescription drugs, it becomes impossible to maintain homeostasis. The bones literally can’t keep up with the demand placed on them and the orderly ebb and flow between bone breakdown and rebuilding goes haywire.
Over the course of studying bones, their structure, and function, I’ve learned that, if we would just listen, our bones will tell us how to keep them healthy. When we understand and respect the complex and dynamic nature of osteoporosis, we are given the tools to naturally improve the condition of our bones. We can put the magical nature of our bones to work for us by using methods which are logical and easy to comprehend. Harnessing this innate intuition for healing and protection is one of the “secrets” of healthy bones and it is within our grasp to do.
A note about prescription drugs for osteoporosis:
Today, medications known as bisphosphonates are commonly prescribed for women who are at risk for or diagnosed with osteoporosis. Bone mineral density may increase after taking these drugs, but this change alone is not enough to recover bone health or structural integrity. In addition, new evidence suggests that long-term use of bisphosphonates may harm the bone, with some women even reporting strange fractures. I don’t recommend these drugs and instead advocate the safer, more effective approach of using nutrition and environmental management to return your bones to a healthy state.
The weight of our world
Just what sorts of things could jeopardize the health of our bones to such a great extent that osteoporosis has become so common in American women? In a word: lifestyle. Inadequate nutrition, dieting, smoking, hormonal imbalance, lack of exercise, and a long list of other factors, have a negative impact on the state of our bones. Ideally, there is a balance between the processes of bone depletion and bone regeneration. This equilibrium is maintained through proper nutrition and other factors, but it is quickly reordered when the bones do not get what they need. Bones require certain elements to stay healthy: the right nutrients in steady supply, appropriate exercise, protection from toxins and poisons, etc., and when these elements are delivered regularly, the bones respond by growing stronger and more resilient.
While our bones might be able to tolerate the effects of a few damaging practices, the hazard grows exponentially in relation to the total number of the “burdens” we might be carrying. One look at our overloaded camel will give you an idea of how easy it is for our bones to collapse under the weight of the typical American lifestyle. Adding to or taking away just one or two burdens can have a significant effect on your bone health, one way or the other. The journey towards healthier bones starts by taking one step away from your own personal tipping point.
Total load model of bone-depleting factors ©2009.
Please click here for a printable version.
How heavy is your burden?
If you are living a hectic lifestyle, you may feel as if you have no control over anything that happens to you or your body during your day. But the fact is, only 20 percent of our total burden is beyond our reach — things like gender, genetic makeup, and age. In actuality, we have a tremendous amount of power over the elements which affect bone health. Some of us may indulge in addictive habits, or eat too much sugar, or not get enough sleep. Many women allow stress to balloon out of control for days or weeks until they get so used to having chronic stress that it becomes “normal.” But all of these issues — and more — can be reduced or eliminated and that can dramatically lighten our overall burden.
The American way of life often exposes us to a wide spectrum of environmental toxins which accelerate the process of bone loss, usually without us even knowing. The body has several means for naturally ridding itself of poisons, but it can only handle so many “emergency calls.” Removing or neutralizing the effects of toxins is possible using a variety of natural methods for detoxification.
Suggestions include:
Drinking purified or filtered water, or teas, to help dilute toxins and move them out of the body
Eating natural, organic foods which are nutrient-rich and free of antibiotics and hormones
Washing fruits and vegetables to remove pesticides and contaminants
Inflammation and stress
Reducing the burden that inflammation places on our bodies is absolutely critical to maintaining optimal bone health. An overactive inflammation response can push the bone breakdown mechanism into overdrive and cause actual bone loss. If you have certain chronic health conditions, such as asthma, diabetes, or fibromyalgia, these are signposts that inflammation could be a particular problem for your individual bone health.
De-stressing our lives and learning to relax is as important to our bones as it is to overall wellness. Stress, negative emotions, and depression can all figure prominently in the deterioration of bone health. If we are in stressful states for long periods, it can end up harming the bones through the effects that “stress chemicals” such as cortisol and adrenaline have on the metabolism. So take this as another reminder to focus on finding ways to remove some of the emotional stressors from your life and invite more relaxation in.
It’s never too late to turn your attention to improving bone health. Even long-term patterns and habits can be changed or moderated so you can reduce the weight of your personal burdens and restore the internal balance required for good bone health.
A new way to live each day
Recovering bone health starts with a new understanding of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis in itself is not something that has gone wrong. Instead, osteoporosis is a natural process of bone breakdown and regeneration that is intended to be used as a short-term measure. For many women, though, it has become an enduring pattern that damages the bones and has an unhealthy impact on general wellness. For so long, American women have been taught to ignore what their bodies tell them about how to live well and stay healthy. Finding an appreciation for the natural processes which allow us to function, and listening to the messages our bodies send, helps us get in touch with the instinctive intelligence we all have within.
So often, the treatment methods women encounter in traditional medicine, especially those for osteoporosis, actually work against the body’s normal biology and upset the balance even more. Knowing — and accepting — how your particular lifestyle is affecting your bone health makes it even easier to adopt a healthier new lifestyle which harmonizes with the natural way your body works. The Women to Women Personal Program for Better Bones is a comprehensive plan for attaining bone health which helps guide you away from the heavy burdens of a harmful lifestyle, and offers you a wholesome new blueprint to follow. When you incorporate the natural components of our Program into your daily life, you can prevent, halt, or even reverse, the effects of osteoporosis.
It’s not too late — so don’t wait
The sneaky thing about osteoporosis is that you won’t notice any symptoms and probably won’t have any outward indication that your bone health is at risk. That’s why it’s important to take action now so your bones can stay healthy and strong for life. And because of the magical healing nature of our bones, it genuinely doesn’t matter how old you are, you just need to make the commitment. When you make that pledge, it sends a signal to your body to prepare for the positive changes you are about to embrace. so your new behaviors become part of a fresh, healthy lifestyle.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Behavioral Therapy Prevents Recurrences of Cardiovascular Events in Trial
Cognitive-behavioral therapy, with a focus on stress management, is associated with fewer recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease, according to an Archives of Internal Medicine study.
Some 350 adults who had recently had a coronary heart disease event were randomized to either usual care alone or usual care plus cognitive-behavioral therapy. Psychologists and nurses led 20 2-hour group sessions over 1 year. The therapy emphasized ways to reduce daily stress, time urgency, and hostility.
Over 8 years' follow-up, the intervention group experienced 41% fewer first recurrent cardiovascular events and 45% fewer recurrent myocardial infarctions, compared with the control group. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups.
The authors speculate that the CBT group may have reduced their behavioral and emotional reactivity, "which would lead to less psychophysiologic burden on the cardiovascular system." They estimate that roughly 10 people would need to be treated in order to prevent one cardiovascular event.
Some 350 adults who had recently had a coronary heart disease event were randomized to either usual care alone or usual care plus cognitive-behavioral therapy. Psychologists and nurses led 20 2-hour group sessions over 1 year. The therapy emphasized ways to reduce daily stress, time urgency, and hostility.
Over 8 years' follow-up, the intervention group experienced 41% fewer first recurrent cardiovascular events and 45% fewer recurrent myocardial infarctions, compared with the control group. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups.
The authors speculate that the CBT group may have reduced their behavioral and emotional reactivity, "which would lead to less psychophysiologic burden on the cardiovascular system." They estimate that roughly 10 people would need to be treated in order to prevent one cardiovascular event.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Omega-3 Fatty Acids May Reduce PMS Symptoms
A new study suggests essential fatty acids may help ease the symptoms of PMS
The report found significant reductions in symptoms among women studied.
The report found significant reductions in symptoms among women studied.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Dangers of Being a Couch Potato
Many of us sit in front of a computer for eight hours a day, and then go home and head for the couch to surf the Web or watch television, exchanging one seat and screen for another. Even if we try to squeeze in an hour at the gym, is it enough to counteract all that motionless sitting?
Increasingly, research is focusing not on how much exercise people get, but how much of their time is spent in sedentary activity, and the harm that does.
The latest findings, published this week in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, indicate that the amount of leisure time spent sitting in front of a screen can have such an overwhelming, seemingly irreparable impact on one’s health that physical activity doesn’t produce much benefit.
The study followed 4,512 middle-aged Scottish men for a little more than four years on average. It found that those who said they spent two or more leisure hours a day sitting in front of a screen were at double the risk of a heart attack or other cardiac event compared with those who watched less. Those who spent four or more hours of recreational time in front of a screen were 50 percent more likely to die of any cause. It didn’t matter whether the men were physically active for several hours a week — exercise didn’t mitigate the risk associated with the high amount of sedentary screen time.
The study is not the first to suggest that sedentary activities like television viewing may be harmful. A study last year found that men who spent more than 23 hours a week watching TV and sitting in their cars were more likely to die of heart disease than those who sat for 11 hours a week or less, even if they exercised. And a 2009 study reported that young children who watch one and a half to five and a half hours of TV a day have higher blood pressure readings than those who watch less than half an hour, even if they are thin and physically active.
Another small study found that when overweight adults cut their TV time in half, they burned more calories than those who watched five hours or more a day. Children whose TV time is cut tended to eat less, but that wasn’t true for adults. And the light activities adults filled their time with, like reading and playing board games, actually burned more calories than watching TV.
In both the United States and Britain, people are spending three to four hours a day on average watching television, said the study’s author, Emmanuel Stamatakis, of the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London.
“This is excessive,” he said. “It is more than 20 percent of total waking time for most people.” And, he added, “it’s 100 percent discretionary.”
During the study’s follow-up period, from 2003 to 2007, 325 men died of various causes, and 215 suffered a heart attack or other cardiac event. Even after adjusting for differences in weight, smoking, occupational physical activity and risk factors like diabetes, high blood pressure and other longstanding illnesses, as well as marital status and social class, those who spent four hours or more of their leisure time in front of a screen each day were 50 percent more likely to have died. Those who spent two hours a day in front of a screen for entertainment were 2.2 times more likely to have had a cardiovascular event.
Recreational screen time has an “independent, deleterious relationship” with cardiovascular events and death of all causes, the paper concluded, possibly because it induces metabolic changes.
One possible mechanism, demonstrated in animal studies, is that being sedentary may affect lipid metabolism. Prolonged inactivity appears to sharply reduce the activity of an important enzyme called lipoprotein lipase, which is responsible for breaking down circulating blood lipids and making them available to muscles for energy, Dr. Stamatakis said. Lowered enzyme activity leads to higher levels of fats and triglycerides in the blood, and to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise has very little impact on the enzyme’s activity, he said.
Extended sitting may also lead to high levels of low-grade inflammation, which can also lead to heart disease, Dr. Stamatakis said. A marker of low-grade inflammation called C reactive protein was about three times higher in the study participants who spent the most time slouched in front of a screen.
The study focused on recreational screen time because it’s the easiest to curtail, Dr. Stamatakis said. But he encouraged employees who work at computers all day to get up and take breaks and short walks periodically.
Increasingly, research is focusing not on how much exercise people get, but how much of their time is spent in sedentary activity, and the harm that does.
The latest findings, published this week in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, indicate that the amount of leisure time spent sitting in front of a screen can have such an overwhelming, seemingly irreparable impact on one’s health that physical activity doesn’t produce much benefit.
The study followed 4,512 middle-aged Scottish men for a little more than four years on average. It found that those who said they spent two or more leisure hours a day sitting in front of a screen were at double the risk of a heart attack or other cardiac event compared with those who watched less. Those who spent four or more hours of recreational time in front of a screen were 50 percent more likely to die of any cause. It didn’t matter whether the men were physically active for several hours a week — exercise didn’t mitigate the risk associated with the high amount of sedentary screen time.
The study is not the first to suggest that sedentary activities like television viewing may be harmful. A study last year found that men who spent more than 23 hours a week watching TV and sitting in their cars were more likely to die of heart disease than those who sat for 11 hours a week or less, even if they exercised. And a 2009 study reported that young children who watch one and a half to five and a half hours of TV a day have higher blood pressure readings than those who watch less than half an hour, even if they are thin and physically active.
Another small study found that when overweight adults cut their TV time in half, they burned more calories than those who watched five hours or more a day. Children whose TV time is cut tended to eat less, but that wasn’t true for adults. And the light activities adults filled their time with, like reading and playing board games, actually burned more calories than watching TV.
In both the United States and Britain, people are spending three to four hours a day on average watching television, said the study’s author, Emmanuel Stamatakis, of the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London.
“This is excessive,” he said. “It is more than 20 percent of total waking time for most people.” And, he added, “it’s 100 percent discretionary.”
During the study’s follow-up period, from 2003 to 2007, 325 men died of various causes, and 215 suffered a heart attack or other cardiac event. Even after adjusting for differences in weight, smoking, occupational physical activity and risk factors like diabetes, high blood pressure and other longstanding illnesses, as well as marital status and social class, those who spent four hours or more of their leisure time in front of a screen each day were 50 percent more likely to have died. Those who spent two hours a day in front of a screen for entertainment were 2.2 times more likely to have had a cardiovascular event.
Recreational screen time has an “independent, deleterious relationship” with cardiovascular events and death of all causes, the paper concluded, possibly because it induces metabolic changes.
One possible mechanism, demonstrated in animal studies, is that being sedentary may affect lipid metabolism. Prolonged inactivity appears to sharply reduce the activity of an important enzyme called lipoprotein lipase, which is responsible for breaking down circulating blood lipids and making them available to muscles for energy, Dr. Stamatakis said. Lowered enzyme activity leads to higher levels of fats and triglycerides in the blood, and to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise has very little impact on the enzyme’s activity, he said.
Extended sitting may also lead to high levels of low-grade inflammation, which can also lead to heart disease, Dr. Stamatakis said. A marker of low-grade inflammation called C reactive protein was about three times higher in the study participants who spent the most time slouched in front of a screen.
The study focused on recreational screen time because it’s the easiest to curtail, Dr. Stamatakis said. But he encouraged employees who work at computers all day to get up and take breaks and short walks periodically.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Berries and Other Fruits May Help with Blood Sugar Control
Diabetes may be the biggest threat to Americans’ collective health over the next few decades, with rates rising at an alarming pace.
According to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet, 23.6 million children and adults in the United States – 7.8% of the population – have diabetes.
Out of this estimated total, about 5.7 million people with diabetes don’t even know they have it, as their cases are undiagnosed. Worse, some 57 million people have the cluster of metabolic signs called pre-diabetes, and 1.6 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in adults annually.
The UN’s World Health Organization estimates that the number of cases worldwide may double by the year 2025, due to aging, unhealthy diets, obesity, and sedentary lifestyles.
The main problem is excessive intake of sugars and starches from sodas, sweets, and white-flour breads and pastries. Repeated “spikes” in blood sugar levels increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes) and diabetes. Conversely, blunting of blood sugar spikes in response to meals is believed to reduce the risk of developing diabetes.
Legumes and other foods high in so-called “resistant’ starches possess the power to curb spikes in blood sugar, and their effects can last for many hours following a meal.
But by no means are all sweet foods undesirable from a blood-sugar standpoint. In fact, recent studies suggested that apples produce a net positive impact on blood sugar levels, as can coffee, even when it is sweetened.
Sorting foods by blood-sugar impact
The most common measure of a food’s ability to raise blood sugar levels is its Glycemic Index, or GI. But a more accurate measure is its Glycemic Load, or GL, which ranks a food based both on the GI of its particular sugars and starches, and on the amounts it contains.
Here’s how diabetes-savvy health reporter David Mendosa explains the difference between a food’s GI and GL:
“The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn't a lot of it, so watermelon's glycemic load [GL] is relatively low.” (Mendosa D 2008)
And as David says, “A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low.”
Fruits may taste sweet, but most contain relatively little sugar compared with their other major constituents … mostly fiber, with small amounts of protein.
For example, wild blueberries have a low GL of just 5, while strawberries and apples have even lower GLs, ranking at 1 and 2 respectively.
By comparison, oranges’ GL ranking ranges from 3 to 6, grapes range from 7 to 9, bananas range from 11 to 16, and raisins come in at a whopping 28.
And three studies published last year suggest that the polyphenols in apples and berries may actually help blunt blood sugar rises caused by other foods in a meal.
According to the National Diabetes Fact Sheet, 23.6 million children and adults in the United States – 7.8% of the population – have diabetes.
Out of this estimated total, about 5.7 million people with diabetes don’t even know they have it, as their cases are undiagnosed. Worse, some 57 million people have the cluster of metabolic signs called pre-diabetes, and 1.6 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in adults annually.
The UN’s World Health Organization estimates that the number of cases worldwide may double by the year 2025, due to aging, unhealthy diets, obesity, and sedentary lifestyles.
The main problem is excessive intake of sugars and starches from sodas, sweets, and white-flour breads and pastries. Repeated “spikes” in blood sugar levels increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes) and diabetes. Conversely, blunting of blood sugar spikes in response to meals is believed to reduce the risk of developing diabetes.
Legumes and other foods high in so-called “resistant’ starches possess the power to curb spikes in blood sugar, and their effects can last for many hours following a meal.
But by no means are all sweet foods undesirable from a blood-sugar standpoint. In fact, recent studies suggested that apples produce a net positive impact on blood sugar levels, as can coffee, even when it is sweetened.
Sorting foods by blood-sugar impact
The most common measure of a food’s ability to raise blood sugar levels is its Glycemic Index, or GI. But a more accurate measure is its Glycemic Load, or GL, which ranks a food based both on the GI of its particular sugars and starches, and on the amounts it contains.
Here’s how diabetes-savvy health reporter David Mendosa explains the difference between a food’s GI and GL:
“The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn't a lot of it, so watermelon's glycemic load [GL] is relatively low.” (Mendosa D 2008)
And as David says, “A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low.”
Fruits may taste sweet, but most contain relatively little sugar compared with their other major constituents … mostly fiber, with small amounts of protein.
For example, wild blueberries have a low GL of just 5, while strawberries and apples have even lower GLs, ranking at 1 and 2 respectively.
By comparison, oranges’ GL ranking ranges from 3 to 6, grapes range from 7 to 9, bananas range from 11 to 16, and raisins come in at a whopping 28.
And three studies published last year suggest that the polyphenols in apples and berries may actually help blunt blood sugar rises caused by other foods in a meal.
Monday, January 3, 2011
A Daily Walk May Ward Off Mental Decline
Taking a regular, daily walk is great for physical health, and now it seems that it may slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease and ward off mental decline as well. Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh concluded that to guard against cognitive decline, it's necessary to average at least five miles of walking a week, every week, for about 10 years. The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing 20-year study looking at the weekly walking patterns among 426 seniors. At the start of the study, 44 of the participants already had Alzheimer's and another 83 had mild cognitive impairment (in half of all cases, this disorder eventually progresses to Alzheimer's).
Friday, December 31, 2010
Dark Chocolate May Promote Gut Health
Want to help ensure that the good bugs outnumber the bad in your belly?
New findings suggest it makes sense to cozy up with some cocoa, or enjoy a bit of extra dark chocolate.
In a preliminary clinical trial, people who drank a beverage rich in cocoa-derived antioxidants enjoyed a significant increase in their gut levels of beneficial bacteria.
Better yet, this increase was accompanied by reductions in a microbe associated with diarrhea and constipation (clostridia), and in blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein (CRP) … a marker of inflammation linked to heart risks.
The study, which was conducted by researchers from the UK’s Reading University and chocolate giant Mars, Inc., is the first to demonstrate that cocoa flavanols can boost the numbers of beneficial bacteria in people’s guts.
Do flavanols act as antioxidants, gene-tweakers ... or both?
Most research into the potential cardiovascular benefits of cocoa and dark chocolate relates to presumed antioxidant effects of the flavanol-type polyphenols that abound in both.
And recent evidence reviews agree there's ample preliminary evidence that cocoa flavanols support vascular health in several ways (Corti R et al. 2009; Mulvihill EE et al. 2010; Ostertag LM et al. 2010; Rimbach G et al. 2009).
The flavanols in cocoa, tea, and berries are commonly referred to as “antioxidants”, because they display potent free-radical-squelching effects in test-tube experiments.
However, like other polyphenol compounds in plant foods, it’s increasingly apparent that flavanols exert their beneficial effects through “nutrigenomic” influences on gene switches in our cells … rather than through direct, substantial antioxidant effects in the body (Scheid L et al. 2010)
The most promising cocoa flavanols are procyanidins – which are also found in berries and grapes – and catechins (flavan-3-ols), which occur in green tea.
Before we delve into the details, let’s review the research on the role of intestinal microbe colonies in human health.
Probiotics and prebiotics: A quick primer
People’s gastrointestinal tracts play host to many millions of microbes, most of which are either neutral or beneficial.
Some, such as lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, seem virtually essential to immunity and overall health.
A healthy gut ecosystem is one in which beneficial micro-organisms greatly outnumber potentially harmful bugs. The opposite, unhealthful balance is referred to as “dysbiosis”.
The most critical microbial colonies occur in the colon, where, as the authors of a recent evidence review wrote, “… a true symbiosis [between probiotic microbes and] the host [person] exists that is a key for well-being and health.” (Roberfroid M et al. 2010)
Thanks to many human studies, it’s clear that certain foods or food factors can change the microbial composition of the gut in significant, beneficial ways.
“Probiotic” foods such as yogurt and fermented vegetables with active cultures contain the same beneficial microbes found in the human gut – mostly lactobacilli and bifidobacteria – and eating these cultured foods appears to support immune health by keeping gut-based pathogens in check.
(Doctors often prescribe lactobacilli supplements to patients taking antibiotic drugs, which kill these beneficial bacteria along with pathogenic microbes.)
In contrast, “prebiotic” food factors bring intestinal benefits indirectly, by serving as food for lactobacilli and other beneficial bacteria.
Prebiotics are defined as “non-digestible (by the host) food ingredients that have a beneficial effect through their selective metabolism in the intestinal tract.” (Gibson GR et al. 2004).
As the authors of the same evidence review put it, “… the prebiotic effect [of certain food factors] is now a well-established scientific fact.” (Roberfroid M et al. 2010)
The chief prebiotic supplements are three plant fibers called inulin, galactooligosaccharides (GOS), and fructooligosaccharides (FOS), which are found in or derived from Jerusalem artichoke root, chicory root, burdock root, and beets.
Clinical study detects prebiotic potential from cocoa compound
Last year, the authors of a Nestle-funded human study reported that daily consumption of 40 grams (1.4 ounces) of dark chocolate lowered levels of stress-related hormones (cortisol) and neurotransmitters in participants diagnosed with anxiety.
Those changes were linked to changes the composition of their microbial gut colonies.
As they described the implications of their findings, “… subtle changes in dietary habits, such as eating dark chocolate, can benefit both host and microflora metabolism with potential long term health benefits”. (Rezzi S 2010).
Now, findings from the UK-Mars study suggest that cocoa flavanols may rival the prebiotic effects produced by fructooligosaccharides (FOS), which serve as popular prebiotic supplements.
The small but rigorously designed new study was a randomized, double-blind, crossover, controlled clinical trial, led by the University of Reading’s Jeremy Spencer, Ph.D., and sponsored by Mars, Inc. (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
For the trial, 21 healthy adults were divided into two groups, with each group assigned to consume a different flavanol-supplemented beverage daily:
Low-flavanol beverage providing 23mg of cocoa flavanols
High-flavanol beverage providing 494mg of cocoa flavanols
The trial began with both groups drinking their assigned beverage daily for four weeks, followed by a four-week “wash-out” period during which they drank neither flavanol-supplemented beverage.
The two groups then switched beverages for a further four weeks of daily consumption.
Compared with the low-flavanol drink, participants showed significant increases in their gut levels of beneficial bifidobacteria and lactobacilli when they were drinking the high-flavanol beverage.
These increases in beneficial microbes were accompanied by reductions in blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and CRP … a marker of inflammation linked to heart health.
As the authors wrote, “The increase in the growth of Lactobacillus spp. in response to cocoa flavanols is of note because this bacterial group is associated with beneficial effects in the gut, including an ability to prevent the growth of pathogenic organisms, and most currently accepted prebiotics [e.g., FOS] do not elicit changes [increases] in lactobacilli.” (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
The researchers noted that higher gut levels of bifidobacteria are “strongly associated with positive effects in the large intestine, thanks to the ability of bifidobacteria to inhibit the growth of pathogens, drive the synthesis of certain vitamins (e.g., vitamin B-9), and reduce plasma [blood] cholesterol levels.” (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
And the researchers noted that, in comparison with two prebiotic food fibers – fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and galactooligosaccharides (GOS) – the cocoa flavanols produced similarly substantial effects at a much lower dose.
While encouraging, these findings will need to be repeated in a larger trial and do not justify eating copious amounts of dark chocolate in an attempt to correct medically diagnosed dysbiosis.
New findings suggest it makes sense to cozy up with some cocoa, or enjoy a bit of extra dark chocolate.
In a preliminary clinical trial, people who drank a beverage rich in cocoa-derived antioxidants enjoyed a significant increase in their gut levels of beneficial bacteria.
Better yet, this increase was accompanied by reductions in a microbe associated with diarrhea and constipation (clostridia), and in blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein (CRP) … a marker of inflammation linked to heart risks.
The study, which was conducted by researchers from the UK’s Reading University and chocolate giant Mars, Inc., is the first to demonstrate that cocoa flavanols can boost the numbers of beneficial bacteria in people’s guts.
Do flavanols act as antioxidants, gene-tweakers ... or both?
Most research into the potential cardiovascular benefits of cocoa and dark chocolate relates to presumed antioxidant effects of the flavanol-type polyphenols that abound in both.
And recent evidence reviews agree there's ample preliminary evidence that cocoa flavanols support vascular health in several ways (Corti R et al. 2009; Mulvihill EE et al. 2010; Ostertag LM et al. 2010; Rimbach G et al. 2009).
The flavanols in cocoa, tea, and berries are commonly referred to as “antioxidants”, because they display potent free-radical-squelching effects in test-tube experiments.
However, like other polyphenol compounds in plant foods, it’s increasingly apparent that flavanols exert their beneficial effects through “nutrigenomic” influences on gene switches in our cells … rather than through direct, substantial antioxidant effects in the body (Scheid L et al. 2010)
The most promising cocoa flavanols are procyanidins – which are also found in berries and grapes – and catechins (flavan-3-ols), which occur in green tea.
Before we delve into the details, let’s review the research on the role of intestinal microbe colonies in human health.
Probiotics and prebiotics: A quick primer
People’s gastrointestinal tracts play host to many millions of microbes, most of which are either neutral or beneficial.
Some, such as lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, seem virtually essential to immunity and overall health.
A healthy gut ecosystem is one in which beneficial micro-organisms greatly outnumber potentially harmful bugs. The opposite, unhealthful balance is referred to as “dysbiosis”.
The most critical microbial colonies occur in the colon, where, as the authors of a recent evidence review wrote, “… a true symbiosis [between probiotic microbes and] the host [person] exists that is a key for well-being and health.” (Roberfroid M et al. 2010)
Thanks to many human studies, it’s clear that certain foods or food factors can change the microbial composition of the gut in significant, beneficial ways.
“Probiotic” foods such as yogurt and fermented vegetables with active cultures contain the same beneficial microbes found in the human gut – mostly lactobacilli and bifidobacteria – and eating these cultured foods appears to support immune health by keeping gut-based pathogens in check.
(Doctors often prescribe lactobacilli supplements to patients taking antibiotic drugs, which kill these beneficial bacteria along with pathogenic microbes.)
In contrast, “prebiotic” food factors bring intestinal benefits indirectly, by serving as food for lactobacilli and other beneficial bacteria.
Prebiotics are defined as “non-digestible (by the host) food ingredients that have a beneficial effect through their selective metabolism in the intestinal tract.” (Gibson GR et al. 2004).
As the authors of the same evidence review put it, “… the prebiotic effect [of certain food factors] is now a well-established scientific fact.” (Roberfroid M et al. 2010)
The chief prebiotic supplements are three plant fibers called inulin, galactooligosaccharides (GOS), and fructooligosaccharides (FOS), which are found in or derived from Jerusalem artichoke root, chicory root, burdock root, and beets.
Clinical study detects prebiotic potential from cocoa compound
Last year, the authors of a Nestle-funded human study reported that daily consumption of 40 grams (1.4 ounces) of dark chocolate lowered levels of stress-related hormones (cortisol) and neurotransmitters in participants diagnosed with anxiety.
Those changes were linked to changes the composition of their microbial gut colonies.
As they described the implications of their findings, “… subtle changes in dietary habits, such as eating dark chocolate, can benefit both host and microflora metabolism with potential long term health benefits”. (Rezzi S 2010).
Now, findings from the UK-Mars study suggest that cocoa flavanols may rival the prebiotic effects produced by fructooligosaccharides (FOS), which serve as popular prebiotic supplements.
The small but rigorously designed new study was a randomized, double-blind, crossover, controlled clinical trial, led by the University of Reading’s Jeremy Spencer, Ph.D., and sponsored by Mars, Inc. (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
For the trial, 21 healthy adults were divided into two groups, with each group assigned to consume a different flavanol-supplemented beverage daily:
Low-flavanol beverage providing 23mg of cocoa flavanols
High-flavanol beverage providing 494mg of cocoa flavanols
The trial began with both groups drinking their assigned beverage daily for four weeks, followed by a four-week “wash-out” period during which they drank neither flavanol-supplemented beverage.
The two groups then switched beverages for a further four weeks of daily consumption.
Compared with the low-flavanol drink, participants showed significant increases in their gut levels of beneficial bifidobacteria and lactobacilli when they were drinking the high-flavanol beverage.
These increases in beneficial microbes were accompanied by reductions in blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and CRP … a marker of inflammation linked to heart health.
As the authors wrote, “The increase in the growth of Lactobacillus spp. in response to cocoa flavanols is of note because this bacterial group is associated with beneficial effects in the gut, including an ability to prevent the growth of pathogenic organisms, and most currently accepted prebiotics [e.g., FOS] do not elicit changes [increases] in lactobacilli.” (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
The researchers noted that higher gut levels of bifidobacteria are “strongly associated with positive effects in the large intestine, thanks to the ability of bifidobacteria to inhibit the growth of pathogens, drive the synthesis of certain vitamins (e.g., vitamin B-9), and reduce plasma [blood] cholesterol levels.” (Tzounis X et al. 2010)
And the researchers noted that, in comparison with two prebiotic food fibers – fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and galactooligosaccharides (GOS) – the cocoa flavanols produced similarly substantial effects at a much lower dose.
While encouraging, these findings will need to be repeated in a larger trial and do not justify eating copious amounts of dark chocolate in an attempt to correct medically diagnosed dysbiosis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)