NutritionFacts.org

If you care about your health so much that it would be unthinkable to light up a cigarette before and after lunch, maybe you should order a bean burrito instead of a meaty one. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study, diets high in processed meat, like bacon, ham, hot dogs, lunch meat, and sausage, may kill more than 100,000 people every year, due largely to heart disease, but also cancer and diabetes. This results in millions of healthy years of life lost every year around the world, as

Big Meat downplays the magnitude of meat mortality. A series of studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found a statistically significant association between lower consumption of red and processed meats and lower total mortality (meaning living a longer life), lower cardiovascular disease mortality, as well as lower risk of dying from cancer—across the board. Yet, remarkably, the authors of these studies concluded that people should ignore all the other dietary guidelines and keep e

The meat industry’s own study concluded that meat consumption increased the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and premature death. A series of papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that “largely discounted all but the highest quality randomised studies…reached a conclusion directly contrary to the public health advice we’ve heard for years.” They suggested that we should continue our current consumption of red and processed meats. The authors based their exclusion of evidenc

The same person paid by Big Sugar to downplay the risks of sugar was paid by Big Meat to downplay the risks of meat. A series of articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine recommending people just keep eating their meat was decried by nutrition researchers as “irresponsible and unethical,” a “travesty of science,” an “assault on public health,” and the “most egregious abuse of evidence” that they had ever seen. There were calls for retraction even before it was published from eminent

The meat industry comes up with a perversion of evidence-based medicine. A series of articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine culminated in a recommendation suggesting people keep eating red and processed meat. Nutrition researchers blasted these articles. The chair of the nutrition department at Harvard called it “a very irresponsible public health recommendation,” and the past Harvard nutrition chair was even less restrained. “It’s the most egregious abuse of data I’ve ever seen,”

How legitimate is the common corporate criticism of the scientific nutrition literature that the credibility of observational studies is questionable? While randomized controlled trials are highly reliable in assessing interventions like drugs, they’re harder to do with diet. Dietary diseases can take decades to develop. People can’t eat placebo food, and it’s difficult to get them to stick to assigned diets, especially for the years it would take to observe effects on hard endpoints like cancer

How did Big Corn Syrup and other corporate sugar titans hijack the scientific process? In 2016, a Washington-based lobby group published a scientific review that concluded the evidence behind guidelines recommending limits on added dietary sugar was “low quality” and didn’t “meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations.” This was a group funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies, from Coca-Cola to Monsanto to the captains of corn syrup, accused of “hijacking the scientific process

International Life Sciences Institute, a nonprofit, is accused of being a front group for Coca-Cola and other junk food giants. In 2019, a series of reviews was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that concluded the same thing that past reviews have concluded: Adhering to dietary patterns that are lower in red or processed meat intake may result in decreased risks for premature death, cardiometabolic disease and mortality (meaning the risk of getting and dying of diseases like heart dis

Please note: This blog and its accompanying video discuss the important and troubling issue of weight bias and discrimination, which may be a sensitive topic for some readers. How might weight stigma be a vicious cycle? Although total fasting can dramatically increase blood levels of the stress hormone cortisol, as much as doubling within five days, dieting alone does not. There is, however, a way stress and obesity could turn into a vicious cycle: weight stigma. Across thousands of individuals

Please note: This blog and its accompanying video discuss the important and troubling issue of weight bias and discrimination, which may be a sensitive topic for some readers. How common is weight stigmatization in health care? Described as the last “acceptable” form of bias, weight stigma is the rampant discrimination and stereotyping of overweight individuals. Fifty overweight women were asked to keep a diary of all the times they felt they were being stigmatized for their weight. Over a singl

Do people who eat nuts live longer simply because they replace protein from animals with protein from plants? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition “is the highest-ranked peer-reviewed scientific journal in nutrition and dietetics.” That should tell you a lot about the field, since it’s published by the American Society of Nutrition, whose sustaining partners include The Sugar Association, soda companies, and the meat, dairy, and egg industries. This is the highest-ranked nutrition journal!

A micromort, a unit for comparing and communicating risk to patients, is equivalent to a one-in-a-million chance of dying. Hundreds of millions of operations are performed every year, and the risk of death is typically around half a percent, to which patients might say things like, “I could die just as easily crossing the road,” making it clear they really don’t understand the difference in magnitude of risk. One way to communicate risk is by analogy. For example, just going under anesthesia car

Hot peppers, soy foods, and pumpkin seeds may help with hair loss. Androgenic or androgenetic alopecia is one of the most common chronic problems seen by dermatologists. In men, it’s called male pattern hair loss, and in women, it’s called female pattern hair loss. It’s characterized by progressive hair loss, mostly of the central scalp. I’ve talked about hair-loss supplements and hair-loss drugs; what about foods for hair loss? What role might diet play in the treatment of hair loss? Human expe

What are the pros and cons of Propecia and Rogaine for hair loss? “Any consumer looking on the Internet for a treatment for hair loss is exposed to a multitude of remedies.” However, we only have good evidence for efficacy for drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: finasteride (sold as Propecia) and minoxidil (sold as Rogaine). It’s considered a myth that all the patented hair-loss supplements on the market will increase hair growth. And they may actually be more expensive, wit

Might biotin or zinc supplements prevent hair loss in men and women? By the time we’re 50, about half of us, men and women, will experience hair loss. No, it’s not caused by washing your hair too much or, for that matter, brushing it too much either—two of the many myths out there. Researchers found that the majority of hair loss with age is genetic for both women and men. And, based on studying twins, researchers discovered that the heritability of baldness in men is 79%, meaning about 80% of t

I discuss a public health case for modernizing the definition of protein quality. In 2019, Dr. David Katz and colleagues, including one of my favorite researchers, David Jenkins, published a “public health case for modernizing the definition of protein quality.” The prevailing definition seems to have more to do with biochemistry than the overall effects on human health. The common belief that protein is “good,” and the more the better, combined with a definition of protein quality that favors ani

Healthy kidneys are required for potassium excretion. If you aren’t sure if you’re at risk, ask your doctor about getting your kidney function tested. Based on how we evolved, the optimum dietary potassium intake likely greatly exceeds current and even recommended intakes. The problem is we replaced many of the potassium-rich plant foods that used to fill our diets—fruits, vegetables, leafy greens, roots, tubers—with calorie-dense junk heavy with added fats and sugars, and stripped not only of f

Is potassium chloride a win-win by decreasing sodium intake and increasing potassium intake? Of all the terrible things about our diets, high dietary sodium intake—high salt intake—is the leading risk. It’s estimated to be causing millions of deaths every year, killing mainly through adverse effects on blood pressure and increased risk of stroke, heart attack, and kidney damage. Hypertension (high blood pressure) is still called the “silent and invisible killer” because it rarely causes symptoms

A staggering 99.99% of Americans fail to get the minimum recommended potassium intake (despite it being perhaps only half of our natural intake) and stay below the recommended sodium intake (even though it may be twice our natural intake). Worldwide, physical inactivity accounts for more than 10 million years of healthy life lost, but what we eat accounts for nearly 20 times that. Unhealthy diets shave hundreds of millions of disability-free years off people’s lives every year. What are the wors

Cranberries and pumpkin seeds are put to the test for benign prostatic hypertrophy. More than 50% of men in their 50s and at least 70% of men over age 60 suffer from benign prostatic hypertrophy, or BPH, otherwise known as enlarged prostate. This can result in burdensome lower urinary tract symptoms, such as having to get up frequently at night to pee. While current medical treatments are clinically effective, side effects and low compliance rates compromise their efficacy. Symptoms include sexu