When Friends Ask: Where Do You Get Your Protein?

April 2007

Vol. 6, No. 4

When Friends Ask:
Where Do You Get Your Protein?

If you don’t know where you get your protein while following a plant-food-based diet, you’re in good company. The Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association, scientists from the Human Nutrition Research Center and Medical School at Tufts University, and registered dietitians, research nutritionists and physicians of Northwestern University, and the Harvard School of Public Health are just a few examples of “experts” you look to for advice who have the protein story wrong.^1-4 Consequences of their shortfall are as grave as a lifetime of sickness and obesity, and premature death, for innocent people. These professionals must be held accountable.

Wrong Statements from the Experts ^1-4

Although plant proteins form a large part of the human diet,most are deficient in 1 or more essential amino acids and aretherefore regarded as incomplete proteins. (American Heart Association)

Plant protein sources, although good for certain essential amino acids, do not always offer all nine essential amino acids in a single given food. For example, legumes lack methionine, while grains lack lysine. (Tufts Human Nutrition Research Center)

Single plant protein foods usually are lower in protein quality than most animal proteins because they lack significant amounts of various essential amino acids. (Tufts University Medical School)

Other protein sources lack one or more amino acids that the body can’t make from scratch or create by modifying another amino acid. Called incomplete proteins, these usually come from fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. (Harvard School of Public Health)

Plant sources of protein (grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds) generally do not contain sufficient amounts of one or more of the essential amino acids. Thus protein synthesis can occur only to the extent that the limiting amino acids are available. (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University)

Ignorance Sickens and Kills People

Don’t think it matters little if our public policy makers and educators remain ignorant about our nutritional needs. Misinformation leads to disastrous outcomes. People have serious health problems like heart disease, type-2 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory arthritis that can be easily resolved by a diet based solely on plant foods. However, advice to make this dietary change may be withheld from you or a family member because of the erroneous fear that such a diet will result in a greater catastrophe, like a nutritional collapse from protein deficiency.

Consider this scenario: Your loving husband of 35 years has a massive heart attack. He recovers and both of you pledge you will do anything—even eat cardboard—in order to avoid a repeat experience. On your first follow-up visit you tell your doctor that your family is going to follow a low-fat, vegan diet (all plant foods) from here on out. Your doctor says, “You can’t do that; you will become protein deficient—plant foods are missing essential amino acids—you must eat meat and other high quality animal foods.” Even though you vigorously explain meat, dairy, and eggs are the reasons you almost lost your husband, your doctor insists that you would be foolish to embark on such a course and defends that position with the writings of the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association.

The Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association Has It Wrong

In an October 2001 research paper published in the Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, the Healthcare Professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism wrote, “Although plant proteins form a large part of the human diet,most are deficient in 1 or more essential amino acids and aretherefore regarded as incomplete proteins.”¹ My letter to the editor correcting this often quoted, but incorrect information, about the adequacy of amino acids found in plants was published in the June 2002 issue of Circulation.⁵ Another letter from me in the November 2002 issue of Circulation demanded a correction.⁶ But, the head of the nutrition committee, Barbara Howard, PhD, would not admit she was wrong and used research from the world’s leading expert on protein, Professor Joe Millward, to defend her position.⁶

Joe Millward, PhD, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Surrey (England), reviewed the published letters of disagreement between the American Heart Association (AHA) and myself, and wrote the following to me on July 10, 2003, “I thought I had made my position quite clear in my published papers. In an article I wrote for Encyclopedia of Nutrition (Millward DJ. 1998 Protein requirements. Encyclopedia of Nutrition. Academic Press pp 1661-1668) I said ‘Contrary to general opinion, the distinction between dietary protein sources in terms of the nutritional superiority of animal over plant proteins is much more difficult to demonstrate and less relevant in human nutrition.’ This is quite distinct from the AHA position which in my view is wrong.”⁷

I informed the American Heart Association about Dr. Millward’s position, but so far they have chosen to remain silent—and annually, 1.25 million people in the USA alone suffer with heart attacks—an often fatal condition entirely preventable by following a low-fat diet based solely on plant foods—all of which contain all of the essential amino acids in ideal amounts for humans.

Plants–the Original Sources of Protein and Amino Acids

Proteins are made from chains of 20 different amino acids that connect together in varying sequences—similar to how all the words in a dictionary are made from the same 26 letters. Plants (and microorganisms) can synthesize all of the individual amino acids that are used to build proteins, but animals cannot. There are 8 amino acids that people cannot make and thus, these must be obtained from our diets—they are referred to as “essential.”

After we eat our foods, stomach acids and intestinal enzymes digest the proteins into individual amino acids. These components are then absorbed through the intestinal walls into the bloodstream. After entering the body’s cells, these amino acids are reassembled into proteins. Proteins function as structural materials which build the scaffoldings that maintain cell shapes, enzymes which catalyze biochemical reactions, and hormones which signal messages between cells—to name only a few of their vital roles.

Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants.

People Require Very Little Protein

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein. This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly useable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.⁸

Our greatest time of growth—thus, the time of our greatest need for protein—is during our first 2 years of life—we double in size. At this vigorous developmental stage our ideal food is human milk, which is 5% protein. Compare this need to food choices that should be made as adults—when we are not growing. Rice is 8% protein, corn 11%, oatmeal 15%, and beans 27%.⁸ Thus protein deficiency is impossible when calorie needs are met by eating unprocessed starches and vegetables.

The healthy active lives of hundreds of millions of people laboring in Asia, Africa, and Central and South America on diets with less than half the amount of protein eaten by Americans and Europeans prove that the popular understanding of our protein needs is seriously flawed.

WHO Recommendations: (With a wide safety margin)

Men:	5%
Women:	5%
Pregnant:	6%

Percent of Calories of Proteins¹⁶ (Selected Foods)
Food	% Protein

Grains & Flours:
Cornmeal	9
Brown Rice	9
Oatmeal	15
White Rice	7
Whole Wheat Flour	16
White Flour	11

Starchy Vegetables
Black Beans	27
Cassava	10
Corn	11
Kidney Beans	27
Peas	28
Potato	8
Sweet Potato	7

Green Vegetables
Asparagus	42
Broccoli	42
Carrots	10
Lettuce	40
Onions	32
Mushrooms	12
Spinach	51

Animal Foods
Beef	53
Chicken	46
Pork	29
Salmon	43
Whole Milk	21
Skim Milk	39
Human Milk	5
Cheddar Cheese	25
Cottage Cheese	68
Egg	32

Faulty Observations Lead to High Protein Recommendations

People commonly believe: the more protein consumed the better. This faulty thinking dates back to the late 1800s, and was established without any real scientific research. An assumption was made that people who could afford to do so would instinctively select a diet containing the right amount of protein. After observing the diets of laborers, soldiers, and workers in Western Europe and the USA, recommendations of 100 and 189 grams of protein a day were established.⁹ People’s innate ability to select a proper diet is disproved by the present day popularity of burger joints, donut shops, and pizza parlors.

Further confusion about our protein needs came from studies of the nutritional needs of animals. For example, Mendel and Osborne in 1913 reported rats grew better on animal, than on vegetable, sources of protein. A direct consequence of their studies resulted in meat, eggs, and dairy foods being classified as superior, or “Class A” protein sources and vegetable proteins designated as inferior, or “Class B” proteins.⁹ Seems no one considered that rats are not people. One obvious difference in their nutritional needs is rat milk is 11 times more concentrated in protein than is human breast milk. The extra protein supports this animal’s rapid growth to adult size in 5 months; while humans take 17 years to fully mature.

The recent popularity of high protein diets has further popularized the fallacy that “more protein is good for you.” True, high protein diets, like Atkins, will make you sick enough to lose your appetite and temporarily lose weight, but this fact should not be extrapolated to mean high protein is healthy—in fact, the opposite is true.

The Truth Has Been Known for More than a Century

In 1903, the head of Yale’s department of biochemistry, Professor Russell Henry Chittenden, reported profound health benefits gained by cutting popular recommendations for protein held at his time by half to two-thirds (from 150 grams to 50 grams daily). His research included detailed dietary histories and laboratory studies of his subjects.⁹

In the 1940s, William Rose performed experiments on people which found daily minimum protein needs to be about 20 grams a day. Further research on men found single plant foods consumed in an amount sufficient to meet daily needs easily met these human requirements for all 8 essential amino acids.⁹ (A more detailed discussion of the history of protein recommendations is found in my December 2003 newsletter article: A Brief History of Protein: Passion, Social Bigotry, and Enlightenment.)

The results of Dr. Rose’s studies are summarized in the following chart, under “minimum requirements”. From the chart, it is clear that vegetable foods contain more than enough of all the amino acids essential for humans.¹⁰

(grams per day) Amino Acids	*Rose’s Minimum Requirement*	*Rose’s Recommend Requirement*	*Corn*	Brown rice	Oatmeal flakes	Wheat flour	White beans	Potatoes	Sweet potatoes
Tryptophan	.25	.50	.66	.71	1.4	1.4	1.8	.8	.8
Phenylalaline	.28	.56	6.13	3.1	5.8	5.9	10.9	3.6	2.5
Leucine	1.10	2.20	12.0	5.5	8.1	8.0	17.0	4.1	2.6
Isoleucine	.7	1.4	4.1	3.0	5.6	5.2	11.3	3.6	2.2
Lysine	.8	1.6	4.1	2.5	4.0	3.2	14.7	4.4	2.1
Vailine	.8	1.6	6.8	4.5	6.4	5.5	12.1	4.4	3.4
Methionine	.11	.22	2.1	1.1	1.6	1.8	2.0	1.0	.8
Threonine	.5	1.0	4.5	2.5	3.6	3.5	8.5	3.4	2.1
Total Protein	20	37 (WHO)	109	64	108	120	198	82	45

(grams per day) Amino Acids	*Taro*	*Asparagus*	*Broccoli*	*Tomatoes*	*Pumpkin*	*Beef Club Steak*	*Egg*	*Milk*
Tryptophan	1.0	3.9	3.8	1.4	1.5	3.1	3.8	2.3
Phenylalaline	3.0	10.2	12.2	4.3	3.0	11.2	13.9	7.7
Leucine	5.2	14.6	16.5	6.1	6.0	22.4	21.	15.9
Isoleucine	3.0	11.9	12.8	4.4	4.3	14.3	15.7	10.3
Lysine	3.4	15.5	14.8	6.3	5.5	23.9	15.3	12.5
Vailine	3.5	16.0	17.3	4.2	4.3	15.1	17.7	11.7
Methionine	.6	5.0	5.1	1.1	1.0	6.8	7.4	3.9
Threonine	2.7	9.9	12.5	4.9	2.7	12.1	12.	7.4
Total Protein	58	330	338	150	115	276	238	160

You Don’t Need Beans or to “Combine” Your Foods

Many investigators have measured the capacity of plant foods to satisfy protein needs. Their findings show that children and adults thrive on diets based on single or combined starches, and grow healthy and strong.¹⁰Furthermore, no improvement has been found from mixing plant foods or supplementing them with amino acid mixtures to make the combined amino acid pattern look more like that of flesh, milk, or eggs. In fact, supplementing a food with an amino acid in order to conform to a contrived reference standard can create amino acid imbalances. For example, young children fed diets based on wheat or corn and supplemented with the amino acids tryptophan and methionine in order to conform to the standard requirements set by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) developed negative responses in terms of nitrogen balance (the body’s utilization of protein).¹⁰

People who are worried about getting sufficient protein will sometimes ask me if they can still follow the McDougall Diet if they do not like beans. From the chart above, you will notice that any single starch or vegetable will provide in excess of our needs for total protein and essential amino acids—thus there is no reason to rely on beans or make any efforts to food combine different plant foods to improve on Nature’s own marvelous creations.

Potatoes Alone Suffice

Many populations, for example people in rural Poland and Russia at the turn of the 19^th century, have lived in very good health doing extremely hard work with the white potato serving as their primary source of nutrition. One landmark experiment carried out in 1925 on two healthy adults, a man 25 years old and a woman 28 years old had them live on a diet primarily of white potatoes for 6 months. (A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories—pure fats, a few fruits, coffee, and tea—were added to their diet.)¹¹ The report stated, “They did not tire of the uniform potato diet and there was no craving for change.” Even though they were both physically active (especially the man) they were described as, “…in good health on a diet in which the nitrogen (protein) was practically solely derived from the potato.”

The potato is such a great source of nutrition that it can supply all of the essential protein and amino acids for young children in times of food shortage. Eleven Peruvian children, ages 8 months to 35 months, recovering from malnutrition, were fed diets where all of the protein and 75% of the calories came from potatoes. (Soybean-cottonseed oils and pure simple sugars, neither of which contains protein, vitamins, or minerals, provided some of the extra calories.)¹² Researchers found that this simple potato diet provided all the protein and essential amino acids to meet the needs of growing and small children.

Excess Protein Causes Diseases of Over-nutrition

Unlike fat, protein cannot be stored. When it is consumed in excess of our needs, protein is broken down mostly by the liver, and partly by the kidneys and muscles. Consumption in excess of our needs overworks the liver and kidneys, and can cause accumulation of toxic protein byproducts.

Proteins are made of amino acids, and are, therefore, acidic by nature. Animal proteins are abundant in sulfur-containing amino acids which break down into very powerful sulfuric acid. These kinds of amino acids are abundant in hard cheese, red meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs, and their acids must be neutralized by buffers found in the bones. The bones dissolve to release the buffering materials; eventually resulting in a condition of weakened bones, known as osteoporosis. Released bone materials often settle and coalesce in the kidney system, causing kidney stones. Fruits and vegetables are largely alkaline, preserving bone health and preventing kidney stones.¹³(A more detailed discussion of the health consequences from excess protein is found in my January 2004 newsletter article: Protein Overload.)

Diseases of over-nutrition are directly connected to planet health, too. Recommendations to eat animal foods for protein have resulted in an environmental catastrophe. Livestock produces 18% of the greenhouse gases; these food-animals occupy 26 percent of the ice-free surface of the Earth and 33 percent of the total arable land is used to produce their food. One telling tragedy is they account for the deforestation of 70 percent of Amazon rainforests, which act as the “lungs of the Earth.”¹⁴ (A more detailed discussion of the environmental damage from livestock is found in my December 2006 newsletter article: An Inconvenient Truth: We Are Eating Our Planet To Death.)

Protein Deficiency Is Really Food Deficiency

How many cases of the so-called “protein deficiency state,” kwashiorkor, have you seen? I have never seen a case, even though I have known thousands of people on a plant-food based diet. How about those starving children in Africa? The picture one often sees of stick-thin children with swollen bellies in famine areas of Asia or Africa is actually one of starvation and is more accurately described as “calorie deficiency.”¹⁰ When these children come under medical supervision, they are nourished back to health with their local diets of corn, wheat, rice, and/or beans. Children recovering from starvation grow up to l8 times faster than usual and require a higher protein content to provide for their catch-up in development—and plant foods easily provide this extra amount of protein.¹⁰ Even very-low protein starchy root crops, such as cassava root, are sufficient enough in nutrients, including protein, to keep people healthy.¹⁵

Starving People Die of Fat, Not Protein, Deficiency

In 1981, 10 Irish prisoners from the Republican Army (IRA) went on a hunger strike. Nine out of 10 of these men died between 57 and 73 days (mean of 61.6 days) of starvation after losing about 40% of their body weights (the remaining striker died of complications of a gunshot wound).^16,17 This experience gave doctors a chance to observe first hand the metabolic changes that occur during starvation. Protein stores were generally protected during starvation, with most of the energy to stay alive being derived from the men’s fat stores. It was estimated that the hunger strikers had lost up to 94% of their body-fat levels, but only 19% of their body-protein levels at the time of death.¹⁶ They died when they ran out of fat. Since fat is more critical than protein, people should be asking, “Where do you get your fat (on any diet)?

Since Nature designed her plant foods complete, with abundant amounts of fat, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, “Where you get a specific nutrient?” is almost never a relevant question, as long as there is enough to eat. So, why have scientists, dietitians, medical doctors, diet-book authors, and the lay public become fixated on a non-existent problem? Protein is synonymous with eating meat, poultry, fish, dairy, and eggs—the foods traditionally consumed by the wealthier people in a society—thus, protein-eating means higher social status. High-protein foods are also high-profit foods. Therefore, propagating the protein myth is motivated by egos and money—and the usual consequences of pain and suffering follow closely behind these two human frailties.

References:

1) St Jeor S, Howard B, Prewitt E. Dietary protein and weight reduction: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001; 104: 1869–1874.

2) Tufts University: http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/nutrition/protein_2/
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/vegetarian.html

3) Harvard School of Public Health: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html

4) Northwestern University: http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nutrition/factsheets/protein.html

5) McDougall J. Plant foods have a complete amino acid composition. Circulation. 2002 Jun 25;105(25):e197; author reply e197.

6) McDougall J. Misinformation on plant proteins. Circulation. 2002 Nov 12;106(20):e148; author reply e148.

7) Personal Communication with John McDougall, MD on July 10, 2003.

8) J Pennington. Bowes & Church’s Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. 17^th Ed. Lippincott. Philadelphia- New York. 1998.

9) The December 2003 McDougall Newsletter: A Brief History of Protein: Passion, Social Bigotry, and Enlightenment.

10) McDougall J. The McDougall Plan. New Win Publ. 1983; pages 95-109.

11) Kon S. XXXV. The value of whole potato in human nutrition. Biochemical J. 1928; 22:258-260

12) Lopez de Romana G. Fasting and postprandial plasma free amino acids of infants and children consuming exclusively potato protein. J Nutr. 1981 Oct;111(10):1766-71.

13) The January 2004 McDougall Newsletter: Protein Overload.

14) The December 2006 McDougall Newsletter: An Inconvenient Truth: We Are Eating Our Planet To Death.

15) Millward DJ. The nutritional value of plant-based diets in relation to human amino acid and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 May;58(2):249-60.

16) Leiter LA, Marliss EB. Survival during fasting may depend on fat as well as protein stores. JAMA 1982;248:2306

17) Zimmerman MD, Appadurai K, Scott JG, Jellett LB, Garlick FH. Survival. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Sep 1;127(5):405-9.

How Plant-Based Diets May Extend Our Lives

News

July 10, 2014 by Michael Greger M.D. in News with 5 Comments

A recent review suggested that plant-based diets may prove to be a useful nutritional strategy for lifespan extension in part because they tend to be naturally low in the amino acid methionine (see my video Starving Cancer with Methionine Restriction). Apparently, the less methionine there is in body tissues, the longer different animals tend to live. But what are the possible implications for humans? See my video Methionine Restriction as a Life Extension Strategy.

I’ve talked before about the free radical theory of aging, the concept that aging can be thought of as the oxidation of our bodies just like rust is the oxidation of metal (seeMitochondrial Theory of Aging). Methionine is thought to have a pro-oxidant effect. The thinking is that lowering methionine intake leads to less free radical production, thereby slowing aging. Fewer free radicals would decrease the rate of DNA damage, which would curtail the rate of DNA mutation, slowing the rate of aging and disease and potentially increasing our lifespan.

There are three ways to lower methionine intake: The first is caloric restriction. By decreasing our overall intake of food, we would reduce our intake of methionine. Or, because methionine is found protein, we could practice protein restriction, eating a relatively protein deficient diet. The third option is eat enough food, eat enough protein, but just stick to proteins that are relatively low in methionine, which tends to mean plant proteins.

Caloric restriction is hard, because we walk around starving all the time. Something like every-other-day eating is described as “never likely to gain much popularity as a pro-longevity strategy for humans, so it may be more feasible to achieve moderate methionine restriction by eating a plant-based diet.” On a population-wide level, folks could benefit from just lowering their protein intake, period. Researchers noted that “the mean intake of proteins [and thus methionine] of Western human populations is much higher than needed. Therefore, decreasing such levels has a great potential to lower tissue oxidative stress and to increase healthy life span in humans while avoiding the possible undesirable effects of caloric restriction.”

We’re eating around double the protein we need, so the first thing doctors can recommend is to decrease the intake of protein, but we can also get our methionine even lower by eating a plant-based diet.

The fact that beans have comparably low methionine has been classically considered a disadvantage. But, given the capacity of methionine restriction to decrease the rate of free radical generation in internal organs, to lower markers of chronic disease, and to increase maximum longevity, this “disadvantage” may actually be a strong advantage. This fits well with the important role of beans in healthy diets like the traditional Mediterranean diet. Interestingly, soy protein is also especially poor in methionine, which may help explain the healthy effects iof soyfoods. Watch my video Increased Lifespan from Beans.

The reason why plant-based diets are so protective is not known. Yes, vegetables contain thousands of phytochemicals, but separately investigating their possible protective roles would be an impossible task. The idea that the protective effect is not due to any of the individual plant food components, but to a synergic “combined effect” is gaining acceptance. However, based on the relationship of excess dietary methionine to vital organ toxicity, as well as its likely mechanism of action through increases in free radical generation, the possibility exists that the protective effects of plant-based diets can be due, at least in part, to their lower methionine content. As one paper concluded, “The low-methionine content of vegan diets may make methionine restriction feasible as a life extension strategy.”

Plant-based diets can also mimic other benefits of caloric restriction, such as improving levels of the “fountain of youth” hormone DHEA. See The Benefits of Caloric Restriction Without the Actual Restricting.

Americans are living longer but sicker lives. That’s why we need a diet and lifestyle that supports health and longevity. I have a whole presentation on the role diet can play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing many of our top 15 killers: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

I’ve touched previously on the irony that animal protein may be detrimental for the same reasons it’s touted as superior in Higher Quality May Mean Higher Risk.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Rice Diet Founder Dr. Walter Kempner

The War On Cancer

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s spotlight onglobal corporations.

In 1971, many sponsors of the War on Cancer predicted a cure by 1976. Instead, this multibillion dollar research program has proven to be a failure.

[hide]

Overview

The age adjusted total cancer mortality rate climbed steadily for decades until the early 1990s, when the rate started to fall slowly, due largely to reduced smoking. To encourage continued support for cancer research, now exceeding two billion dollars annually in the U.S. alone; researchers and administrators have misled the public. In 1987, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the statistics from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) “artificially inflate the amount of ‘true’ progress”, concluding that even simple five-year survival statistics were manipulated. The NCI termed five-year survival a “cure” even if the patient died of the cancer after the five-year period. Also, by ignoring well known statistical biases, the NCI falsely suggested advances had been made in certain cancer therapies. ^[1]

Failure of toxic “therapies”

In 1971 when the U.S. declared war on cancer, scientists still hadn’t identified the immune defense system. Doctors and scientists, along with the American Cancer Society, continue to refer to a non-contagious condition with no incubation period or identifiable foreign invader as a “disease”. Scientists have requested and received billions in grants from the federal government, non-profit organizations, corporate and private donors. However, according to critics, like the New England Journal of Medicine, the “war on cancer” is a failure. According to John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics at McGill University:

“Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains undefeated, with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment.” ^[2]

The late Professor of Medical Physics, H.B. Jones, was a leading U.S. cancer statistician. In a 1969 speech to the American Cancer Society, he stated that studies had not proved that chances of survival were improved by early intervention. In fact, according to his studies, untreated persons with cancer lived up to four times longer and with a better quality of life than treated ones. He was not invited back. According to the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet:

“If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the medical profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer.” ^[3]

Cancer for profit

According to the oncologist, Glen Warner, M.D.:

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.” ^[4]

NCI & clinical trials for hydrazine sulfate

According to “The $200 Billion Scam”, published in Penthouse in 1997:

“In the 25 years since the federal government declared War on Cancer, an estimated $200 billion has been spent by U.S. taxpayers and private investors on research that has produced so little bang for the buck that it makes the Pentagon’s $600 toilet seats look like bargains for every American home. The cancer industry has become a huge jobs program for brilliant, even highly motivated, doctors and other scientists, whose efforts are misguided by the economic forces behind the industry. Directly put, it’s in the interests of all the fat cats in government and private enterprise who earn their living and status from what is largely a failed enterprise, to stick with it. That is why a drug like hydrazine sulfate is dumped on by the cancer establishment, instead of given legitimate support and honest evaluation.”

The General Accounting Office (GAO) defied logic, reason, and science to give its blessing to the NCI’s deliberately biased testing of hydrazine sulfate which produced false results to make it appear ineffective. NCI higher administrators who wrote the report also and ignored evidence pointing to rigged clinical trials. ^[5]

American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society ACS is largest non-religious charity in the world. As of the fiscal year ending in August of 2007, the ACS had a net revenue 1.17 billion dollars. ^[6] ACS’s daily expenditures exceed one million dollars with only approximately 16% going into patient cancer programs. The rest is funneled into expensive research and bureaucratic overhead. Meager prevention programs are designed not to offend the industry. The average American diagnosed with cancer spend upwards of $25,000 of their savings on cures to save or lengthen their lives. However, claims of ‘progress’ include many people with benign diseases. Those in remission for longer than 5 years are declared cured, although many of those will die from either cancer or treatment after five years. ^[7] Corporate donors include processed food industryand pharmaceutical industry giants like Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Walmart as well as Metropolitan Life Insurance. ^[8]

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

A look at financial relationships between large facilities such as the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and corporations making billions in profits from chemotherapy drugs, is extremely telling as to its continued use in the face of such failure. Furthermore, expensive laboratories and diagnostic equipment have already been paid for by large corporations.

Craig B. Thompson, MD President and CEO of MSKCC, is also on the Board of Directors for Merck Corporation.^[9]

James D. Robinson III Honorary Chairman, is also former Chairman of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world’s largest producer of chemo drugs. Paul Marks, MD, MSKCC’s former President and CEO, is the former Director of Pfizer. Another board member, Richard Furlaud, recently retired as Bristol Myers’ president. ^[10]

The late Richard Gelb was Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC board as well as CEO of Bristol-Myers. ^[11], ^[12]

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency in the U.S. government conducting and funding medical research. MSKCC Director Thomas Kelly, M.D., Ph.D. serves on the both the NIH Advisory Committee and Scientific Management Review Board. ^[13]

Cancer United

Cancer United is a pharmaceutical industry front group established by the Weber Shandwick public relations firm. It is funded entirely by Roche. ^[14]

Cancer & animal testing

More is spent on cancer than any other medical problem. There are more people living off of cancer than cancer sufferers.Millions of laboratory animals, including rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, cats and dogs have been injected with cancerous material or implanted with malignancies.^[15], ^[16] Why hasn’t progress been commensurate with the effort and money invested? One explanation is the unwarranted preoccupation with animal testing. Crucial genetic, molecular, immunologic and cellular differences have disqualify animal models as an effective means to a cure. Mice are most commonly used, although “Mice are actually poor models of the majority of human cancers”; according to the industry’s own laboratory animal publication. According to leading cancer researcher, Robert Weinberg:

“The preclinical (animal) models of human cancer, in large part, stink… Hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted every year by drug companies using these models.” ^[17]

A widely discussed 2004 article in Fortune magazine entitled “Why We’re Losing the War on Cancer” ^[18] laid the blame on animal research. The basic approach in the 1970s was to grow human cancer cells in a lab dish, transplant them into a mouse whose immune system had been tweaked to not reject them and throw experimental drugs at them to see what happened. However, few successes in mice are relevant to people. According to Fran Visco, who founded the National Breast Cancer Coalition four years after being diagnosed with cancer in 1987, “Animals don’t reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people.”

Newsweek combed through three decades of high-profile successes in mice for clues to why the mice lived and the people died. According to oncologist Paul Bunn, who leads the International Society for the Study of Lung Cancer:

“Animal models have not been very predictive of how well drugs would do in people. We put a human tumor under the mouse’s skin, and that micro-environment doesn’t reflect a person’s—the blood vessels, inflammatory cells or cells of the immune system.”

Human tumors that scientists transplant into mice and then attack with their weapon du jour, almost never metastasize. For decades, scientists ignored metastatic cells (which are responsible for 90% of all cancer deaths) because metastasis didn’t occur in animal models. Throughout the 1980’s and 90’s, researchers focused on increasingly detailed molecular mechanisms, instead of looking into the real problem. ^[19] See also animal testing.

Cancer & diet

Food Additives & adulteration

Today, over 6,000 synthetic chemicals are officially condoned for use in the processed food industry. These include some that are known carcinogens. Processed foods contain high levels of the debilitating, denatured ingredients such as white sugar, refined starch, pasteurized cow’s milk, land mined salt and hydrogenated vegetable oils. The human immune system correctly recognizes chemical food additives as toxic foreign agents and attempts to rid the body of them; thus causing severe biochemical reactions and stress on the immune system.

After years of daily exposure to inorganic chemicals, the immune system breaks down and burns out, leaving the body vulnerable to microbes, toxins and cancerous cells. The food industry has duped the public and government health agencies into believing that their products are safe for human consumption; even in the face of abundant scientific evidence to the contrary. In fact, such information is in the public domain and openly available to anyone who seeks it.^[20] See also processed food industry.

Animal products & health issues

The China Study culminated a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine. The survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan is widely thought to be the most comprehensive study on nutrition and related diseases to date. The project produced over 8,000 statistically significant associations between diet and disease. The findings indicated that the consumers of the most animal-based foods suffered the most chronic diseases while those with the most plant based diets avoided these diseases and were the healthiest. Chronic diseases included heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Also studied were the effects of diet in reducing or reversing the risks of chronic disease. The study also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities and irresponsible scientists. ^[21] According to Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell, “we’re basically a vegetarian species, should be eating a wide variety of plant foods and minimizing animal foods.” ^[22], ^[23]

The focus of published reports on dairy consumption are infections, colic, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergies and more serious issues of diabetes and viral infections of bovine leukemia, an AIDS like virus. Common childrens issues include ear infections, tonsil infections, bed wetting and asthma. Adult issues include heart disease, arthritis, respiratory distress, osteoporosis, leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. Overall health issues include milk contamination by pus cells and chemicals such as pesticides. ^[24] Most cows’ milk contains toxins such as herbicides, pesticides and dioxins and up to 52 powerful antibiotics; blood, pus, feces, bacteria and viruses. Both organic and non-organic milk contain fat, cholesteral and various allergens as well as 59 active hormones. This includes the powerful Growth Factor One (IGF-1) which has been identified in the rapid growth cancer. ^[25] It has been positively documented and affirmed that dairy consumption leads to clogged arteries, heart attacks and strokes and exposure to contaminants. ^[26], ^[27] Research has demonstrated a calcium wash or a loss of calcium and other critical minerals like potassium, magnesium and iron from the blood stream as a direct result of dairy consumption starting at 24 ounces per day. ^[28] Low animal protein diets create a positive calcium balance, whereas high animal protein diets create a negative balance resulting in bone density loss. While many have turned to low fat dairy products, these products contain higher concentrations of protein. Low fat and particularly non-fat dairy products have actually been shown to increase osteoporosis, kidney problems and some cancers. ^[29]

See also meat & dairy industry, sections 4 & 5 & section 6 on animal products & health issues.

The prostate cancer predicament

For many men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the treatment may be worse than the disease

To screen or not to screen? For prostate cancer—the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men, after lung cancer—that is the bedeviling question.

The dilemma springs the wide variation in the potential of prostate cancers to spread to the rest of the body. The vast majority of these malignancies, especially those discovered with the extensively used prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, test, are slow-growing tumors that are unlikely to cause a man any harm during his lifetime. Yet in 10 to 15 percent of cases, the cancer is aggressive and advances beyond the prostate, sometimes turning lethal.

Murky diagnoses

The dilemma has become more urgent in recent years as widespread screening with PSA in the U.S. and around the world has led to a sharp increase in the number of detected prostate cancers. Currently, there is no way to accurately determine at the time of diagnosis which cancers are likely to threaten a man’s health and which are not. As a result, almost all men with PSA-detected cancer opt for treatment, which can leave long-lasting physical and emotional scars.

“One of the biggest challenges in oncology is to distinguish men who have a potentially lethal form of prostate cancer from those with a more slow-growing disease.”
—Lorelei Mucci, ScD ’03, associate professor of epidemiology

Put simply: with prostate cancer, the cure may be worse than the disease. The dilemma was underscored in May 2012, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a strongly worded final recommendation against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. According to the task force, “[M]any men are harmed as a result of prostate cancer screening and few, if any, benefit.” In a study of U.S. men who were randomly screened, the screening did not reduce prostate cancer death (though a similar study among European men did find a lower risk of cancer death). In any case, experts agree that prostate cancer has been vastly overdiagnosed as a result of screening.

So what should patients and doctors do? At Harvard School of Public Health, the prostate cancer epidemiology team—which includes more than 25 faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and student researchers—is developing the science to answer that question, identifying both the risk factors behind the deadliest variations of prostate cancer and the lifestyle changes that may lower the risk of aggressive disease.

“One of the biggest challenges in oncology is to distinguish men who have a potentially lethal form of prostate cancer from those with a more slow-growing disease,” says Lorelei Mucci, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH. “Our research aims to directly address that question, as well as to find opportunities to reduce risk of dying from cancer after diagnosis.”

Aggressive or slow-growing?

When it became widely available in the late 1980s, the PSA screening test was hailed as a simple way to uncover possible malignancy. But PSA screening, which was adopted without evidence of its usefulness, turned out to be a poor indicator of cancer, in two ways. First, it creates false positives in men who may simply have elevated antigen levels from other conditions, such as benign enlargement of the prostate gland. These patients often endure subsequent invasive biopsies but never go on to develop prostate cancer. Second, even when the test correctly identifies prostate cancer, many of the diagnosed patients never develop the deadly form of the disease.

“PSA screening has been a disaster,” says Hans-Olov Adami, former chair and now adjunct professor of HSPH’s Department of Epidemiology, who has opposed the test for 20 years. “We overdiagnose many men who would die of other causes.” In fact, a multinational study of cancer registries published by Adami, Mucci, and other HSPH colleagues in July 2012 found that the most common causes of death among prostate cancer patients—65 percent of patients in Sweden and 84 percent in the U.S.—are heart disease, diabetes, stroke, or other cancers.

What may protect against advanced prostate cancer?

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
AVOIDING SMOKING
AVOIDING OBESITY
CONSUMING TOMATO SAUCE
CONSUMING COFFEE
VITAMIN D

Yet these patients frequently underwent radical treatments for their prostate cancer—interventions such as radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy, which can produce severe side effects such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. “While we are uncertain about the number of deaths that screening prevents,” says Adami, “we are certain that the price for any reduction in deaths from prostate cancer is very high.”

A study published in August 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in survival between men who had surgery for prostate cancer and those under “watchful waiting,” in which the doctor withholds treatment while carefully monitoring the progress of the cancer. “This is a very perplexing observation,” Adami says, “because screening reduces mortality only if treatment makes a difference in outcomes. This indicates there are still big question marks in how doctors and patients should respond to this diagnosis.” As the USPSTF noted last May, “[R]esearch is urgently needed to identify new screening methods that can distinguish nonprogressive or slowly progressive disease from disease that is likely to affect quality or length of life.”

“ Men with at least three hours of vigorous physical activity a week had at least a 60 percent lower risk of prostate cancer death.”
—Edward Giovannucci, professor of nutrition and epidemiology

Clues in diet and lifestyle

To clarify the prognosis for a tumor, HSPH researchers are homing in on other factors that might affect susceptibility to prostate cancer, especially the aggressive form of the disease.Edward Giovannucci, professor of nutrition and epidemiology, recently looked at nine diet and lifestyle factors. He found that smoking, obesity, and lack of physical activity raise the risk of developing a more virulent cancer. According to Giovannucci, “The question is whether there are two types of prostate cancer–an aggressive and nonaggressive form–or whether certain factors cause a nonaggressive form to become more aggressive.” Evidence provided by HSPH researchers suggests that an increase in insulin in the bloodstream, caused by obesity and physical inactivity, may encourage tumor growth.

Other investigations have linked dietary factors to the disease. A 2011 study by HSPH research associate Kathryn Wilson, together with Mucci and Giovannucci, professor of nutrition and epidemiology Meir Stampfer, and other colleagues, found that men who drank coffee had a notably lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Those who consumed six cups or more a day were 20 percent less likely to develop any form of the disease, and 60 percent less likely to develop a lethal disease; those who consumed one to three cups a day showed no difference in developing any form of the disease, but had a 30 percent lower risk of developing a lethal form.

Jennifer Rider, instructor in epidemiology at HSPH, has studied parasitic infection and prostate cancer.

Another, more surprising, study revealed that consuming tomato sauce was associated with a markedly lower risk of prostate cancer. In fact, men who had two or more servings of tomato sauce a week were about 20 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer, and about 35 percent less likely to die from the disease. A separate report in 2009 by Mucci and Giovannucci found that the overgrowth of blood vessels might be one of the most reliable indicators of whether a tumor will spread. After sifting through genetic and lifestyle factors that might lead to the growth of these vessels, they found that the antioxidant lycopene was the item most strongly associated with lower blood vessel formation.

Another factor that might determine the difference between a harmless and a lethal form of prostate cancer is the sexually transmitted parasitic infection Trichomonas vaginalis. By itself, the infection rarely produces symptoms in men (who are often treated only after their female partners show signs of infection). In a 2009 study, led by HSPH instructor in epidemiology Jennifer Rider, infected men had a much higher incidence of prostate cancer spreading to the bone or death from prostate cancer. “The good news is that if the association between the infection and lethal prostate cancer is confirmed, there is an effective antibiotic treatment,” Rider says.

To treat or not to treat?

“Up until now, with a few notable exceptions, doctors have myopically focused on treating prostate cancer,” says Adami. “They are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on chemotherapy that has minimal effects on cancer mortality, often with substantial side effects. But we ignore entirely the fact that large groups of prostate cancer patients die from other causes that actually are preventable.”

By focusing on lifestyle changes, he adds, men can achieve three goals simultaneously: diminishing the risk of dying from common conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, improving quality of life overall, and perhaps also improving the prognosis for prostate cancer. In particular, stopping smoking and increasing physical activity after diagnosis can substantially cut the risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. “Men with at least three hours of vigorous physical activity a week had at least a 60 percent lower risk of prostate cancer death,” says Giovannucci. “It’s a strong association.”

Among older patients especially, that activity can take the form of vigorous walking. Recently, Mucci has spearheaded an intervention with Adami and other colleagues in Sweden, Iceland, and Ireland in which men walk in groups with a nurse three times a week. In a pilot study, researchers found improvements in just 12 weeks in body weight, blood pressure, sleep, urinary function, and mental health.

Scientists at HSPH are also searching for genetic and lifestyle markers that help predict how aggressive a patient’s prostate cancer will be. For example, an ongoing project led by Mucci and Adami draws on detailed cancer registries in Nordic countries, including an analysis of 300,000 twins, to tease out the relative contribution of different genes to prostate cancer incidence and survival.

Until all these associations come to light, doctors and patients will be confronted with weighty decisions about treatment. Surgery, radiation, or chemo might still be the wisest course of action in instances where the cancer has clearly already advanced, or when a patient is young and otherwise in good health. In situations where men are older or face a higher risk for other diseases, improvements in diet and lifestyle may be more effective not only in subduing the cancer but also in boosting general well-being. As Mucci puts it, “Our hope is that clinicians will use the prostate cancer diagnosis as a teachable moment to reflect on the global health of the patient.”

Michael Blanding is a Boston-based journalist and author of The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World’s Favorite Soft Drink.

Reducing the harm caused by screening mammography

By Charles Wright

Women have a right to be confused about whether they should have screening mammography or not. They have been told for two generations that it is life-saving.

They have been bombarded by messages from healthcare professionals and public health programs urging them to comply: “If you don’t go for regular mammograms you need more than your breasts examined”; “Give your mother the gift of life for mother’s day — give her a mammogram”; “Mammograms can detect breast cancer when it is still curable.” Health agencies and ministries have enthusiastically supported breast screening as a demonstration of their commitment to women’s health.

When first introduced in the 1970s there was good reason for the hope that mammography would be a major tool in dealing with the scourge of breast cancer and that early diagnosis and treatment would translate into many lives saved.

A huge industry to support the demand was built involving doctors, radiologists, technicians and equipment manufacturers. The many adverse consequences of breast screening have been well known since the beginning but they were generally deemed acceptable at first with the prospect of saving women’s lives. With hindsight this was a mistake.

What has only more recently been recognized, quantified and publicized, is just how serious the negative effects are in relation to how very small the potential benefits.

The facts have now been clearly presented by many independent expert groups, including the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the U.S. Agency for Health Care and Quality and the Cochrane International Collaboration. Public understanding is not helped by debates about relative and absolute death rate results. But the easy way to grasp the results is to consider what happens to a large group of women, say 2,000, who are screened regularly for 10 years.

One woman will have her life prolonged while 700 will have at least one false-positive mammogram with all the resultant anxiety and further investigations, 70-80 will have unnecessary biopsies and at least 10 women will be diagnosed and treated for a ‘cancer’ that would never have developed in any case.

In addition, several women will have a false-negative mammogram that failed to show a real cancer that shows up soon after.

Cancer of the breast can be a devastating disease and almost every woman knows of a friend or relative who had breast cancer successfully treated after a screening mammogram. The cruel reality is that the screening so rarely brings any change to the eventual result.

For the one in 2,000 who benefits, more than 800 are harmed.

What can be done about the current confusion and conflicting advice on the subject? Concerning the support of screening programs we have to decide whether to heed the consistent findings of independent experts, or the advice of those with a large vested interest in the screening industry. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, famously responded to a challenge that he had changed his opinion on a disputed topic, saying, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It may take a long time to dispel the false hope that has been given to women, but public education dealing with the current evidence will have to be planned and presented. There is a more immediate need to replace current advocacy with honesty and balance in how the facts are presented.

In every medical test or procedure the potential benefit and harm must be considered, and it is now clear that in the case of screening mammography the harms tip the scale heavily.

At the very least a consent form summarizing the facts clearly and in plain language should have to be signed by women presenting for screening while plans for gradual re-allocation of resources are developed.

Some women may wish to continue with regular screening in spite of this information but unfortunately we now know that mammography does not pass the test for any acceptable screening program designed for the general population: namely, that it must cause significant benefit with insignificant harm.

Dr. Charles Wright is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca. He is also councillor with the Health Council of Canada.

This Commentary is from Commentaries, More Care is Not Always Better.

Public health takes aim at sugar and salt

HSPH FEATURES

The war on obesity and other lifestyle ills has opened a new battlefront: the fight against sugar and salt.

It may be a fight for our lives.

In the last few years, evidence has mounted that too much of these appealing ingredients—often invisibly insinuated into beverages, processed foods, and restaurant fare—harms health.

Research at the Harvard School of Public Health and elsewhere, for example, has tied sugary drinks to an epidemic of obesity in the United States. The average 12-ounce can of soda contains 10 teaspoons of sugar, and the average teenage boy consumes nearly three cans of sugary drinks a day. Is it any wonder that about two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese?

Obesity, in turn, raises the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers. Meanwhile, studies have linked salty diets to high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes, the first and third leading causes of death in the United States.

At HSPH, the Department of Nutrition is helping to lead the charge for healthier consumer fare. In April, at a widely covered press conference, the department’s faculty publicly challenged beverage makers to create a class of drinks with 70 percent less sugar—a partial reduction that could lower obesity and diabetes rates within a year, they believe. On the salt side, experts estimate that cutting average sodium consumption by one-half could prevent at least 150,000 deaths annually in the United States.

Bolstering this two-pronged public health campaign has been a shift in national political philosophy. “The previous administration believed that market forces solved everything and that regulation was off the table. But market forces, left alone, damaged the economy,” says Walter Willett, Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. “That also applies to the food supply and health. Market forces don’t promote a healthy diet—in fact, they do exactly the opposite. We made a lot of progress on trans fat. Now the biggest issue, outside of too many calories, is the huge amount of sugar and salt.”

As in many recent public health campaigns, New York City has been ahead of the pack. Its “Healthy Heart-Cut the Salt” program, now a nationwide effort by a coalition of health organizations and public agencies, works with food industry leaders on a voluntary framework to cut salt in their products. “New York City created a market for trans-fat-free foods, and it will create a market for lower-sodium foods,” Willett predicts. In May, President Barack Obama picked Thomas R. Frieden, New York City’s health commissioner, to direct the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), installing a fierce advocate for lowering salt and taxing sugary beverages in a position to bring about change.

SPOONFULS OF SUGAR

In the School’s current battle plan, the prime target is sugar in sodas, fruit juices and other cloying drinks. Here’s why:

Downing just one 12-ounce can of a typical sweetened beverage daily can add 15 pounds in a year.
In children, one sweetened beverage a day fuels a 60 percent increase in the risk of obesity—and American teenaged boys drink almost three times that much.
This April, an HSPH study linked sugary drinks to increased risk of heart disease in adults. Scientists have long known that sugar reduces the “good” HDL cholesterol in the blood. Consistent with this effect, the April study showed that it wasn’t just weight gain that raised heart disease risk, but sugar itself—eating an otherwise healthy diet or being at a healthy weight only slightly diminished the risk.
In 2004, the Nurses’ Health Study found that women who had one or more servings a day of a sugar-sweetened soft drink or fruit punch were nearly twice as likely to develop type 2 diabetes as those who rarely imbibed these beverages.

As a dietary enemy, sugar is cleverly camouflaged, because it is dissolved in liquid. A typical 20-ounce soda contains 17 teaspoons of sugar. “If people thought about eating 17 teaspoons of sugar, they’d become nauseated,” Willett says. “But they are able to drink it right down and go for another.” While we normally balance a big meal by taking in fewer calories later, that compensation doesn’t seem to occur after guzzling soft drinks—possibly because fluids are not as satiating as solid foods, or because sweet-tasting soft drinks whet the appetite for high-carbohydrate foods.

Willett and Lilian Cheung, lecturer in the Department of Nutrition and editorial director of The Nutrition Source, urge people to choose drinks far lower in sugar and calories: options such as water, tea, seltzer with a splash of juice, coffee with one lump of sugar.

“If we can shift the present American norm back to a lower expectation of sweetness, people will adjust their palates, particularly the younger population,” says Cheung.

PASS (UP) THE SALT

Almost 80 percent of the salt in the American diet comes not from the salt shaker, but from processed or restaurant foods. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2005 and 2006, the average American on a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet devoured more than 3,400 mg of salt per day (mg/d). That’s substantially more than current dietary guidelines, which recommend that adults in general consume no more than 2,300 mg/d—about a teaspoon.

Several years ago, the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension-Sodium clinical trial (DASH-Sodium), led by HSPH’s Frank Sacks, professor of cardiovascular disease prevention, found that the biggest blood-pressure-lowering benefits came to those eating at the lowest sodium level tested, 1,500 mg/d. For those prone to high blood pressure, people over 40 and African Americans—groups that together represent nearly 70 percent of the population—the CDC likewise advises no more than 1,500 mg/d.

That 1,500 mg/d threshold would require cutting sodium in processed and restaurant foods by about 80 percent. Though it may sound drastic, the goal is more urgent than ever. In 1982, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called on the food industry to voluntarily reduce sodium levels in processed foods—yet sodium consumption has steadily drifted upward. By 2000, men were eating 48 percent more salt than they did in the early 1970s, and women 69 percent more.

REFINING THE AMERICAN PALATE

To wean ourselves from excess sugar, the Department of Nutrition’s challenge uses a benchmark of one gram of sugar per ounce, which equates to a 12-ounce soda that contains three teaspoons of sugar and 50 calories. “We’ve suggested that manufacturers provide an option in between high-sugar and sugar-free drinks,” Willett says, “to help people step down if they can’t go cold turkey from full sugar to no sugar.” The department is currently discussing the challenge with Obama administration officials. While Willett and others are not directly in contact with manufacturers, the challenge’s press coverage has stirred debate within the beverage industry, and several small start-ups are introducing low-sugar drinks.

The HSPH challenge further proposes that the FDA require manufacturers to label the fronts of their cans and bottles with information on total contents rather than per-serving quantities. Currently, most consumers assume that a single package of chips or bottle of soda is a single serving. Only upon close inspection do they discover that there are two or more “servings” in the package. Willett has called for an initial reduction of salt in processed foods of up to 20 percent—a change that studies show does not perceptibly affect taste.

LAUNCHING A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN

In its forceful call to action, HSPH joins a growing chorus of health experts demanding change. “New Horizons for a Healthy America: Recommendations to the New Administration,” a report issued in April by the Commission on U.S. Federal Leadership in Health and Medicine: Charting Future Directions, describes sugary beverages and salty processed foods as “serious concerns” for the Obama administration. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has also pressed Congress and the administration to act.

Looking to economic levers to cut consumption, Willett proposes a national sales or excise tax of up to 18 percent on sodas and candy. Along with CSPI, the Department of Nutrition submitted a letter to Congress in June supporting a tax on full-sugar beverages; Willett has also testified before the Massachusetts Legislature in support of such a bill. Some of this tax could be used to subsidize healthy but relatively expensive alternatives, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Willett would also rewrite government procurement policies to help set new industry standards. In his view, food services at military facilities, hospitals, government organizations, and schools should all phase out highly sweetened beverages in favor of low-sugar options.

And Willett has called for a ban on child-focused marketing for sweetened drinks—since children and teens drink most of their sugary calories at home. “There should be strong regulations, with real teeth in them, against advertising to children. It’s immoral—criminal, even—to have children’s health undermined for the sake of profit,” he says. To this end, Willett has also contemplated lawsuits on behalf of children: “If a child is encouraged to consume these beverages by a fast-food chain, without being warned of the consequences, and they develop diabetes, is there not some liability?

“We will use all levers possible, as we have done for trans fat elimination,” he adds. “Public education is central to this effort, and talking to journalists is a great multiplier of information.” A Reuters news service story on the department’s industry challenge was picked up from Canada to China, and in JuneUSA Today ran a major story on the topic. Nutrition department investigators are also preparing a scientific review article for a leading medical journal about the deleterious consequences of high-sugar drinks.

The HSPH Department of Nutrition is raising funds to set up a research and information center that would conduct, compile, and disseminate studies on the health implications of sugar-sweetened beverages. The center’s mission: to educate policy makers and the public.

So far, food manufacturers have not widely reformulated their products, for fear of losing customers and getting ahead of taste trends. But other nations, such as Finland, have proven not only that palates can grow more refined when governments embark on full-scale efforts steering people toward more wholesome fare, but that population health dramatically improves when they do. (See: What Other Countries Have Done)

For now, Willett intends to point public health’s artillery toward sodas and other sweetened drinks. “Going for the low-hanging fruit is the first step, and the sugared beverage area is the place,” he says. “These products are in a class with tobacco. There’s only harm, no benefit.”

Photograph: Kent Dayton/HSPH

Larry Hand is associate editor of the Review.
Madeline Drexler is guest editor of this issue of the Review.

Parkinson’s Disease

Neurology

Parkinson’s Disease

BY: PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE

Parkinson’s Disease: Overview and Symptoms

Parkinson’s disease (also known as idiopathic paralysis agitans) is a chronic and progressive movement disorder that affects as many as 1 million Americans. It occurs when groups of neurons in specific areas of the brain (known as the substantia nigra and locus ceruleus) malfunction and die.

As a result, the brain does not produce enough dopamine, a chemical messenger that is important for movement and coordination. Without enough dopamine, Parkinson’s disease patients have difficulty with movements and activities of daily life, and may have mood and memory problems.

The cause is unknown, but researchers think that both genetic and environmental factors are involved. However, Parkinson’s-like symptoms can occur in individuals who are exposed to several toxins (such as pesticides; MPTP, which is a contaminant of opioid narcotics; and high levels of the mineral manganese), infections of the brain and spinal cord, head trauma, or certain medications that affect dopamine receptors (such as antinausea medications, antipsychotic medications, and reserpine).

Parkinson’s disease affects approximately 1 percent of Americans over age 50. The typical age of onset is the late 50s, although 10 percent of cases occur in people under 40.

Symptoms

The symptoms of Parkinson’s disease usually appear gradually and increase in severity over the course of years. Patients tend to have slowed movements (called bradykinesia) and appear stiff or rigid. They may have a tremor at rest, usually in the hand or thumb.

As the disease progresses, patients have more and more difficulty maintaining balance, walking, talking, and completing daily activities (such as eating, writing, dressing, and combing their hair).

Patients with Parkinson’s disease often experience some degree of depression, and may have other psychologic symptoms, including hallucinations. This may occur due to the disease itself or as a side effect of medications. Also, dementia is common in people with Parkinson’s disease, occurring in about one-third of cases.

Diagnosis

Parkinson’s disease is usually diagnosed clinically when an experienced neurologist observes the characteristic physical and neurologic symptoms. There are no tests to definitively confirm the disease but testing, such as a CT scan, MRI, or spinal tap, may be useful to rule out other diseases.

If the diagnosis is in doubt, a doctor may begin a trial of a Parkinson’s medication to see if it improves symptoms. If so, Parkinson’s disease is diagnosed.

Treatment

There is no known cure for Parkinson’s, but medical and nutritional therapies can decrease the symptoms and may slow the course of the disease.

The first step is to eliminate any drugs or medications that may be causing symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. These include antinausea medications, antipsychotic medications, reserpine, and others.

The most common medical drugs used to treat Parkinson’s disease are medications that mimic the effects of dopamine in the brain, most commonly levodopa (Sinemet). Other medications may also be useful, including bromocriptine, pergolide, entacapone, tolcapone, and selegeline.

Medications are also available to treat some of the specific symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. For example, benztropine may be effective to treat tremors. Clozapine or quetiapine may decrease hallucinations.

Physical, occupational, and speech therapies are usually very helpful for patients to improve activities of daily living, achieve or maintain independence, and interact better with their environment. Outside of therapy sessions, patients should try to maintain as active a lifestyle as possible.

There has been some coverage in the media of surgical treatments for Parkinson’s disease. While these may be helpful in treating advanced disease or in patients with specific symptoms (such as severe tremor or rigidity), they are not considered useful for most patients.

Parkinson’s Disease: Nutritional Considerations

Nutritional Considerations for Reducing Risk

Although there is no known cure for Parkinson’s disease, research studies are investigating whether dietary changes decrease the risk of disease. The following steps are under consideration:

Avoiding animal fat: Some studies have shown that Parkinson’s disease is more common in people who eat high levels of animal fat and saturated fat. Avoiding animal fat brings other benefits, of course, such as lower cholesterol and reduced risk of heart disease.
Avoiding dairy products: A large study (called the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study) found a higher risk for Parkinson’s disease in men who had high intake of dairy products. Researchers think this may be due to chemicals found in dairy products called tetrahydroisoquinolines. Further, dopamine neurons may be damaged by other chemicals in dairy products, including beta-carbolines, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls.
Drinking caffeinated beverages: Some studies have found that people who drink several cups of coffee or tea daily have a lowered risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. This may be related to the high levels of antioxidants in both tea and coffee.

Nutritional Considerations for More Effective Treatment

Dietary changes may also improve the effectiveness of medical treatment. In some patients, the standard levodopa medication may not successfully improve symptoms. If so, there are several nutritional changes that may help.

Eating a low-protein diet during the daytime can be helpful because protein may decrease the availability of levodopa to the brain.
In addition, vitamin supplements and foods high in vitamin B₆ (such as fortified cereals and grains, beans, meat, poultry, potatoes, and sweet potatoes) may also decrease the availability of levodopa to the brain. Therefore, limiting these foods and supplements may be useful.
Parkinson’s disease often causes weight loss. Patients should try to maintain a healthy body weight by eating regular meals and between-meal snacks that have sufficient calories from whole grains (100 percent whole oats, oat bran, bulgur, barley, brown rice), fruits, 100 percent fruit juices, and vegetables.
Patients may want to consult with a nutritionist for help in making healthy food choices.

Protein Required

Nutrient Needs In the United States the nutritional needs of the public are estimated and expressed in the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). These were initially established during World War II to determine in a time of possible shortage, what levels of nutrients were required to insure that the nutrition of the people would be safeguarded. The RDA are established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, whose members come from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. The first RDA were published in 1943 by a group known as the National Nutrition Program, a forerunner of the Food and Nutrition Board. Initially, the RDA were intended as a guide for planning and procuring food supplies for national defense. Now RDA are considered to be goals for the average daily amounts of nutrients that population groups should consume over a period of time. The RDA are the levels of intake of essential nutrients considered, in the judgement of the Food and Nutrition Board on the basis of available scientific knowledge, to meet the known nutrition needs of practically all healthy persons. The NAS-NRC recognizes that diets are more than combinations of nutrients and should satisfy social and psychological needs as well. As the needs for nutrients have been clearly defined, the RDA have been revise at roughly five year intervals. The Ninth Edition of the RDA was published in 1980. The Tenth Edition was due to be released in 1986, but controversy regarding some of its recommendations has delayed its publication. The requirements for a nutrient is the minimum intake that will maintain normal functions and health. In practice, estimates of nutrient requirements are determined by a number of techniques including:

Collection of data on nutrient intake from apparently normal, healthy people.
Determinations of the amount of nutrient required to prevent disease states (generally epidemiological data).
Biochemical assessments of tissue saturation or adequacy of molecular function.
Nutrient balance studies.
Studies of subjects on diets containing marginally low or deficient levels of nutrient followed by correction of the deficit with measured amounts of nutrient.
Animal studies.

Once the requirement. for a nutrient has been estimated, the following four steps in estimation of the recommended allowances may be utilized:

Estimation of the average requirement of a population for a nutrient and the variability of requirements within a population
Increasing the average requirement by an amount sufficient to meet the needs of nearly all members of the population.
Increasing the allowance to account for the inefficient utilization by the body of the nutrient consumed.
Using judgement in interpreting and extrapolating allowances when information on requirements is limited.

As an example of how RDA are determined, the following is a simplification of the calculations utilized to determine the 1980 RDA for protein for adult males. First it must be determined how much protein the average adult male loses each day so that the amount that has to be replaced by diet can be determined. These are based on a hypothetical individual known as the reference man. The reference man is considered to be 25 years old, to weigh 70 kg (154 lb), to be moderately active and to live where the mean temperature is 20°C (68°F). The reference female is considered to weigh 55 kg (110 lb). Numerous studies indicate that the following are the average losses of protein from the body of a healthy male: Nitrogen Loss from healthy males

Source of Loss	Loss (g)

Metabolic urine	16 g
Fecal material	5 g
Loss of skin, hair, etc.	2 g
Mnior (saliva, tec.	1 g

Total loss	24 g

The average man loses 24 grams of protein per day and hence, should need to consume 24 g/day to replace this loss. The RDA, however, attempts to meet the needs of almost all healthy people so a recommendation that was valid only for the average person is not made. Rather it is noted that when studying the protein needs of groups of males that one standard deviation is about 15%. If the need for protein are normally distributed, the two standard deviations should ensure that 97.5% of the population is receiving an adequate diet. Two standard deviations would be 30% for protein so the requirement was increased by 30%. 24 + 7.2 = 31.2 g/day We will later see that not all proteins are equally utilized and thus while 31.2 g/day should meet the needs of 97.5% of the adult male population, this population might be consuming proteins that are not ideal. To correct for this, the RDA was increased by 30%: Some studies indicate that protein consumed in mixed diets may not be utilized as well as those in experimental diets that these figures were based on. To be sure that this is not a problem, it is assumed that the proteins will be only 75% utilized: This is equal to about 0.8 g/kg body weight so the requirement for the reference man is: 70 x 0.8 = 56 grams of protein per day Note that this is not a minimum requirement or an average one. Rather it has many safeguards built in and is intended to cover practically all healthy people.

The Calcium Question

What About Calcium

Almost Everything You Want To Know
And Are Not Afraid To Ask

Click here for calcium charts

Tell someone you are vegan, and invariably the first question you are asked is “How do you get your protein?” If you have not already discovered it, we have simplified your response by providing answers to that query in ourProtein Basics.

Most likely, the second frequently asked question you’ll hear is “If you don’t eat dairy products, how do you get enough calcium?” In this article we endeavor to present common questions about calcium in the diet. Each question is answered with a quotation or quotations from those we consider reliable sources like physicians, dieticians, and researchers.

If after reading this article you find a dietary calcium question we have not addressed, send it to us so that we can research the answer and include it in this article.

Q: What is calcium?

A: “Calcium is a mineral that the body needs for numerous functions, including building and maintaining bones and teeth, blood clotting, the transmission of nerve inpulses, and the regulation of the heart’s rhythm. Ninety-nine percent of the calcium in the human body is stored in the bones and teeth. The remaining 1 percent is found in the blood and other tissues.”
Source: Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-full-story/#where
Q: How does the body acquire calcium?

A: “The body gets calcium it needs in two ways. One is by eating foods that contain calcium. Good sources include dairy products, which have the highest concentration per serving of highly absorbable calcium, and dark leafy greens or dried beans, which have varying amounts of absorbable calcium.

“The other way the body gets calcium is by pulling it from bones. This happens when the blood levels of calcium drop too low, usually when it’s been a while since having eaten a meal containing calcium. Ideally, the calcium that is ‘borrowed’ from the bones will be replaced at a later point. But, this doesn’t always happen. Most important, this payback can’t be accomplished simply by eating more calcium.”
Source: Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-full-story/#where
Q: How much calcium do I need?

A: According to the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institutes of Health, the amount needed varies by age group but not by sex. The chart below contains their recommendations:

Male & Female Age	Calcium (mg per day)
0 to 6 months	210
7 to 12 months	270
1 to 3 years	500
4 to 8 years	800
9 to 13 years	1300
14 to 18 years	1300
19 to 50 years	1000
5 1+ years	1200
Pregnant/Lactating Women	1000

Source: Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium.asp

Dr. John McDougall takes a different view. He writes, “Studies have shown that an intake of 150 to 200 mg of calcium daily is adequate to meet the needs of most people, even during pregnancy and lactation. And in fact, most of the world’s population injests 300 to 500 mg of calcium each day. Calcium is so efficiently absorbed by the human intestine and so sufficient in diets of mankind, that calcium deficiency of dietary origin is unknown in human beings.

“Only in those places where calcium and protein are eaten in relatively high quantities does a deficiency of bone calcium exist at such epidemic rates, due to an excess of animal protein.”
Source: The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart, 256
Q: Are most Americans meeting the recommended intake for calcium?

A: According to a Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals conducted by the US Department of Agriculture between the years 1994 and 1996, the following percentage of Americans did not meet the recommended intake for calcium:

44% boys and 58% girls ages 6 to 11
64% boys and 87% girls ages 12 to 19
55% of men and 78% of women ages 20+

Source: Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium.asp
Q: How can I recognize if I am deficient in calcium?

A: Dr. Holly Roberts says, “If you have a calcium deficiency, you may develop twitching, nerve sensitivity, brittle nails, insomnia, depression, numbness, and heart palpitations. Painful muscle cramps in the calves may occur often during pregnancy, particularly in women who are deficient in calcium.”
Source: Your Vegetarian Pregnancy, 111
Q: Are dairy products the best source of calcium?

A: Dr. Walter Willett says, ” Milk is clearly the most efficient way to get calcium from food, since it delivers almost 300 mg per eight-ounce glass. Few other foods come close to packing in that much calcium. But milk delivers more than just calcium, and some of its other components–like extra calories, saturated fat, and the sugar known as galactose–aren’t necessarily good for you. What’s more, as many as 50 million adults in the United States can’t completely digest the milk sugar known as lactose. Nor can most of the world’s population.

“Dairy products shouldn’t occupy the prominent place that they do in the USDA Pyramid, nor should they be the centerpiece of the national strategy to prevent osteoporosis. Instead, the evidence shows that dietary calcium should come from a variety of sources and, if more calcium is really needed, from cheap, no-calorie, easy-to-take supplements. Then you can look at dairy products as an optional part of a healthy diet and take them in moderation, if at all.”
Source: Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy, 139

Dr. Willett adds, “If no one really knows the best daily calcium target, then why not play it safe and boost your calcium by drinking three glasses a day? Here are five good reasons: lactose intolerance, saturated fat, extra calories, a possible increased risk of prostate cancer, and a possible increased risk of ovarian cancer.” Source: Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy, 144

Dr. Neal Barnard writes, “Dairy products contain sex hormones, too. Farmers keep dairy cattle pregnant virtually constantly. This keeps their milk production high. The hormones circulating in a pregnant cow’s blood easily pass into her milk. In fact, one of the ways farmers test whether their cows are pregnant or not is to measure estrogens in their milk. You cannot taste them, but they are there. These hormones end up in milk regardless of whether the farmer gives extra hormones to the cow; the cow makes them herself and they go straight into her milk. Several population studies have shown a correlation between dairy product consumption and breast cancer incidence.”
Source: Eat Right, Live Longer, 71-72
Q: Will consuming dairy products protect me from developing osteoporosis?

Dr. Fuhrman says, “Hip fractures and osteoporosis are more frequent in populations in which dairy products are commonly consumed and calcium intakes are commonly high. For example, American women drink thirty to thirty-two times as much cow’s milk as the New Guineans, yet suffer forty-seven times as many broken hips. A multicountry analysis of hip-fracture incidence and dairy-product consumption found that milk consumption has a high statistical association with higher rates of hip fractures.”
Source: Eat to Live, 84

Dr. T. Colin Cambell says: “Americans consume more cow’s milk and its products per person than most populations in the world. So Americans should have wonderfully strong bones, right? Unfortunately not. A recent study showed that American women aged fifty and older have one of the highest rates of hip fractures in the world. The only countries with higher rates are in Europe and in the South Pacific (Australia and New Zealand) where they consume even more milk than the United States.”
Source: The China Study, 204

Dr. Fuhrman states, “There are many good reasons not to consume dairy. For example, there is a strong association between dairy lactose and ischemic heart disease. There is also a clear association between high-growth-promoting foods such as dairy products and cancer. There is a clear association between milk consumption and testicular cancer. Dairy fat is also loaded with various toxins and is the primary source of our nation’s high exposure to dioxin. Dioxin is a highly toxic chemical compound that even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admits is a prominent cause of many types of cancer in those consuming dairy fat, such as butter and cheese. Cheese is also a power inducer of acid load, which increases calcium loss further. Considering that cheese and butter are the foods with the highest saturated fat content and a major source of our dioxin exposure, cheese is a particularly foolish choice for obtaining calcium.”
Eat to Live, 88-89
Q: What role does phosphorus play in calcium deficiency?

A: Dr. Holly Roberts says, “Calcium deficiency can occur, not only if your diet is low in calcium, but also if your diet is high in phosphorus. The ratio of calcium to phosphorus in your bones is 2.5 to 1. If your diet includes higher levels of calcium than phosphorus, it is more likely that you will maintain this healthy ratio and healthy bones. To do this, it is best if you maintain a ratio of phosphorous to calcium within your diet of 1:1. The diet of many Americans contains a phosphorous-to-calcium ratio of 4:1. Calcium is a positive ion, which means it will bind with negative ions. Foods that contain phosphorus form negative ions. So if you have excess phosphorus in your diet, it will bind calcium to it and you will excrete both of these minerals. If such a situation develops, you may actually lose more calcium than you took in, and you will deplete the calcium stored in your bones. Phosphorus is present in carbonated drinks, meat, eggs, and cheese spreads.

“You will absorb higher levels of calcium if your diet contains adequate amounts of vitamin D, magnesium, dairy products, and vitamin C. Regular exercise helps the body absorb calcium. However, if you follow a high-fat or high-protein diet that is rich in phosphorus, it will be more difficult for your body to absorb calcium.”
Source: Your Vegetarian Pregnancy, 111
Q: What happens if I get too much calcium?

A: The Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University states, “Abnormally elevated blood calcium (hypercalcemia) resulting from the over consumption of calcium has never been documented to occur from foods, only from calcium supplements. Mild hypercalcemia may be without symptoms, or may result in the loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, dry mouth, thirst, and frequent urination. More severe hypercalcemia may result in confusion, delirium, coma, and if not treated, death. Hypercalcemia has been reported only with the consumption of large quantities of calcium supplements usually in combination with antacids, particularly in the days when peptic ulcers were treated with large quantities of milk, calcium carbonate (antacid) and sodium bicarbonate (absorbable alkali). The condition was termed milk alkalai syndrome, and has been reported at calcium supplement levels from 1.5 to 16.5 grams/day for 2 days to 30 years. Since the treatment for peptic ulcers has changed, the incidence of this syndrome has decreased considerably.
Source: “Calcium.” Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/calcium
Q: If I follow a vegan diet, do I need as much calcium as people on the Standard American Diet?

A: Registered dieticians Vesanto Melina and Brenda Davis write: Recommended Calcium
Adequate Intake

Adequate Intakes of Calcium for Adults

Age	AI calcium, mg
19-50 years	1000
Over 50 years	1200

“Because calcium needs are influenced by a host of factors, it is extremely difficult for nutrition experts to determine exactly how much calcium an individual needs to function at optimum levels and to continue into old age with healthy, strong bones. In fact, it has been such a challenge that the recommendations are now called ‘Adequate Intakes’ (AI) and are a sort of ‘best guess,’ used when there is insufficient data to make a firm recommendation. These Adequate Intakes may seem high. Remember that they are based on the needs of the general North American population, with high amounts of sodium and meat-centered diets providing much more protein than needed. To make things worse, the population is largely sedentary, a factor that works against the retention of minerals in bones.

“It is possible that the calcium requirements of vegans and of other vegetarians are lower than the general population, particularly if:

protein intakes are adequate and yet closer to recommendations
sodium intake is not over 2,400 mg/day, on average;
there is regular participation in weight-bearing exercise.

“However, note that salt, tamari, and miso are vegan food ingredients. Though plant proteins are somewhat lower in sulfur-containing amino acids, vegans should not assume they are protected from osteoporosis because of lower protein intakes.” Source: Becoming Vegan, 95
Q: How much calcium do we absorb from the foods we eat?

Melina and Davis point out, “On average, North Americans absorb about 30% of the calcium that is present in our diets, but when you take into account the amounts lost in urine and feces, the actual amount we retain may be as low as 10% of what was in our food. From the calcium that makes its way into our bodies, there can be substantial losses, depending on certain characteristics of our diet, particularly the protein and sodium contents. A single fast food hamburger could result in calcium losses of about 23 mg. However, if we retain only 10% of what was in our diet, that one burger would, in effect, increase dietary calcium needs by 230 mg.”
Source: Becoming Vegan, 93

Dr. John McDougall says: “Humans have a highly efficient intestinal tract that, under almost every circumstance, will absorb the correct amount of calcium to meet the body’s needs. The intestinal cells act as regulators for the amount of calcium that enters the body. When the calcium content of the diet is low, a relatively higher percentage of calcium will be absorbed from the foods. If the diet is high in calcium, a smaller percentage of the calcium will be absorbed. But the body’s need is always the controlling factor regulating the entry of calcium into the cells of the intestinal wall.”
Source: The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart, 255-256
Q: What triggers the body to pull calcium from the bones?

A: Dr. Fuhrman provides the following list:

Dietary Factors That Induce Calcium Loss in the Urine

animal protein

salt

caffeine

refined sugar

alcohol

nicotine

aluminum-containing antactids

drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, thyroid hormone

vitamin A supplements

Source: Eat To Live, 86

Dr. Neal Barnard provides his list:

CALCIUM DEPLETERS

Animal protein
Caffeine
Excess phosporus (sodas, animal products)
Sodium (animal products, canned or snack foods)
Tobacco
Sedentary lifestyle

Source: Eat Right, Live Longer, 167

Davis and Melina say, “When the kidneys excrete excess sodium, 23 to 26 mg of calcium is lost along with every gram of sodium excreted.”
Source: Becoming Vegan, 94
Q: Why is a vegetarian diet better for bone health?

A: Dr. Neal Barnard explains: “A meat-based diet is disastrous for bones. Switching from beef to chicken or fish does not help because these products have as much animal protein as beef or even a bit more. Bodybuilders and others who take protein supplements have even greater calcium losses. The problem is not just the amount of protein in meats but also the type. Meats are loaded with what are called sulfur-containing amino acids, which are especially aggressive at causing calcium to be lost in the urine.”
Source: Eat Right, Live Longer, 162-163

In looking at calcium loss, Dr. Joel Fuhrman states, “Published data clearly links increased urinary excretion of calcium with animal-protein intake but not with vegetable-protein intake. Plant foods, though some may be high in protein, are not acid-forming. Animal-protein ingestion results in a heavy acid load in the blood. This sets off a series of reactions whereby calcium is released from the bones to help neutralize the acid. The sulfur-based amino acids in animal products contribute significantly to urinary acid production and the resulting calcium loss. The Nurses Health Study found that women who consumed 95 grams of protein a day had a 22% greater risk of forearm fracture than those who consumed less than 68 grams.”
Source: Eat To Live, 86

Dr. Dean Ornish says, “The real cause of osteoporosis in this country is not insufficient calcium intake, it’s excessive excretion of calcium in the urine. Even calcium supplementation is often not enough to make up for the increased calcium excretion. Vegetarians, in contrast, excrete much less calcium, and this is why they have very low rates of osteoporosis even though their dietary intake of calcium is lower than those on a meat-eating diet.”
Source: Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease, 301
Q: What are good food sources for calcium?

A: “Dairy products are not the healthiest source,” says Dr. Neal Barnard. “They do contain calcium, but only about 30% of it is absorbed. The remaining 70% never makes it past the intestinal wall and is simply excreted with the feces. Dairy products have many other undesirable features, including animal proteins that contribute to some cases of arthritis and respiratory problems, lactose sugar that is linked to cataracts, frequent traces of antibiotics, and other problems that lead many doctors to suggest that we avoid them and get calcium from healthier sources.

“The healthiest calcium sources are ‘greens and beans.’ Green leafy vegetables are loaded with calcium. One cup of broccoli has 178 milligrams of calcium. What’s more, the calcium in broccoli and most other green leafy vegetables is more absorbable than the calcium in milk. An exception is spinach, which has a form of calcium that is not well absorbed.”

“Beans, lentils, and other legumes are also loaded with calcium. We think of beans as a humble food, but they are an extraordinary source of nutrition. They have calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, the cholesterol-lowering soluble fiber that many people thought was only in oat bran, and healthy complex carbohydrates. If you make green vegetables and beans regular parts of your diet, you’ll get two excellent sources of calcium.”
Source: Eat Right, Live Longer, 168

Dr. Fuhrman agrees by writing, “You do not need dairy products to get sufficient calcium if you eat a healthy diet. All unprocessed natural foods are calcium-rich; even a whole orange (not orange juice) has about 60 mg of calcium.”
Source: Eat to Live, 89-90

Dr. John McDougall says, “A vegetable-based diet is rich in calcium and all the other nutrients the body needs. Let’s not forget that the original source of all calcium is the earth, and plants make this mineral available to animals, including humans, in delicious, digestible packages. That’s where all the animals get it and you can, too.”
Source: The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart, 256
Q: Is milk the best source of calcium for infants and young children?

A: Dr. Charles Attwood says, “Infants fed whole cow’s milk have low intakes of iron, linoleic acid, and vitamin E, and excessive intakes of sodium, potassium, and protein, illustrating the poor nutritional compatability of solid foods and whole cow’s milk.

“Whole cow’s milk displaces some and, in many cases, most solids in this age group. I regularly find children in my practice over the age of 1 year who consume up to a half-gallon of cow’s milk daily and barely any solids at all. This leads to respiratory allergies, obesity, iron deficiency anemia, and, not least of all, elevated cholesterol levels due to the excess of saturated fat.”
Source: Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription for Kids, 64-65

Dr. John McDougall says, “Dairy protein can cause severe constipation. A 1998 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at sixty-five severely constipated children averaging only one bowel movement every three to fifteen days. Though these children did not respond to strong laxatives (lactulose and mineral oil), forty-four of the sixty-five (68%) found relief of their constipation by removing cow’s milk from their diet. Related problems, such as inflammation of the bowel, anal fissures, and pain, were all resolved as well with the elimination of cow’s milk. When cow’s milk was reintroduced into their diet eight to twelve months later, all of the children redeveloped constipation within five to ten days.”
Source: Dr. McDougall’s Digestive Tune-Up, 73, 75
Q: What role does Vitamin D play in relation to calcium?

A: In Becoming Vegan the authors write, “Vitamin D is a major player in a team of nutrients and hormones that keep blood calcium at optimal levels and support bone health during growth and throughout life. It stimulates the absorption of the bone-building minerals calcium and phosphorus from the intestine and helps regulate the amount of calcium in bone. It is important for proper functioning of cells throughout the body (in muscle, nerves, and glands) that depend on calcium. If more blood calcium is needed, vitamin D is able to act in three places:

to reduce urinary calcium losses via the kidneys;
to absorb calcium from food more efficiently in the digestive tract;
to draw calcium from our bones, which serve as a storehouse of calcium.

Source: Becoming Vegan, 133-134
Q: How is vitamin K related to calcium?

A: Dr. Walter Willett writes, “Until recently, vitamin K was thought to be necessary mostly for the formation of proteins that regulate blood clotting. It turns out, though, that this fat-soluble vitamin also plays one or more roles in the regulation of calcium and the formation and stabilization of bone. So too little vitamin K may help set the stage for osteoporosis. In the Nurses’ Health Study, women who got more than 109 micrograms of vitamin K a day were 30 percent less likely to break a hip than women who got less than that amount. Vitamin K is mainly found in green vegetables such as dark green lettuce, broccoli, spinach, Brussels sprouts, and kale. Eating one or more servings of these foods a day should give you enough vitamin K.
Source: Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy, 150

Editors’ Note: Most of the values in the charts below can be found in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Referencehttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Calcium in Raw Nuts
and Seeds (shelled)
Nut/Seed (1 ounce)	Calcium Milligrams
Almonds (23)	70.0
Brazil nuts (6 to 8)	45.0
Cashews (18)	10.0
Chestnuts, Chinese boiled	3.0
Chestnut, European boiled	13.0
Chestnuts, Japanese roasted	10.0
Coconut meat, dried unsweetened	7.4
Hazelnuts/Filberts (21)	32.0
Flaxseeds (tablespoon ground)	18.0
Macadamias (10 to 12)	24.0
Peanuts, dry roasted	15.0
Pecans (19 halves)	20.0
Pine nuts	2.0
Pistachio (49)	30.0
Pumpkin seed (142)	12.0
Sesame seed, roasted	37.0
Sunflower seed, roasted	16.0
Walnut, black	17.0
Walnut, English (14 halves)	28.0
Watermelon seed, dried	15. 0

Calcium in Beans
(dried, cooked)
Bean 1 cup	Calcium Milligrams
Adzuki Beans (Aduki)	64.0
Black Beans	46.0
Black-eyed Peas (Cowpeas)	39.0
Cranberry Beans	88.0
Fava Beans (Broadbeans)	61.0
Garbanzos (Chickpeas)	80.0
Great Northern Beans	120.0
Kidney Beans	50.0
Lentils	38.0
Lima Beans, large	32.0
Mung Beans	15.0
Navy Beans	126.0
Pink Beans	88.0
Pinto Beans	79.0
Soybeans	175.0
Split Peas	27.0

Calcium in Grains
(cooked)
Grain 1 cup	Calcium Milligrams
Amaranth	276.0
Barley, pearled	17.0
Buckwheat groats (kasha)	12.0
Bulgur Wheat	18.0
Hominy, canned	16.0
Millet, hulled	5.0
Oat bran	22.0
Rice, brown (long grain)	20.0
Rice, white	16.0
Rice, wild	5.0
Wheat, sprouted	30.0
Wheat bran, crude	42.0
Wheat germ. toasted	51.0

Calcium in Meat, Chicken, Fish
Substitutes*
Product	Serving Size	Calcium Milligrams
Boca Burger Original Vegan	2.5 ounces	60
Dr. Praeger’s Veggie Burgers	3 ounces	40
Health is Wealth Chicken-Free Patties	3 ounces	120
Lightlife Gimme Lean	2 ounces	40 to 60
Lightlife Ground Round	2 ounces	80
Lightlife Breakfast Links	2 links (2 ounces)	60
Soyrizo Chorizo	2 ounces	60
White Wave Tempeh	3 ounces	60
Yves Meatless Beef Burger	3 ounces	60
Yves Meatless Chicken Burgers	3 ounces	80
Yves Veggie Breakfast Patties	2 ounces	60
Yves Veggie Breakfast Links	3 ounces	80

*All items vegan

Calcium in Ready-to Eat Cereals
Cereal	Cup	Calcium Milligrams
General Mills Basic 4	1	250.0
General Mills Cheerios	1	100.0
General Mills Fiber One	1	200.0
General Mills Total	3/4	258.0
General Mills Total Corn Flakes	1 1/3	1000.0
General Mills Total Raisin Bran	1	1000.0
General Mills Wheaties	1	20.0
Kellogg’s All-Bran	1/2	121.0
Kellogg’s Product 19	1	5.0
Kellogg’s Raisin Bran	1	29.0
Kellogg’s Rice Krispies	1	2.0
Kellogg’s Special K	1	9.0
Post Grape Nuts	1/2	20.0
Post 100% Bran	1/3	22.0
Post Raisin Bran	1	30.0
Post Shredded Wheat	1 1/4	27.0
Quaker Cinnmon Life	1	138.0
Quaker Oat Bran	1 1/4	109.0
Quaker Oat Life Plain	3/4	112.0
Quaker 100% Natural Granola Oats & Honey	1/2	61.0

Calcium in Fresh Vegetables
(cooked)
Vegetable	Serving	Calcium Milligrams
Artichokes	medium	54.0
Asparagus	1/2 cup	21.0
Beans, Green	1 cup	55.0
Beet greens	1 cup	164.0
Beets, sliced	1 cup	28.0
Bok Choy (Chinese Cabbage)	1 cup	158.0
Broccoli, chopped	1/2 cup	31.0
Broccoli, Chinese	1 cup	88.0
Broccoli raab (Rapini)	1 bunch	516.0
Brussels Sprouts	1/2 cup	28.0
Cabbage, Green	1/2 cup	36.0
Cabbage, Red	1/2 cup	32.0
Cabbage, Savoy	1 cup	44.0
Carrots, sliced	1/2 cup	23.0
Cauliflower	1/2 cup	10.0
Celeriac	1 cup	40.0
Celery	1 cup diced	63.0
Chayote	1 cup	21.0
Collards	1 cup	266.0
Corn, Sweet	1 large ear	2.0
Dandelion Greens	1 cup	147.0
Eggplant	1 cup	6.0
Kale	1 cup	94.0
Kale, Scotch	1 cup	172.0
Kohlrabi,slices	1 cup	41.0
Leeks	1 medium	37.0
Okra, sliced	1/2 cup	62.0
Onions	1 cup	46.0
Parsnips	1/2 cup	29.0
Peas	1/2 cup	43.0
Peppers, green bell	1/2 cup	6.0
Potato medium, baked with skin	2 1/4″ x 3 1/4″	26.0
Potato, boiled with skin	1/2 cup	4.0
Snow Peas	1 cup	94.0
Spinach	1 cup	245.0*
Squash, Acorn	1 cup cubed	90.0
Squash, Butternut	1 cup cubed	84.0
Squash, Crookneck	1 cup cubed	40.0
Squash, Hubbard	1 cup cubed	35.0
Squash, pattypan (summer scallop)	1 cup sliced	27.0
Squash, Spaghetti	1 cup	33.0
Squash, Winter	1 cup	29.0
Sweet Potato	1 medium with skin (2″ x 5″)	43.0
Swiss Chard	1 cup chopped	102*
Tomato, Stewed	1 cup	26.0
Turnip mashed	1 cup	26.0
Turnip greens	1 cup chopped	197.0
Zucchini	1 cup sliced	23.0

*Oxalates prevent the complete absorption of calcium.

Lettuce, romaine shredded

Calcium in Fresh Vegetables
(raw)
Vegetable	Serving	Calcium Milligrams
Artichoke	medium	56.0
Asparagus	1 cup	32.0
Beans, green	1 cup	41.0
Beans, kidney (Sprouted)	1 cup	31.0
Beans, mung (Sprouted)	1 cup	14.0
Beans, navy (Sprouted)	1 cup	16.0
Beets	1 cup	22.0
Broccoli	1/2 cup	21.0
Broccoli, Chinese	1 cup	88.0
Brussels Sprouts	1 cup	37.0
Cabbage, Chinese (Bok choy) shredded	1 cup	74.0
Cabbage, Chinese (Pe tsai) shredded	1 cup	59.0
Cabbage, green shredded	1 cup	28.0
Cabbage, red shredded	1 cup	32.0
Cabbage, savoy shredded	1 cup	24.0
Carrot, chopped	1 cup	42.0
Cauliflower	1 cup	22.0
Celeriac	1 cup	67.0
Celery, chopped	1 cup	40.0
Chayote, 1” pieces	1 cup	22.0
Collards, chopped	1 cup	52.0
Corn, Sweet	1 large ear	3.0
Dandelion Greens, chopped	1 cup	103.0
Fennel	1 medium bulb	115.0
Kale, chopped	1 cup	90.0
Kohlrabi	1 cup	32.0
Leeks	1 cup	53.0
Lettuce, butter shredded	1 cup	19.0
Lettuce, green leaf shredded	1 cup	13.0
Lettuce, iceberg shredded	1 cup	13.0
Lettuce, red leaf shredded	1 cup	9.0
1 cup	16.0
Mustard Greens, chopped	1 cup	58.0
Okra	1 cup	81.0
Onions, chopped	1 cup	37.0
Parsnips, sliced	1 cup	48.0
Peas	1 cup	42.0
Peppers, bell, chopped	1 cup	15.0
Radish, red sliced	1 cup	29.0
Radish, White Icicle	1/2 cup	14.0
Snow Peas	1 cup	27.0
Spinach	1 cup	30.0*
Squash, acorn cubed	1 cup	46
Squash, butternut cubed	1 cup	67
Squash, crookneck cubed	1 cup	27
Squash, hubbard cubed	1 cup	16
Squash, spaghetti	1 cup	23.0
Sweet Potato, cubes	1 cup	40.0
Swiss Chard*	1 cup	18.0*
Tomato	3 inch	18.0
Turnip, cubes	1 cup	39.0
Turnip greens	1 cup	104.0
Zucchini, chopped	1 cup	19.0

*Oxalates prevent the complete absorption of calcium.

Calcium in Fruits
(raw)
Fruit	Serving	Calcium Milligrams
Apple	2 per pound	13.0
Apricot	1 medium	5.0
Avocado, California	1 medium	18.0
Avocado, Florida	1 mediium	30.0
Banana	9 inch	8.0
Blackberries	1 cup	42.0
Blueberries	1 cup	9.0
Boysenberries	1 cup frozen	36.0
Cantaloupe	1 cup cubed	17.6
Casaba Melon	1 cup cubed	14.0
Cherimoya (Custard Apple)	1 fruit	25.0
Cherries	1 cup	19.0
Cranberries	1 cup raw whole	8.0
Currants, Black	1 cup	62.0
Currants, Red/White	1 cup	37.0
Durian	1 cup chopped	15.0
Feijoa	1 med. trimmed	8.0
Fig	1 large (2.5″) fig	22.0
Gooseberry	1 cup	38.0
Grape, Red or Green	1 cup	15.0
Grapefruit, Pink	1	15.0
Grapefruit, Red	1/2	27.0
Grapefruit. White	1/2	14.0
Guava	1 cup chopped	30.0
Guava, Strawberry	1 cup chopped	51.0
Honeydew	1 cup cubed	11.0
Jackfruit	1 cup siced	56.0
Kiwi	1 large	31.0
Kumquat	1 medium	12.0
Lemon	1 fruit 2 3/8 “	22.0
Lime	1 lime 2″	22.1
Loganberries	1 cup frozen	38.0
Loquat	1 medium	3.0
Mango	1 cup sliced	16.0
Mulberry	1 cup	54.6
Nectarine	1 fruit 2.5″	9.0
Orange, Florida	1 fruit 2 5/8″	61.0
Orange, navel	1 fruit 2 7/8″	48.0
Orange, valencia	1 fruit 2 5/8″	60.0
Papaya	1 cup cubed	34.0
Peach	1 medium 2 2/3″	9.0
Pear	1 pear medium	16.0
Persimmon	1 fruit 2.5″	7.0
Pineapple	1 cup diced	20.0
Plum	1 plum 2 1/8″	4.0
Pomegranate	1 fruit 3 3/8″	5.0
Prickly Pear	1 medium	58.0
Quince	1 medium	10.0
Raspberries	1 cup	31.0
Sapodilla	1 medium	36.0
Sapote (marmalade plum)	1 medium	88.0
Starfruit (carambola)	1 fruit 4.5″	4 .0
Strawberries	1 cup whole	23.0
Tangerine (mandarin orange)	1 fruit 2.5″	33.0
Watermelon	1 cup diced	11.0

Calcium in Dried Fruits
Fruit	Serving	Calcium Milligrams
Apples	1/2 cup	6.0
Apricots	1/2 cup halves	36.0
Banana chips	1 1/2 ounces	8.0
Cranberries, dried sweetened/TD>	1/3 cup	4.0
Currants, zante	1/2 cup	62.0
Dates, deglet noor	1/2 cup pitted chopped	34.5
Dates, medjool	1 date	15.0
Figs	1/2 cup chopped	120.5
Peaches	1/2 cup halves	22.4
Pears	1/2 cup halves	22.5
Persimmons, Japanese	1 fruit	8.0
Prunes	1/2 cup pitted	37.5
Raisins, dark	1/2 cup	36.0
Raisins, golden	1/2 cup	43.5

Calcium in Nut/Seed Butters
Nut/Seed (1 Tablespoon)	Calcium Milligrams
Almond	43.0
Cashew	7.0
Peanut	7.0
Sesame Tahini	64

Calcium in Milk Substitutes
Beverage 1 cup	Calcium Milligrams
Soy milk, fortified	200.0 to 368.0
Soy milk, unfortified	93.0
Rice milk, Fortified	250 to 300
Almond, Fortified	200 to 300
Hazelnut, Fortified	300
Hempmilk	460

Calcium in Soy Products
Product	Serving Size	Calcium Milligrams
Baked Tofu Medium to Extra Firm	3 ounces	100 to 150
Tofu with calcium Medium to Extra Firm	3 ounces	100 to 150
Tofu Soft or Silken	3 ounces	20 to 40
Tempeh	3 ounces	60
Textured Vegetable Protein TVP	1/4 cup	80
Soy Yogurt	8 ounces	150 to 300

Calcium in Miscellaneous Products
Product	Serving Size	Calcium Milligrams
Blackstrap Molasses	1 tablespoon	172
Orange Juice, Fortified	8 ounce glass	300

About the Experts

Dr. Charles R. Attwood (deceased) was a board certified pediatrician and Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He practiced medicine for thirty-five years–first in San Francisco, and then in Crowley, Louisiana. He is the author of Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription For Kids and wrote hundreds of newspaper articles on the health effects of nutrition and fitness. Dr. Attwood co-authored a regular column with Dr. Benjamin Spock in the nationally respected publication, New Century Nutrition, and worked as a consultant with Dr. Spock to revise the nutrition sections of the classic, Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care.He was selected as a faculty member of the American Academy of Nutrition and a guest lecturer at Cornell University.

Dr. Neal D. Barnard is an adjunct associate professor of medicine at George Washington University of Medicine and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages tougher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. He is the author of numerous books includingFoods That Fight Pain, Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes, Breaking the Food Seduction, Turn Off the Fat Genes, and Eat Right, Live Longer.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has been a nutritional researcher for over 40 years and served as director of the China Study, the most comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle, and disease ever done with humans in the history of biomedical research. The New York Times described the project as the “Grand Prix of Epidemiology.”

Brenda Davis is a registered dietitian and co-author of Becoming Vegetarian.and Becoming Vegan. Her other books include Dairy-free, and Delicious, Defeating Diabetes and The New Becoming Vegetarian. She is a past chairperson of the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group of the American Dietetic Assocation.

Dr. Joel Fuhrman is a board-certified family physician who specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional and natural methods. He devotes his career to applying the comprehensive body of scientific literature that establishes that disease has known nutritional and environmental causes. Dr. Fuhrman is the author of Eat to Live, Fasting and Eating for Health, andDisease-Proof Your Child.

Dr. John McDougall is certified as an internist by the Board of Internal Medicine and the National Board of Medical Examiners. He is a renowned physician and researcher, lecturer, radio and television personality, and author of numerous best-selling health books like The McDougall Plan: 12 Days to Dynamic Health, McDougall’s Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion, The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, The New McDougall Cookbook, The McDougall Program for Women, and The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart. Dr. McDougall is the founder and medical director of the nationally renowned McDougall Program, a ten-day, residential program located at a luxury resort in Santa Rosa, California.

Vesanto Melina is a registered dietitian and co-author of Becoming Vegetarian.and Becoming Vegan. She coordinated the vegetarian section of the Manual of Clinical Dietetics, 6th edition, a joint project of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. She has taught nutrition at University of British Columbia and Bastyr University.

Dr. Dean Ornish is the founder, president, and director of the non-profit Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, where he holds the Bucksbaum Chair. He is Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. For the past 25 years, Dr. Ornish has directed clinical research demonstrating, for the first time, that comprehensive lifestyle changes may begin to reverse even severe coronary heart disease, without drugs or surgery. He is the author of five best-selling books, including New York Times’ bestsellers Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease, Eat More, Weigh Less, and Love & Survival. He recently directed the first randomized controlled trial demonstrating that comprehensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer.

Dr. Holly Roberts is board certified in obstetrics and Gynecology and Pathology. She has advanced fellowship training in cancer surgery and is a cofounder of a nonprofit series on health and wellness.

Dr. Walter C. Willett is a Frederick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition and chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School. A world-renownd researcher, he is one of the leaders of the famous Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

References

Attwood, Charles R. Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription for Kids. New York: Viking, 1995.

Barnard, Neal. Eat Right, Live Longer: Using the Natural Power of Foods to Age-Proof Your Body. New York: Harmony Books, 1995.

Campbell, T. Colin with Thomas M. Campbell II. The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health. Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, 2004.

Davis, Brenda and Vesanto Melina. Becoming Vegan: the Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant-based Diet. Summertown, Tennessee: Book Publishing Co., 2000.

Fuhrman, Joel. Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. Boston: Little Brown, 2003.

Harvard School of Public Health. “Calcium & Milk.”http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-full-story/#where

Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. “Calcium.”http:lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/calcium

McDougall, John A. Dr. McDougall’s Digestive Tune-Up. Summertown, Tennessee: Healthy Living Publications, 2006.

McDougall, John A. Recipes by Mary McDougall The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart: a Life Safing Approach to Preventing and Treating Heart Disease. New York: Dutton, 1996.

National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. “Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Calcium.” Source: http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium.asp

The NutriBase Nutrition Facts Desk Reference. New York: Avery, 2001.

Ornish, Dean. Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease: the Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs or Surgery. New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.

Roberts, Holly. Your Vegetarian Pregnancy: a Month-by-Month Guide to Health and Nutrition. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003.

USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Referencehttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Willett, Walter C. Eat, Drink and Be Healthy: the Harvard Medical School Guide to Healty Eating. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

Category: Articles

When Friends Ask: Where Do You Get Your Protein?

How Plant-Based Diets May Extend Our Lives

News

Rice Diet Founder Dr. Walter Kempner

The War On Cancer

Contents

Overview

Failure of toxic “therapies”

Cancer for profit

NCI & clinical trials for hydrazine sulfate

American Cancer Society

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Cancer United

Cancer & animal testing

Cancer & diet

Food Additives & adulteration

Animal products & health issues

The prostate cancer predicament

For many men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the treatment may be worse than the disease

“One of the biggest challenges in oncology is to distinguish men who have a potentially lethal form of prostate cancer from those with a more slow-growing disease.”
—Lorelei Mucci, ScD ’03, associate professor of epidemiology

What may protect against advanced prostate cancer?

Reducing the harm caused by screening mammography

Public health takes aim at sugar and salt

HSPH FEATURES

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s Disease

Symptoms

Diagnosis

Treatment

Parkinson’s Disease: Nutritional Considerations

Nutritional Considerations for Reducing Risk

Nutritional Considerations for More Effective Treatment

Protein Required

The Calcium Question

What About Calcium

Share this:

News

Share this:

Share this:

Contents

Overview

Failure of toxic “therapies”

Cancer for profit

NCI & clinical trials for hydrazine sulfate

American Cancer Society

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Cancer United

Cancer & animal testing

Cancer & diet

Food Additives & adulteration

Animal products & health issues

Share this:

For many men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the treatment may be worse than the disease

“One of the biggest challenges in oncology is to distinguish men who have a potentially lethal form of prostate cancer from those with a more slow-growing disease.” —Lorelei Mucci, ScD ’03, associate professor of epidemiology

What may protect against advanced prostate cancer?

HSPH FEATURES

Parkinson’s Disease

Symptoms

Diagnosis

Treatment

Parkinson’s Disease: Nutritional Considerations

Nutritional Considerations for Reducing Risk

Nutritional Considerations for More Effective Treatment

Share this:

What About Calcium

Share this:

“One of the biggest challenges in oncology is to distinguish men who have a potentially lethal form of prostate cancer from those with a more slow-growing disease.”
—Lorelei Mucci, ScD ’03, associate professor of epidemiology