Do We Need Supplements Because Our Soils are Depleted?

In my recent review of The Blood Sugar Solution, I noted the numerous supplements recommended by Dr. Mark Hyman: between 11 and 16 supplements.  And one of those supplements is a multivitamin/multimineral supplement that has 20 or so different components.

One reason we need the supplements, according to Dr. Hyman, is because the soils in which we grow food over the years has been depleted of minerals and other basic plant building blocks.

I know one doctor who told his patients the same thing while selling them over-priced supplements straight from his office.  According to the reviews of Dr. Hyman’s book at Amazon.com, Dr. Hyman sells supplements at his website.  The guy’s got an impressive marketing machine!

So is there any truth to the “soil depletion” argument for supplements?

Not much, if any, according to Monica Reinagel.  She reviewed the topic in 2010 at her Nutrition Diva blog: http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/are-fruits-and-vegetables-getting-less-nutritious.aspx.  I trust Monica.  In the same article, you’ll find links to her opinion on whether organic vegetables are healthier and worth the cost.

I’ve not done a comprehensive review of the soil depletion issue myself.   It’s quite a difficult area to research; try it and you’ll see.  The Soil Science Society of America, founded in 1936, sounds like a great place to find the answer.  No such luck.

The U.S. is a huge country with lots of different soil types and usage histories.   Soils in one field may be depleted in certain components whereas the field across the road may be quite rich.  Soils are not static.  Farmers are always making amendments to the soil, either with fertilizers or other additives, or by rotating crops.

Wouldn’t you think farmers, whether small family units or huge corporate enterprises, would do what’s necessary to keep their soils productive?

Another way to look at soil depletion would be to look at the nutrient content of the plants and animals that depend on soil for life.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture did that in its 2004 publication, “Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Suppy, 1909-2000.”  This paper includes 10 vitamins and nine minerals.  For the boring details, see   http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2000.pdf.   Some excerpts:

Levels for most vitamins and minerals were higher in 2000 than in 1909.

Levels for vitamin B12 and potassium were lower in 2000 than in 1909, but over the series, met or exceeded current recommendations for a healthy diet….

The authors attibute lower potassium availability to lower consumption of plant foods, especially fresh potatoes.  I’m increasingly interested in the possibilty that low potassium consumption may contribute to heart disease and premature death.  But that’s a topic for another day.

I’m skeptical about claims of widespread soil depletion in the U.S. as a cause of food supply degradation.  Supplement sellers are sure to disagree.  To be sure you’re getting the nutrients you need, eat a wide variety of foods.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: The American Council on Science and Health has a brief article on whether everybody needs a multivitamin/multimineral supplement.

New research is questioning the benefits of taking supplemental vitamins and minerals, suggesting that, for the general population, such supplements may actually pose more risks than benefits.

Click for the full article: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.3067/news_detail.asp

PPS:  Oregon State University’s Linus Pauling Institute published a long article on the multivitamin/multimineral supplement issue.  It seems fairly balanced to me.  The Institute notes the 2006 National Institutes of Health assessment that we have insufficient evidence to recommend either for  or against such supplementation (Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(5), 2006: 364-371).  Nevertheless, the Linus Pauling Institute recommends supplementation as “insurance.”  You know, just in case.

3 Comments

Filed under Supplements

Chronic Alcohol May Impair Vision in Diabetics

MedPage Today reported that long-term consumption of alcohol may impair vision in diabetics.  Drinkers performed less well on vision chart tests than non-drinkers. It’s not a diabetic retinopathy issue.

Beer and distilled spirits were riskier than wine.

The MedPage Today article didn’t comment on the potential health benefits of alcohol consumption. You can bet I’ll keep an eye on this.  (Did you get the pun?)

Steve Parker, M.D.

Comments Off on Chronic Alcohol May Impair Vision in Diabetics

Filed under Alcohol, Diabetes Complications

Eliminate Diabetes Drugs By Eating Right

Jimmy Moore has posted a podcast interview with internist Luan Pho, who thinks that the right diet can help reduce or eliminate usage of diabetic drugs.  I’m sure involves type 2 diabetes, not type 1.  I haven’t listened to the podcast, but you may want to.

-Steve

3 Comments

Filed under Drugs for Diabetes

Elizabeth Woolley Reviews Diabetic Diets

…at her About.com column on type 2 diabetes.  I don’t endorse everything there; just thought you might be interested.

I still see doctors at the hospital order “ADA diet” (American Diabetes Association) for their patients with diabetes.

There is no ADA diet.

-Steve

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dr. Richard Feinman on Carbohydrate Restriction for Diabetes

Dr. Feinman is a professor of biochemistry at Downstate Medical Center (SUNY) in New York.  A few days ago he wrote about the rationale behind carb restriction as an approach to diabetes.  We’re singin’ from the same page of the hymnal.

-Steve

1 Comment

Filed under Carbohydrate

Evidence for Human Grain Consumption 100,000 Years Ago

ScienceDaily on December 17, 2009, reported findings of a Canadian archeological team who found evidence of systematic grain consumption by ancient humans in Africa:

The consumption of wild cereals among prehistoric hunters and gatherers appears to be far more ancient than previously thought, according to a University of Calgary archaeologist who has found the oldest example of extensive reliance on cereal and root staples in the diet of early Homo sapiens more than 100,000 years ago.

Neolithic technology

This is interesting to me because I’m investigating whether the paleo diet is a good one for people with diabetes.  In case you’re new to the paleo diet, grains are considered verboten by most adherents.  (The paleo diet is also known as the Stone Age diet, caveman diet, and Paleolithic diet.)  The cereal grain mentioned in the ScienceDaily article is wild sorghum.

Many in the paleosphere believe that such ancient humans didn’t have the technical skills to transform wild grains into something edible on a regular basis.  I haven’t read the source material, nor do I have an opinion on whether the archeologists are correct.  I’m just sayin’…

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Mercader, Julio,  et al.  Mozambican grass seed consumption during the Middle Stone Age. Science, December 18, 2009.

6 Comments

Filed under Grains, Paleo diet

Is It More Important To Be Fit, Or Healthy Weight?

Men live longer if they maintain or improve their fitness level over time, according to research out of the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Texas.  Part of that improved longevity stems from reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease (e.g., heart attack and stroke). 

Compared with men who lose fitness with aging, those who maintained their fitness had a 30% lower risk of death; those who improved their fitness had a 40% lower risk of death.  Fitness was judged by performance on a maximal treadmill exercise stress test.

Body mass index over time didn’t have any effect on all-cause mortality but was linked to higher risk of cardiovascular death.  The researchers, however, figured that losses in fitness were the more likely explanation for higher cardiovascular deaths.  In other words, as men age, it’s more important to maintain or improve fitness than to lose excess body fat or avoid overweight.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Lee, Duck-chul, et al.  Long-term effects of changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and bodly mass index on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in menCirculation, 124 (2011): 2,483-2,490

2 Comments

Filed under Exercise, Longevity, Overweight and Obesity

Quote of the Day

Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out…

                                                       —Robert Collier

1 Comment

Filed under Quote of the Day

What About the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio?

It’s estimated that the Old Stone Age diet provided much more omega-3 fatty acids and much less omega-6s, compared to modern Western diets.  This may have important implications for development of certain chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease.

This’ll improve your omega-6/omega-3 ratio!

I haven’t studied this issue in great detail but hope to do so at some point.  Evelyn Tribole has strong opinions on it; I may get one of her books.

I saw an online video of William E.M.Lands, Ph.D., discussing the omega-6/omega-3 ratio.  He mentioned free software available from the National Insitutes of Health that would help you monitor and adjust your ratio.

You can see the video here.  Dr. Lands’ talk starts around minute 12 and lasts about 45 minutes.  He says it’s just as important (if not more so) to reduce your omega-6 consumption as to increase your omega-3.  And don’t overeat.

Steve Parker, M.D.

10 Comments

Filed under Fat in Diet

Meat and Mortality

Red meat and processed meat consumption are associated with “modest” increases in overall mortality and deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease, according to National Institutes of Health researchers.  This goes for both sexes.

Data are from the huge NIH-AARP Diet and Heart Study, a prospective cohort trial involving  over 550,000 U.S. men and women aged 50-71 at the time of enrollment.  Food consumption was determined by questionnaire.  Over the course of 10 years’ follow-up, over 65,000 people died.  Investigators looked to see if causes of death were related to meat consumption.

What do they mean by red meat, processed meat, and white meat?

Red meat:  all types of beef and pork (wasn’t there a U.S. ad campaign calling pork “the other white meat”?}

White meat:  chicken, turkey, fish

Processed meat:  bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats (red and white), cold cuts (red and white), ham, regular hotdogs, low-fat poultry hotdogs, etc.

What did they find?

See the first paragraph above.

Studies like this typically look at the folks who ate the very most of a given type of food, those who ate the very least, then compare differences in deaths between the two groups.  That’s what they did here, too.  For instance, the people who ate the very most red meat ate 63 grams per 1000 caories of food daily.  Those who ate the least ate 10 grams per 1000 cal of food daily.  That’s about a six-fold difference.  Many folks eat 2000 calories a day.  The high red meat eaters on 2000 cals a day would eat 123 grams, or 4.4 ounces of red meat.  The low red meat eaters on 2000 cals/day ate 20 grams, or 0.7 ounces.

The heavy consumers of processed meats ate 23 grams per 1000 cal of food daily.  The lowest consumers ate 1.6 grams per 1000 cal.

Comparing these two quintiles of high and low consumption of red and processed meats, overall mortality was 31-36% higher for the heavy red meat eaters, and 16-25% higher for the heavy processed meat eaters.  (The higher numbers in the ranges are for women.)  Similar numbers were found when looking at cancer deaths and cardiovascular deaths (heart attacks, strokes, ruptured aneurysms, etc).

It’s not proof that heavy consumption of red and processed meats is detrimental to longevity, but it’s suggestive.  The “Discussion” section of the article reviews potential physiological mechanisms for premature death.

The researchers called these differences “modest.”  I guess they use “modest” since most people eat somewhere between these extreme quintiles.  The numbers incline me  to stay out of that “highest red and processed meat consumer” category, and lean more towards white meat and fish.

The study at hand is from 2009.  Another research report in Archives of Internal Medicine this month supported similar conclusions. (Click for Zoë Harcombe’s critique of the study.)

The traditional Mediterranean diet and Advanced Mediterranean Diet are naturally low in red and processed meats, but not designed specifically for folks with diabetes.

Steve Parker, M.D. 

Reference:  Sinha, Rashmi, et al.  Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million peopleArchives of Internal Medicine, 169 (2009): 562-571.

4 Comments

Filed under cancer, coronary heart disease, Stroke