Mel has done a good job collecting some of the current scientific evidence on acupuncture here:
https://www.evidencebasedacupuncture.org/acupuncture-scientific-evidence/
Tag Archive: study
Hi Folks! So holiday time is upon us, a time of merry-making, eating, and drinking – especially foods that are no good for us ☺ But I came across a few tips recently that can help us make our holidays a bit easier on our systems.
The main tip I’d like to share with you is that dates seem to be quite good for us, and surprisingly that’s true even for diabetics. How can that be so, you might wonder, considering how sweet they are and so loaded with carbs? Aren’t they like 80% sugar? I think this is a great example of how a simplistic anti-carb approach can lead us to radically false conclusions. Not all high-carb foods are the same, nor do they have identical effects on the body.
To see how healthy a real food from nature is for us, we actually need to check, not make assumptions. So let’s look at some of the studies on dates and how they affect blood sugar levels.
This study compared a healthy group to a group of diabetics, and found that eating dates did not significantly raise blood sugar in either group:
“Each subject was tested on eight separate days with 50 g of glucose… equivalent of available carbohydrates from the 5 varieties of date… Capillary glucose was measured in the healthy subjects at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min and for the diabetics at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 min. The glycemic indices were determined… There were no statistically significant differences in the GIs between the control and the diabetic groups for the five types of dates…The results show low glycemic indices for the five types of dates included in the study and that their consumption by diabetic individuals does not result in significant postprandial glucose excursions. These findings point to the potential benefits of dates for diabetic subjects when used in a healthy balanced diet.”
This next study found similar results, and that eating dates in combination with other foods such as yogurt also reduced their glycemic index (note that table sugar’s GI is about 100):
“Results: Mean glycaemic indexes of the dates were 47.2, 45.3, 35.5, 37.3, 28.9 for rutab, traditionally stored, commercial, rutab/yoghurt and commercial tamer/yoghurt preparations, respectively… Conclusions: Khalas dates, when eaten alone or in mixed meals with plain yoghurt have low glycaemic indexes. The consumption of dates may be of benefit in glycaemic and lipid control of diabetic patients. The consumption of dates in mixed meals with yoghurt appears to have, at most, a minimal effect on the glycaemic index.”
But the good news about dates doesn’t stop there. It also turns out that dates lower levels of triglycerides in the blood – helping to decrease risk of heart attacks -and if that wasn’t enough, they appear to have significant antioxidant activity:
“Most important, fasting serum glucose and triacylglycerol levels were not increased after consumption of either date variety, and serum triacylglycerol levels even significantly (p < 0.05) decreased, by 8 or 15% after Medjool or Hallawi date consumption, respectively. Basal serum oxidative status was significantly (p < 0.01) decreased by 33%, as compared to the levels observed before consumption, after Hallawi (but not Medjool) date consumption…it is concluded that date consumption (and mainly the Hallawi variety) by healthy subjects, despite their high sugar content, demonstrates beneficial effects on serum triacylglycerol and oxidative stress and does not worsen serum glucose and lipid/lipoprotein patterns, and thus can be considered an antiatherogenic nutrient."
And one specific variety of date lowers levels of LDL (the “bad” cholesterol), in addition to actually lowering blood sugar:
“The effect of dates on blood glucose showed that only the variety Tamesrit had a significative decrease on blood glucose (p <0.01). Concerning lipid profile, we noted that Ghars variety induced no significant variation of different lipid parameters while the variety Tamesrit reduced the LDLc level (bad cholesterol), thus improving the lipid profile."
And again, here’s more evidence that dates have a high concentration of antioxidants, which provide a wealth of health benefits: “These results suggest that all date varieties serve as a good source of natural antioxidants and could potentially be considered as a functional food…”
Here’s a video from Dr. Gregor on the subject, along with one comparing date sugar to other sweeteners.
As long as we’re on the subject of good news about sweeteners, let’s look at which artificial sweetener not only isn’t so bad for you, but appears to actually be helpful.
So using date sugar and erythritol may be a way to make this holiday season a bit sweeter for you and your family, especially for those with diabetes. See my recipe below for Faux Pecan Pie, a delicious way of using dates and coconut with no added sugar.
As always, see the disclaimer at the top of the page: please check with your appropriately licensed health care professional before making any changes to your diet.
Now what about when we do wind up eating some of the less healthy sweetened treats? Well it turns out that there’s some evidence that by having your treat with a couple of cups of green tea, you can blunt the blood sugar spike and subsequent drop:
“Mice fed an antioxidant found in green tea — epigallocatechin-3-gallate, or EGCG — and corn starch had a significant reduction in increase in their blood sugar… levels compared to mice that were not fed the compound…”The spike in blood glucose level is about 50 percent lower than the increase in the blood glucose level of mice that were not fed EGCG,”…The dose of EGCG fed to the mice was equivalent to about one and a half cups of green tea for a human… EGCG was most effective when the compound was fed to the mice simultaneously with corn starch. For humans, this may mean that green tea could help them control the typical blood sugar increases that are brought on when they eat starchy foods, like breads and bagels that are often a part of typical breakfasts.”
Of course, this study was conducted on rats, not humans, but it is suggestive.
Faux Pecan Pie
The original version of this recipe I found here, but I’ve replaced the nuts for those who are allergic.
Preparation: take two cups of dates and soak in two cups of water for 3 hours; save the soaking water. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Crust: use a prepared crust if you’re pressed for time, otherwise combine 1 cup shredded coconut with one cup of rolled oats in your blender and blend well. Dump out into a bowl. Then add 1 tablespoon coconut oil, 2 dates, and 1 teaspoon vanilla into the blender and mix until well combined. Add to the oat-coconut combination and mix until you have a moldable crust, and press into your pie pan.
Filling: put the dates and the soaking water into the blender with 1/2 cup coconut oil, 2 tablespoons vanilla, and 1/2 teaspoon salt. Blend well and pour into pie crust.
Topping: combine 1 cup of rolled oats with enough melted coconut oil and erythritol and/or date sugar so that they’re coated, and sprinkle on top.
Bake at 350 degrees for 40 minutes; if the topping isn’t sufficiently brown, broil it for a couple of minutes until it is (watch it so it doesn’t burn!).
Enjoy a delicious pie that has a multitude of health benefits and is gluten free, dairy free, etc.
I hope you and yours have a healthy and happy holiday season!
Questions, comments, or suggestions? I’d love to hear from you (especially if you try the pie) so don’t be shy!
Edit: I made this recipe over the holidays, and the oat topping really wasn’t tasty at all; a bit too many oats. I’d use something else, like shredded coconut, (or pecans or almonds if you can eat nuts).
Hi Folks, here’s some research news for you this week!
A comprehensive study commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs found strong evidence that acupuncture has a positive effect in the treatment of chronic pain, migraine and tension headache.
The same study found a potentially positive effect in dysmenorrhea, cancer pain, labor pain, insomnia, post-operative nausea and vomit, depression, and smoking cessation, although it suggests more research needs to be done.
Another meta-analysis found that acupuncture outperforms placebo in relieving the most common types of chronic pain: headache, low back, neck, shoulder and knee pain. The same analysis discovered that acupuncture significantly outperforms standard care in headache, low back, neck, and knee pain. In other words, this evidence suggests you’re likely to get a better result for these conditions by seeing your skilled acupuncturist than you are by seeing a typical MD. To me this isn’t surprising; an acupuncturist will usually be more hands-on and thus likely to get to the underlying cause of the problem faster than if someone simply takes drugs to mask the pain.
A network analysis showed that acupuncture is superior to most forms of physical therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
In other positive news, I was pleased to see that the American College of Physicians and American Pain Society actually recommends acupuncture for chronic low back pain, although only as a second-line therapy.
The American College of Chest Physicians also recommends acupuncture for cancer patients when pain, nausea, vomiting, or other side effects of chemotherapy are poorly controlled.
There are some problems with most of these studies that IMO show a smaller effect than what clinicians actually experience in practice, but still I’m happy to see some of the medical authorities beginning to treat acupuncture seriously. I’m planning an entire page devoted to my “acupuncture research rant”, stay tuned for that 🙂 Many thanks to John Pirog for directing my attention to this research.
So this week I’m pleased to bring you some good news about natural treatments for pain and inflammation.
One of the most impressive herbs for this purpose is turmeric. In this video by Dr. Greger he presents the latest evidence that turmeric is useful for rheumatoid arthritis, an inflammatory illness, which even proved superior to a common drug in a clinical trial (a dosage of 500 mg curcumin was used in this study, which is the amount in 10 grams of turmeric, or about one and one half tablespoons). Furthermore, turmeric also proved effective in treating osteoarthritis, which is caused by chronic wear and tear on joints. In fact once again turmeric compared very favorably with pharmaceutical drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis-induced knee pain (a dosage of 90 mg curcumin was used in this study, the amount in about 2/3 of a teaspoon of turmeric). Turmeric also reduces inflammation in general.
One of the compounds in turmeric responsible for much of these beneficial effects is called curcumin; it’s about 5% by weight of a given quantity of turmeric. One problem in using turmeric as a medicine is that the bioavailability – the amount of the substance that is actually usable by the body – of curcumin is relatively low. You can increase the bioavailability of curcumin by 2000% by adding some black pepper; even just 1/4 tsp of black pepper turns out to have this effect. Another strategy is to add oil; a healthy oil like coconut oil or avocado oil might be useful here. So to get the medicinal effects one strategy is to take the traditional route: have a curry made with turmeric and black pepper. A nouveau strategy might be to make a smoothie using coconut milk, a teaspoon or two of turmeric, 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon of black pepper, a banana, and maybe a few dates for sweetness 🙂
Should everyone take turmeric? Dr. Greger cautions us that those who have gallstones, are prone to kidney stones, or are pregnant might want to avoid it or eat it only in moderation; it contains a fairly high concentration of oxalates (which are associated with kidney stone formation), can cause the gallbladder to contract, and in very high doses can cause DNA damage: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-shouldnt-consume-curcumin-or-turmeric/.
While we’re on the subject of osteoarthritis, there is also evidence that other natural approaches are effective in treating the pain it causes. Osteoarthritis (sometimes called progressive joint disease) is a disease caused by the gradual deterioration of the cartilage (connective tissue) of a joint, leading it to become stiff and painful. It turns out that ginger applied topically (daily for a week) appears to help. Unfortunately, that study didn’t include a control, but all the participants had previously had conventional medical treatment for their osteoarthritis and not been satisfied with the results. One of the effective methods of application used in the study is called a ginger compress. One simple method of applying a ginger compress that I like to use is this: I just take some very thin slices of fresh ginger, apply it to the painful area, place a thin towel over the ginger, and a hot water bottle or heating pad on top of the towel; I warm the area for about 15 minutes.
Tart cherries – in addition to the effects on blood pressure noted in my last post – also appear to help relieve osteoarthritis pain. Apparently, the effects can be achieved simply by drinking cherry juice. Note that this study is on tart cherries like the Montmorency, not sweet cherries like the Bing or Rainier varieties (although other studies show some benefits from those as well).
Eating sesame seeds, believe it or not, also help reduce osteoarthritis pain, and do so even better than Tylenol. The amount of sesame seeds used in the study to get this effect was 40 grams per day, which is less than two ounces; the seeds were powdered first (a coffee grinder can do this, or you can use a mortar and pestle). 5 tablespoons a day will get you 45 grams.
Finally on osteoarthritis, this study shows acupuncture beneficial for treating osteoarthritis of the knee: http://www.healthcmi.com/Acupuncture-Continuing-Education-News/1233-osteoarthritiskneeub23
On the subject of Chinese medicine and pain, I’m excited by the news that researchers have found additional evidence that the herb corydalis (corydalis yanhusuo) is helpful for pain, including inflammatory pain and neuropathic pain (pain caused by nervous system damage). Corydalis has enough analgesic properties to relieve the intensity of pain of a broken ankle, and furthermore does so in way that prevents the body from developing resistance to the herb. It is also non-addictive. These factors, the researchers suggest, may make the herb a suitable treatment for chronic pain.
Traditionally, 3-9 grams of corydalis is cooked in about 3 cups of water for 45 minutes to an hour, and drunk half a cup or so at a time as a tea. It may cause drowsiness, dizziness, and abdominal distention, especially when taken in doses of 10 grams or more; high doses of more than 15 grams can cause serious side effects. See Dan Bensky’s Materia Medica for more information on the traditional use.
And last but not least, Dr. Greger reminds us that the potassium in foods like leafy greens and bananas is a good way to reduce inflammation.
As always, use caution when interpreting this information and in choosing whether to apply it to yourself. In particular, note that herbs can sometimes interact with medications or supplements, so be sure to consult your MD if you’re on any medications. Please take a look at the disclaimer at the top of this page once again 🙂
Having said all that, if you’ve tried any of these strategies or had any experience with them, please feel free to let me know your results here. Anything else you’d like to find out about? I’d love to hear from you!
OK, time for a roundup of some of the more noteworthy studies done on the effectiveness of acupuncture and Chinese medicine.
Stronger evidence that acupuncture is effective for back pain is now available, as this http://www.naturalnews.com/040545_acupuncture_back_pain_research.html article shows.
Another robust study http://www.healthcmi.com/acupuncturist-news-online/756-flyingacupuncture that compared acupuncture’s effectiveness for insomnia to a pharmaceutical found that acupuncture came out on top by a considerable margin. “The researchers discovered that the drug was 59.7% effective while acupuncture was 84.1% effective. The control group only showed a 25% effective rate thereby ruling out the placebo effect triggered by sham acupuncture.” One of the features of this study that I really applaud is that the researchers identified and isolated a specific acupuncture technique: “This modern research tested the efficacy of this acupuncture point prescription combined with a classic manual acupuncture technique, the flying technique… The acupuncture technique is named after the motion exerted on the release of the acupuncture needle. The handle of the acupuncture needle is held while the needle is rotated slightly and the hand then releases the handle like ‘the flying of a bird.’” Too many other studies don’t do this, leaving us to wonder what techniques were used and whether similar results would have been obtained if different techniques had been performed.
That’s why I have to shake my head and wag my finger at the researchers involved in this http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/early/2013/05/29/ptj.20110138.abstract study to determine whether acupuncture is effective for treating strokes. They used a specific protocol of scalp and body points which did not appear to work; reporting that would have been fine, and useful for practitioners to know. The problem is that the authors went beyond saying that this protocol was ineffective to concluding that all acupuncture is ineffective for strokes. This is obviously problematic; what techniques did they use, and what if another protocol would work better?
Take electroacupuncture for example, which has been shown to be protective of the brain after stroke: http://www.healthcmi.com/acupuncturist-news-online/761-electronli11st36. This is a good example of how much too often researchers over-generalize from a specific protocol to all of acupuncture; in my opinion, this is often due to an ignorance of the scope of techniques and approaches available.
Finally, our cute story of the day: some veterinary acupuncturists are treating sea turtles with acupuncture, to good effect! http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_23288102/slow-pokes-acupuncture-helps-hypothermic-turtles
Have you had the pleasure of seeing Paul Stamets talk? In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5frPV58tY, he talks about many beneficial uses of mushrooms, including how effective many are for various health conditions. The common Turkey Tail mushroom in particular seems to be good. This study shows that Turkey Tail mushrooms are helpful for those who have undergone breast cancer treatment: ‘The study titled “Phase I Clinical Trial of Trametes versicolor in Women with Breast Cancer,” recently published in the ISRN Oncology Journal, shows that turkey tail mushrooms can augment conventional therapies for treating breast cancer by increasing NK and CD8+T cell activity. This study suggests that turkey tail mushrooms are an effective adjunct to conventional chemotherapeutic medicines and radiation therapy.’
But mushrooms you can buy in the grocery store, like shiitake and maitake, are also known to be good for your health. Why not make them a regular part of your diet?
The latest news is that this French study found that rats fed a diet containing Monsanto’s genetically-modified corn consistently developed tumors and had overall worse health compared to other rats. The paper, available here, includes grotesque images of the large tumors the rats developed.
This study is clearly the most comprehensive yet performed in assessing the safety of a GMO food, as even critics acknowledge. However, the study has been criticized for having a small sample size, only 10 rats in the various experimental groups and another 10 in the one and only control group. That’s too small a number of rats in the control group, according to the critics, to tell for certain that it’s the GMO that caused the adverse health effects, since perhaps if there had been a comparable number in the control more of them might have had health problems too.
What mitigates against this criticism is that the rats in the experimental groups all did worse than the control group in almost every meaningful health measure tested. This clearly suggests that something other than chance is going on. But we don’t need to rely on this one study alone. This previous study is a meta-analysis of 19 studies testing the safety of GMOs, and their conclusion is that “Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects… This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters).”
You can also find a detailed description of the health problems that have been found to occur with GMOs in this paper, which lists, among other things: liver damage (including structural changes and atrophy), damage to DNA, kidney damage, enlarged pancreas, fewer digestive enzymes, double the normal death rate, alterations in sperm function, reduced fertility and infertility in the next generation, increased infant mortality and lower birth weight, increased rates of sterility and premature death in livestock fed GMOs, and evidence of the GMOs being or producing allergens.
Whether or not all this evidence is proof that all or most GMOs are unsafe is still open to some debate. But we mustn’t forget the important question that we should be asking: if I have a choice between two options, one of which is known to be safe and the other whose safety is in question, isn’t it prudent to choose the first option? That’s the Precautionary Principle, that I mentioned in my earlier post about organic food. With respect to GMOs, I’m going to be erring on the side of caution: since there’s no required labeling of GMOs (yet) I’m going to be choosing organic whenever I can (you hear that, Stanford?) 🙂 A little bit of inconvenience at the grocery store beats liver and kidney damage and becoming infertile, IMHO.
Interestingly, Monsanto was found guilty of chemically poisoning a French farmer, and an ingredient in its Roundup pesticide has been linked to birth defects (see this article). Monsanto doesn’t exactly have a great track record on health.
What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you!
So a recent study by a group of researchers from Stanford University published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that organic food is no better than that conventionally grown. As is often the case with the mainstream media, coverage of the study has been sensationalized and misleading. In fact, it’s almost developed into a media war between the corporate media and the public, some even accusing the media of doing a “psyop” on people. What’s the truth about organic food? Is it really never any better than conventional food, as the Stanford study (a metanalysis) suggests?
Well, the study appears to have several problems. First, Robyn O’Brien points out that the study only compared the amount of vitamins and minerals in organic vs. conventional foods, and ignores one of the central reasons people prefer organic: they don’t want to eat the pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, and other types of chemicals used in conventional farming. But even on that yardstick, the Stanford study ignores that in fact, organic food often does contain more nutrients than conventional food (even if it doesn’t always, which is what the Stanford paper emphasizes), surely an important factor we’d like to consider when making our food purchasing decisions.
The Stanford authors did address the amount of pesticide exposure in organic produce vs. conventionally grown, and conclude that although there is a 30% lower risk difference in organic foods, this isn’t enough to mean anything significant. However, this is misleading; researcher Chuck Benbrook (at Washington State) points out that a better figure based on the Stanford paper’s own sources is 81% lower risk, partly because the authors didn’t distinguish between the number of different kinds of pesticide traces and their extent. Benbrook argues that with respect to pesticide residues:
a) most residues in organic food occur at much lower levels than in conventional food,
b) residues are not as likely in organic foods,
c) multiple residues in a single sample are rare in organic food but common in conventional produce, and
d) high- risk pesticides rarely appear as residues in organic food, and when they do, the levels are usually much lower than those found in conventional food (especially the levels in imported produce).
(from the Mother Jones article linked above)
While the Stanford authors would argue that these things don’t matter because the amount of pesticide residue is too low to cause any biological effects in humans, on the face of it this is a suspect claim; the amount of certain biologically important chemicals, like hormones, occur at very low concentrations in the blood but have profound biological effects. And indeed there is a fair amount of research that shows that even low amounts of some pesticides can cause problems, especially in pregnant women. If you’re pregnant or have young children, this might be information you’d like to know, I’m thinking 🙂
Furthermore, there’s a basic principle that the Stanford authors ignore, namely the Precautionary principle. Even if something hasn’t been proven to cause harm (such as there being a synergistic effect caused by a cocktail of pesticides that increases the risk of biological damage), if there’s an alternative that doesn’t carry that theoretical risk then you should prefer the alternative. Especially, it seems to me, if you’re responsible for someone else’s health, like that of your children.
Do I think organic is always better? Not necessarily, I do think Michael Pollan has some sensible advice on the issue. But what troubles me most is the conflict of interest created by the ties of the Stanford authors to corporations that have a direct financial interest in competing with organic foods, in particular Cargill (a proponent of genetically modified food crops) and Philip Morris, the tobacco giant. So I have to conclude that the Stanford paper is basically a piece of junk science, a hatchet job bought and paid for by corporations with a financial motive to make organics look bad.
Do you disagree? Am I being too harsh? I’d love to hear from you!
Here’s another gem I found on Dr. Greger’s helpful site: amla (Indian Gooseberry) appears to have amazing effects on blood sugar. Not only that, but it also lowers LDL cholesterol (the bad one), raises HDL (the good one), and lowers triglycerides, without any apparent side effects.
I cannot give medical advice on this blog and as always, nothing posted here is intended as medical advice, or to substitute for medical advice or treatment or intended to cure or prevent any disease; it’s intended for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Having said that, when you compare the cost, effectiveness, and side effects of amla with that of the leading drugs for diabetes I think the results are quite interesting.
Manu's Alternative Medicine Blog 