cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org — Consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal-form of prostate cancer among healthy men. Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to men who consumed less than 0.5.   Egg, red meat, and poultry intake and risk of lethal prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen-era: incidence and survival    Erin L. Richman,     Stacey A. Kenfield,     Meir J. Stampfer,     Edward L. Giovannucci, and     June M. Chan   http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/15/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0354.short

hsph.harvard.edu —                                                        Fill half of your plate with vegetables and fruits.  The more color, and the more variety on this part of the plate, the better. Potatoes and French fries don't count as vegetables on the Healthy Eating Plate, because they are high in fast-digested starch (carbohydrate), which has the same roller-coaster effect on blood sugar and insulin as white bread and sweets. These surges, in the short term, can lead to hunger and overeating, and in the long term, can lead to weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems. Save a quarter of your plate for whole grains—not just any grains: Whole grains—whole wheat, brown rice, and foods made with them, such as whole wheat pasta—have a gentler effect on blood sugar and insulin than white bread, white rice, and other so-called “refined grains.” That’s why the Healthy Eating Plate says to choose whole grains—the less processed, the better—and limit refined grains. Put a healthy source of protein on one quarter of your plate:  Chose fish, chicken, beans or nuts, since these contain beneficial nutrients, such as the heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids in fish, and the fiber in beans. An egg a day is okay for most people, too (people with diabetes should limit their egg intake to three yolks a week, but egg whites are fine). Limit red meat—beef, pork, and lamb—and avoid processed meats—bacon, cold cuts, hot dogs, and the like—since over time, regularly eating even small amounts of these foods raises the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and colon cancer. Use healthy plant oils. The glass bottle near the Healthy Eating Plate is a reminder to use healthy vegetable oils, like olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and others, in cooking, on salad, and at the table. Limit butter, and avoid unhealthy trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Drink water, coffee or tea. On the Healthy Eating Plate, complete your meal with a glass of water, or if you like, a cup of tea or coffee (with little or no sugar). (Questions about caffeine and kids? Read more.) Limit milk and dairy products to one to two servings per day, since high intakes are associated with increased risk of prostate cancer and possibly ovarian cancer. Limit juice to a small glass per day, since it is as high in sugar as a sugary soda. Skip the sugary drinks, since they provide lots of calories and virtually no other nutrients. And over time, routinely drinking sugary drinks can lead to weight gain, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and possibly increase the risk of heart disease. Stay active. The small red figure running across the Healthy Eating Plate’s placemat is a reminder that staying active is half of the secret to weight control. The other half is eating a healthy diet with modest portions that meet your calorie needs. Read 20 tips for staying active.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov — Studies of fruit and vegetable consumption in relation to overall health are limited. We evaluated the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer and of deaths from other causes in two prospective cohorts.   A total of 71 910 female participants in the Nurses' Health study and 37,725 male participants in the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study who were free of major chronic disease completed baseline semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaires in 1984 and 1986, respectively. Dietary information was updated in 1986, 1990, and 1994 for women and in 1990 and 1994 for men. Participants were followed up for incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or death through May 1998 (women) and January 1998 (men). Multivariable-adjusted relative risks were calculated with Cox proportional hazards analysis.   Total fruit and vegetable intake was inversely associated with risk of cardiovascular disease but not with overall cancer incidence. Of the food groups analyzed, green leafy vegetable intake showed the strongest inverse association with major chronic disease and cardiovascular disease. Increased fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a modest although not statistically significant reduction in the development of major chronic disease.   Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, Hu FB, Hunter D, Smith-Warner SA, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Spiegelman D, Willett WC. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

sciencedaily.com — ...Berry fruits help the brain stay healthy in several ways. Berry fruits contain high levels of antioxidants, compounds that protect cells from damage by harmful free radicals. The two also report that berry fruits change the way neurons in the brain communicate. These changes in signaling can prevent inflammation in the brain that contribute to neuronal damage and improve both motor control and cognition. They suggest that further research will show whether these benefits are a result of individual compounds shared between berry fruits or whether the unique combinations of chemicals in each berry fruit simply have similar effects.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov — A 25% discount on fruits and vegetables was effective in stimulating purchases of those products and did neither lead to higher expenditures in unhealthier food categories nor to higher total calories purchased.   A randomized controlled trial with two research conditions was conducted: a control condition with regular prices (n = 52) and an experimental condition with a 25% discount on fruits and vegetables (n = 63). The experiment was carried out using a three-dimensional web-based supermarket, which is a software application in the image of a real supermarket. Data were collected in 2010 in the Netherlands. Participants received a fixed budget and were asked to buy weekly household groceries at the web-based supermarket. Differences in fruit and vegetable purchases, differences in expenditures in other food categories and differences in total calories were analyzed using independent samples t-tests and multiple linear regression models accounting for potential effect modifiers and confounders.   Waterlander WE, Steenhuis IH, de Boer MR, Schuit AJ, Seidell JC   Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Feb 8;9(1):11

tandfonline.com — Approximately 200 studies that examined the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and cancers of the lung, colon, breast, cervix, esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, bladder, pancreas, and ovary are reviewed. A statistically significant protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was found in 128 of 156 dietary studies in which results were expressed in terms of relative risk.   For most cancer sites, persons with low fruit and vegetable intake (at least the lower one‐fourth of the population) experience about twice the risk of cancer compared with those with high intake, even after control for potentially confounding factors. For lung cancer, significant protection was found in 24 of 25 studies after control for smoking in most instances. Fruits, in particular, were significantly protective in cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and larynx, for which 28 of 29 studies were significant.   Strong evidence of a protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was seen in cancers of the pancreas and stomach (26 of 30 studies), as well as in colorectal and bladder cancers (23 of 38 studies). For cancers of the cervix, ovary, and endometrium, a significant protective effect was shown in 11 of 13 studies, and for breast cancer a protective effect was found to be strong and consistent in a meta analysis.   It would appear that major public health benefits could be achieved by substantially increasing consumption of these foods.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov — The aim of the study was to investigate the frequency and severity of dental erosions and its association with nutritional and oral hygiene factors in subjects living on a raw food diet. As part of a larger dietary study 130 subjects whose ingestion of raw food was more than 95% of the total food intake were examined. The median duration of the diet was 39 (minimum 17, maximum 418) months. Before the clinical examination, the participants answered questionnaires and recorded their food intake during a 7-day period. Dental erosions were registered using study models. As a control 76 sex- and age-matched patients from our clinic were randomly selected. The raw food diet records showed the median daily frequency of ingesting citrus fruit to be 4.8 (minimum 0.5, maximum 16.1). The median intake of fruit was 62% (minimum 25%, maximum 96%) of the total, corresponding to an average consumption of 9.5 kg of fruit (minimum 1.5, maximum 23.7) per week. Compared to the control group subjects living on a raw food diet had significantly (p</=0.001) more dental erosions. Only 2.3% of the raw food group (13.2% of the controls) had no erosive defects, whereas 37.2% had at least one tooth with a moderate erosion (55.2% of the controls) and 60.5% had at least one tooth with a severe erosion (31.6% of the controls). Within the raw food group no significant correlation was found between nutrition or oral health data and the prevalence of erosions. Nevertheless, the results showed that a raw food diet bears an increased risk of dental erosion compared to conventional nutrition.

scienceblogs.com — In most texts and sources that I've read, the germ theory of disease is stated something like, "Many diseases are caused by microorganisms." We could argue whether viruses count as microorganisms, but for purposes of the germ theory they do. (Most biologists do not consider viruses to be true living organisms, because they consist of nothing more than genetic material wrapped in a protein coat and lack the ability to reproduce without infecting the cell of an organism.) Now, let's take a look at the latest germ theory denialist idiocy I've come across. The first one, not surprisingly, I found on NaturalNews.com. Surprisingly, it was not written by Mike Adams, but rather by someone named Paul Fassa, who proclaims You have been lied to about germs. It should have been called "You are about to be lied to about germs." First, though, since this article wasn't by the usual science-hating loon Mike Adams, I was curious just who Paul Fassa is. I had never heard of him before. It didn't take long to find Fassa's Twitter account and then from there his blog Health Maven, which bills itself as an "escape from the medical mafia matrix." Interesting. Why does it appear that any time I come across a germ theory denialist like Fassa, he's someone who uses terms like "medical mafia matrix"? I don't know, but such people also tend to write introductory paragraphs like this: We have been taught to fear germs, pathogens, viruses, and bacteria that invade us from out there. This is the Pasteur model of disease contagion. This creates a dependency on Big Pharma to protect us from invading microbes, each having one form (monomorphic) and creating one specific disease. Pasteur`s model of disease won over rival Claude Bernard`s more accurate argument of the inner terrain. Pasteur`s declaration, though serving the coffers of Big Pharma, creates more questions: How come some get a disease that`s going around and others don`t? How do all these new bugs come out of nowhere to haunt us? Why do vaccines and antibiotics ultimately fail and create super bugs? These questions are answered by understanding the inner terrain and pleomorphism. Note how Fassa first misrepresents the Pasteur model of disease. This is common among germ theory denialists, in my experience. They tend to assume that germ theory states that pathogenic microbes are 100% infectious and always cause disease. Consequently, when people are exposed to pathogenic microbes and don't become ill, people like Fassa point to that as evidence that germ theory is invalid. After all, the germ didn't cause disease, at least in this one case! That must mean that all of germ theory is wrong! Concrete thinking, thy name is Fassa (and other germ theory denialists.) It's rather odd that even most teenagers can understand that catching an infectious disease is dependent not just on the microbe but each person's resistance to that microbe. This is the same thing that mystifies HIV/AIDS denialists, who seem to view the observation that most exposures to HIV do not result in AIDS as some sort of devastating indictment of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Add to that a long asymptomatic period and highly variable rates of progression, and HIV/AIDS denialists, who are--let's face it--really nothing more than a subtype of germ theory denialists who deny vehemently that one particular germ causes disease have all the doubt they need. But I digress. Also notice Fassa's early and immediate invocation of the pharma shill gambit. If there's another thing about germ theory denialism, it's that those who cling to it tend to be extremely distrustful of big pharma. I realize that in many cases big pharma deserves a lot of mistrust; its record in many areas demands it. What distinguishes many of these germ theory denialists is that they take healthy skepticism and take it to a pathological extreme. They also seem to think that the reason that antibiotics ultimately fail is because germ theory is invalid, which reveals an incredible ignorance of how antibiotics work. Helloooo! Evolution? Ever heard of it? Bacteria are incredibly good at evolving under the selective pressure of antibiotics. That's what creates superbugs, that and our tendency to overuse antibiotics. But what is the "inner terrain" and pleomorphism? This is where we find the "intellectual" basis of rejection of germ theory. As is the case with many alt-med beliefs, this basis harkens back to "ancient" knowledge (or at least 150 year old knowledge). It harkens back to Antoine Béchamp, who did indeed postulate nearly the exact opposite of what Pasteur did: that microorganisms were not the cause of disease but rather the consequence of disease, that injured or diseased tissues produced them and that it was the health of the organism that mattered, not the microorganisms. Basically, Béchamp's idea, known as the pleomorphic theory of disease, stated that bacteria change form (i.e., demonstrate pleomorphism) in response to disease, not as a cause of disease. In other words, they arise from tissues during disease states; they do not invade from the external world. Béchamp further proposed that bacteria arose from structures that he called microzymas, which to him referred to a class of enzymes. Béchamp postulated that microzymas are normally present in tissues and that their effects depended upon the cellular terrain. Ultimately, Pasteur's theory won out over that of Béchamp, based on evidence, but Béchamp was influential at the time. Given the science and technology of the time, Béchamp's hypothesis was not entirely unreasonable. It was, however, superseded by Pasteur's germ theory of disease and Koch's later work that resulted in Koch's postulates. What needs to be remembered is that not only did Béchamp's hypothesis fail to be confirmed by scientific evidence, but his idea lacked the explanatory and predictive power of Pasteur's theory. Fassa is sort of correct about one thing, though. Béchamp's idea was basically something like this: The inner terrain includes our immune system, organ tissues, and blood cells. Those who stepped out of line from Pasteur`s dogma asserted that the inner terrain was more vital for remaining disease free than searching for new antibiotics and vaccines to kill bacteria and viruses. As an analogy, flies don`t create garbage. But garbage attracts flies that breed maggots to create even more flies. Removing garbage is more effective than spraying toxic chemicals, which endanger human and animal life, around the house. Similarly, adding toxins to humans is not as effective as cleaning out the inner terrain. As I said, there's a grain of truth there, namely that the condition of the body and a person's immune system does matter. Specifically, it is true that the condition of the "terrain" (the body) does matter when it comes to infectious disease. Debilitated people do not resist the invasion of microorganisms as well as strong, healthy people. Of course, another thing to remember is that the "terrain" can facilitate the harmful effect of microorganisms in unexpected ways. For example, certain strains of the flu (as in 1918 and H1N1) are more virulent in the young because the young mount a more vigorous immune response. However, latter day Béchamp worshipers fetishize this idea to the point of claiming that the "inner terrain" is all that matters and that bacteria and viruses are manifestations, not causes, of disease. It goes beyond that, though. According to Béchamp, it's said: Blood is alive. It is not a liquid, but a mobile tissue (Béchamp was the first to describe blood thus). The things in our blood are alive. And one thing modern medicine does not accept is that something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold. We've talked about this in previous newsletters; it is called pleomorphism. Pleo meaning many and morph meaning form or body. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Bacteria cannot change into yeast or vice-versa, while yeasts are organisms in the kingdom Fungi. Dimorphic fungi can exist as a mold/hyphal/filamentous form or as yeast, but this fact does not invalidate the germ theory of disease. Indeed, some of these fungi are pathogens, such as Blastomyces dermatitidis, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Sporothrix schenckii. The misunderstanding of microbiology required to accept the rejection of germ theory in favor of Béchamp's ideas is staggering. Yet they remain very influential. Not among scientists, of course. Science moved on a long time ago. Rather, they remain influential among cranks. By Orac

fruitarian.net — Fruit contains vital elements to make our body work and there is a great energy in their juices. These juices do not burden our system, but  pass easily through it, giving the body a more efficient energy system. Imagine a world where people ate only fruits. This will result in a healthy abundance of fruit trees, giving nutritious food to be enjoyed by those who wish to live an energetic and healthy life. The world will  transform in beauty to the way it used to look earlier with an increase in tree populations cleaning the air and offering hiding environment for animals of the nature, many of them are already endangered. When we  start eating only fruits and nuts the difference is felt very quickly. A sensation of integrity and a wave of energy spreads through the body. Another benefit to our health could be a psychological one, if  we think we are not causing the death of animals to survive. There is no need to make secret of the fact that when we consume meat, we are triggering a chain reaction together with all the other consumers, which will finally cause the death of a poor animal living somewhere out there, which we have never seen the face.The increase of our human races in the world and our wrong eating habits are the main reasons for the destruction of the forests and the right environmental conditions in which we live. The excessive grazing of the animals and raising of the crops do not permit the creation of a suitable flora which is necessary for the growth of the trees. This also means erosion, which takes away the fertile soil and poor peasants moving to the towns, which grow continually, creating more environmental and social problems. As for our bodies they are not designed to live sedentary lives in those towns. Degenerative diseases such as cancer, heart disease or osteoporosis strike us and we suffer.Fruitarian lifestyle could be a plan to stop the global warming and save the world as it will result the increase of the fruit trees everywhere in the world. It simply consists of collecting fruits from the trees, eating them and scattering their seeds around. By doing this, we will spread these fruit trees everywhere and will need no instruments to do that. Our bare hands are designed to collect and eat fruits. So there will be no need to harm the nature by processing, cooking and washing dishes.

www8.nationalacademies.org —  African Fruits Could Help Alleviate Hunger and Bolster Rural Development, Environmental Stability in Africa   WASHINGTON -- Africa's own fruits are a largely untapped resource that could combat malnutrition and boost environmental stability and rural development in Africa, says a new report from the National Research Council.  African science institutes, policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals could all use modern horticultural knowledge and scientific research to bring these "lost crops" -- such as baobab, marula, and butterfruit -- to their full potential, said the panel that issued the report.    Today, tropical fruit production in Africa is dominated by species introduced from Asia and the Americas, such as bananas, pineapples, and papayas.  Because these and other crops arrived on the continent centuries ago already improved through horticultural selection and breeding, they increasingly displaced the traditional species that had fed Africans for thousands of years.  The imported species also received the support of colonial powers who wanted familiar crops that were profitable to grow, and indigenous fruits continued their downward spiral of dwindling cultivation and knowledge.    With renewed scientific and institutional support, however, Africa's native fruits could make a much greater contribution to nutrition and economic development, the new report says.  Fruit trees and shrubs also offer long-term benefits by improving the stability of the environment.   The report highlights 24 fruits that hold special promise; some are already being cultivated in parts of Africa, while others are harvested from the wild.  Examples are:   Aizen.  Giving more people access to this wild fruit -- which grows in extreme climates with few other food resources -- could reduce malnutrition and mortality, the report says.  The fruits are a good source of vitamins A and C, calcium, and some minerals, while the seeds are high in protein and zinc.  This large, resilient Saharan shrub shows promise as a way to protect erodible slopes, stabilize dunes, and create windbreaks.    Balanites.  This small desert tree tolerates heat and aridity so well it thrives deep in the Sahara.  It produces heavy yields of datelike fruits, as well as kernels that are one-half oil and one-third protein -- similar to the makeup of soybeans and sesame seeds.  These fruits and kernels already feed families in arid zones where few other food crops exist, but their full potential is scarcely tapped.  The seeds supply a food-grade vegetable oil also used in local cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.  The trees stabilize the natural environment, helping dry areas resist desertification.   Baobab.  The fruits of the baobab tree contain a sticky pulp that can be dried into a nutritious powder high in protein, vitamins, and minerals.  The powder is stirred into warm water or milk to create a healthy drink, and also beaten and dried into thin pancakes for use months or even years later, aiding food security.  During the rainy season, villagers often store water in the tree's trunk for later use.  The sale of baobab fruits aids rural commerce, and the trees themselves -- which also yield a popular leafy vegetable -- are almost indestructible.   Butterfruit.  This small tree produces fruit that is mainly used as a vegetable.  High in calories and one of the best protein sources in the fruit world, butterfruit is especially promising for reducing child malnutrition.  Even now, these fruits help many communities survive seasonal food shortages in the harshest hot, humid lowlands.  Butterfruit also serves as a cash crop, pouring into cities and rural markets in large quantities.  And the trees, which yield mahoganylike wood, may have potential for plantation forestry.     Ebony.  The ebonies of Africa yield some of the world's finest timber and also bear abundant, bright red fruits that are succulent and sweet. These can be dried for use when seasonal foods become scarce. The seeds of some ebonies are also edible, and the leaves are used as animal feed.  Though the trees are known and valued on a local level, hardly anything scientific is known about managing them as food crops.   Marula.  This tree is a nutritional powerhouse, producing both fruits high in vitamin C and nuts similar to the macademia, high in protein and minerals.  The fruits are popular in markets and even exported, while the kernels contribute to nutrition and food security.  In addition, oils extracted from the nuts are also exported for high-priced skin care products.  Harvesting the fruits and shelling the nuts provide work for thousands of rural women who have hardly any other source of income.     Tamarind.  These fruits are a strong source of B vitamins and calcium, and can be stored for months without refrigeration.  In addition, tamarind's sweet-sour pulp can be preserved in the form of sun-dried cakes -- a simple procedure that perhaps millions throughout Africa could exploit for food security, the report says.  Already widespread, the trees have great promise for restoring damaged lands to health and productivity, and likely for sequestering carbon, since they are treasured and seldom cut down.