Coconut Oil Healthy or Harmful

Coconut oil is hot right now.  Everyones talking about it... the Paleo community recommends it, there are books touting it as a miracle food, and even Dr. Oz is now on board.  It seems as though the alternative medicine world is firmly in the pro-coconut-oil camp, and their message is spreading. The mainstream nutrition world however, including dietitians, medical doctors, and educators, believe otherwise.  According to them, coconut oil is high in saturated fat, particularly lauric and myristic acids... two of the most dangerous saturated fatty acids around.  Coconut oil will raise your cholesterol more than any other food, they say. Those who eat it must have a death wish.

How can both sides of this argument be so far apart?  The pro-coconut-oil group says its a miracle health food... but the anti-coconut-oil camp says itll kill you.  Welp, someones wrong.  Lets get to the bottom of it...

The Saturated Fat Thing
As mentioned above, coconut oil is high in lauric acid and myristic acid, which are considered to be two of the most heart-stopping fatty acids in existence.  This evidence is largely based on short term studies using isolated fatty acids, showing that their consumption increases cholesterol levels (1, 2). As I explained in my last post on nutritionism, this is interesting and good to know, but it doesnt necessarily mean eating foods high in these fats, like coconut oil, will have the same effect.  Food is more complex than we know.  This is a piece to the puzzle, but not the only piece to the puzzle. What about studies involving real coconut oil?

Virgin Coconut Oil vs. Refined Coconut Oil
Most of the research on coconut oil is done using the ined variety.  To my knowledge there are only two studies out there involving unined virgin coconut oil, and theyre essentially the same study. And they werent even human studies; they were done with rats.  On the good side though, they were well controlled, and they tested virgin coconut oil against its ined counterpart!

For all intents and purposes, the design of both studies was the same, and they were done by the same researchers (3, 4).  They split the rats up into three different groups: virgin coconut oil, copra oil (ined coconut oil), and sunflower oil.  All three groups ate the same diet, other than the source of fat.  The results?? The virgin coconut oil group lowered their total cholesterol, LDL, and triglyceride levels, while increasing HDL cholesterol levels.  In addition, the polyphenols present in virgin coconut oil were found to prevent LDL oxidation, which is a major contributor to heart disease.  Thumbs up!  The ined coconut and sunflower oil groups?  Well they didnt see these benefits.  Overall, this study doesnt prove anything in humans.  What it does show, though, is that there is a significant difference between virgin coconut oil and ined coconut oil... the former being the better choice.  Yet they have the same fatty acid breakdown... like I said, food is more complex than we know.

Coconut Oil and Abdominal Obesity
On to real humans now.  This one was a controlled trial involving women with large tummies.  All subjects were instructed to follow a low-calorie diet... half of them supplemented with 30 ml of coconut oil (I assume it was ined since the researchers didnt specify), and half of them supplemented with 30 ml of soybean oil (5).  The results were pretty amazing in my opinion.  Both groups lost the same amount of weight, but the coconut oil group lost significantly more fat from the abdomen.  This is important, because abdominal obesity in particular is highly correlated with chronic disease... you dont want fat in your belly.  In terms of blood lipids, the coconut oil group ended up with higher HDL levels and a better LDL:HDL ratio.  The soybean oil group, on the other hand, presented an increase in total cholesterol, LDL, and LDL:HDL ratio, while HDL diminished. Winner: coconut oil.

The Rest of It...
Overall, the rest of the human data on coconut oil are sort of neutral; theres some good stuff, some bad stuff, and a lot that falls somewhere in between.  This study shows no difference in blood lipids in coconut oil vs. sunflower oil (6), this one shows no connection between coconut/coconut oil consumption and heart disease in India (7), heres an observational study showing an increase in heart disease upon replacing coconut oil with vegetable oils in India (8), and here we have one showing an increase in LDL, triglycerides, etc. with coconut oil vs. beef fat and safflower oil (9).  Its really all over the place, maybe slightly more positive than negative, but overall its inconsistent and doesnt tell us much of anything.  Dont forget, too, that this is ined coconut oil were talking about here, not the unined virgin variety.  Only the rats were lucky enough to get the good stuff.

Coconut-Eating Cultures
Lets step off of coconut oil for a moment, and focus on the whole coconut.  Its slightly different, yes, but still relevant; coconut is mostly fat anyway.  Weve got a few sets of people out in the Eastern Pacific island area who eat a lot of coconut... unined coconut of course... and theres a lot we can learn from them.  If the medical establishment is right, that the fats in coconut clog our arteries and kill us, then these people should be in serious trouble.

Tokelau - The first example is the island of Tokelau, which was the subject of a major epidemiological study from 1968-1982 (10, 11).  The Tokelauan diet is based on coconut and fish; over half their calories come from coconut, hence 40-50% of their total calories are from saturated fat. This is absurdly high.  For erence, the Dietary Guidelines recommend that number be less than 10%...  because any more than that increases your risk for cardiovascular disease.  So are these Tokelau coconut eaters dying left and right?  No.  According to the study, they have low rates of diabetes, healthy blood pressures, good cholesterol levels, and no trace of any recent heart attacks. No trace!  Coconut for the win.

Kitava - The diet on the island of Kitava has been studied extensively as well (12).  While the available foods are similar to those on Tokelau, the Kitavans eat them in very different proportions. The Kitavans get about 21% of their calories from fat, 17% of which is from saturated fat.  Just about all of this is from coconut, and although less than on Tokelau, its still far more saturated fat than we are recommended to eat.  Overall, their diet is very high in carbohydrates, about 69%, and most of that comes from starchy tubers like sweet potatoes and taro.  But are they healthy?  Heart disease or stroke?  No trace.  Obesity?  Nope.  Diabetes?  No sir.  Senile dementia??  Not even a little. What about longevity?  There were reports of one man reaching over 100 years of age.  And if you didnt die in infancy or of infectious disease, it was expected that you would live well into your 70s. Quite impressive if I do say so myself.  No killer coconut here.

Neither of these societies are plagued with the chronic diseases we see every day, and they eat more coconut fat than maybe anyone else in the world.  Take it for what its worth, its just an observation... but if coconut fat were really that bad, these people would have died off long ago.


The Verdict on Coconut Oil
Here are the basic facts we can come up with based on all of this information...

• Virgin coconut oil improves blood lipid numbers vs. ined coconut oil in rats
• Polyphenols in virgin coconut oil (not present in ined oil) prevent LDL oxidation
• Coconut oil targets fat loss in the abdomen and improves HDL levels in overweight women
• Theres no association between coconut oil consumption and heart disease in India
• Tokelauans get 40-50% of their calories from coconut fat, and theyre in great health
• Kitavans get about 20% of their calories from coconut fat, and theyre in even better health.

Lets connect the dots, shall we?  Is coconut oil a miracle food?  No, I dont think so.  Is it deadly? No, definitely not.  As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Coconut oil is, at the very least, not unhealthy.  If you take the research on ined coconut oil alone, it comes out looking pretty neutral... its not the villain its made out to be.  Virgin coconut oil, however, is clearly superior.  Natural coconut fat has sustained entire civilizations for generations; to me thats a good indicator that these fats can support health.  The fats in coconut may be dangerous when isolated in a lab, but eating them in an unined product like virgin coconut oil or in the coconut itself?  Different story entirely.  Its healthy, not harmful.

So for one final last final conclusion, here is your coconut oil hierarchy... isolated lauric acid < ined coconut oil < virgin coconut oil.  Get out there and do your best, eat virgin coconut oil, cook with it, bake with it, and stay away from beakers of lauric acid.

Saturday Throwback Dr Veg Love or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Seasonal Produce

Every Saturday we post an older piece from CHG’s archives. Today’s article comes from August 2007. Thems was good times.

I’ll be honest: when I started researching this article, I assumed 90% of it would focus on cash. Specifically, I thought the money saved from buying in-season fruits and vegetables would far outweigh any other benefit.

Man alive, was I wrong.

Between Google and Nexis, it took approximately 2.2 seconds to discover that snagging chronologically-appropriate produce has massive political, nutritional, emotional, and environmental perks. What’s more, it tastes better. And that’s gotta count for something.

So, without further ado, nine reasons you should raid crops from the seasonal section:

It costs WAY less. Simple economics here: an abundance of anything lowers its price. Plus, because in-season produce is often grown domestically, overseas transportation costs are cut. All told, this means you can save between 10% and 50% on beans, greens, and all the in-betweens. Need proof? Check your berry section, where writer Briony Harmer notes, “strawberries in November … will cost nearly three times more than what you would have paid in June."

It tastes better. When fruits and vegetables are imported off-season, they’re often harvested prematurely, because that way they hold up better in transit. Once the food arrives here, it’s then sprayed with ethylene gas to ripen it artificially. By the time it reaches grocery stores, you’ll see decent color, but the flavor blows. See for yourself: eat a plum tomato in winter, and write down your thoughts. Try another one at the end of the summer. Odds are, the winter tomato will taste like air in comparison.

It’s better for the Earth (probably). The expert consensus is that an average pound of produce travels about 1500 miles. Imported off-season crops can raise that number significantly since they’re coming from all over the world. That scrumptiousness has to be shipped somehow, and it’s usually via truck, train, plane, or boat, all of which consume energy and add to pollution. To give some perspective, in England, “importing just a kilogram of strawberries from America is the equivalent of running a 100 watt light bulb for a week.” Buying seasonal produce can help offset the waste.

(That is, unless you buy this alarmingly convincing article from the New York Times, which pokes some pretty big holes in the transportation argument. Still, it concedes, “the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer.”)

It’s healthier. Off-season fruits and veggies tend to lose their nutritional punch over time, since they’re shipped long-distance for weeks and months. As the London Observer reports, “freshly dug potatoes have about 21mg vitamin C per 100g which falls to 9mg after three months of storage.”

What’s more, that produce may not have started out on equal footing to begin with. A 2002 Japanese study found that Vitamin C and carotene are “significantly influenced by the cropping season,” meaning that a carrot grown in winter is missing half the carotene it would have had in the summer. For some reason, spinach, tomatoes, carrots, and broccoli are particularly affected by this, while “sweet peppers, celery, and kiwifruit [are] fairly stable.”

It’s less poisonous. You probably won’t croak eating off-season produce from abroad, but there’s a good chance it harbors more toxins than its in-season counterparts. Why? Well, according to the BioDiversity Project, “Many countries have neither the pesticide regulations nor the labor safety practices that are the law in the U.S., so theres no telling what is on or in your imported fruits and vegetables.” That added flavor you detect? It’s the bitter taste of uncertainty.

It’s in better condition. “Handling and storage … is one of the main problems in the deterioration of produce. From the way the grower packs it, to the loading and off-loading in the truck yard, to the handling in the markets, it all contributes to knocks and bruises that will quickly affect the quality of the produce,” says the Canberra Times. If you’ve ever flown cross-country, you can relate: the further something travels, the worse shape it’s in when it arrives at its destination.

It can be frozen or canned for future use. Imagine having a sweet, delicious blueberry in the middle of March. Now imagine that same piece of fruit hasn’t lost an iota of vitamins, minerals, or flavor because it was iced right after being picked. NOW imagine you’re not spending $6 on a pint of blueberries from the farthest corners of the planet, because you bought it for $2 six months ago and had the forethought to shove it in your freezer. Okay, you’re done imagining. Pat yourself on the back and eat a blueberry.

It’s politically correct (and not in an annoying way). This is a bit difficult to summarize, but I’ll give it a shot: essentially, Third World farmers make more (but not a lot of) money importing specialized off-season produce to richer countries than by growing food for themselves. According to Briarpatch, this not only “threatens the extinction of [their] local crops,” but leads to hunger and “[slavery] to international commodity prices.” Meanwhile, local farmers are hosed by big-name suppliers who purchase cheaper goods from abroad. Buying seasonally benefits everyone more in the long-run.

It’s a mental trigger for the good times. BabyFit.com’s Rebecca Pratt makes a fabulous point: “[Food is] tied to the special days and seasons of our lives: sweet, luscious watermelon paired with the memory of filies and fireworks; fragrant hearty soups that temper winter’s chill; sweet young vegetables that accompany spring’s first warm day.” Think about it: on Christmas, do you crave gazpacho? When Easter rolls around, do you drool over the light, airy taste of parsnips? Food is key to socialization, and in-season fruits and veggies can play major parts in our memories.

Of course, none of this information is any good unless you know what produce is ripe at which times. The guides at Food Network, Nutritiously Gourmet, and Cornell University are all good places to start. Consumo felice!

Sources:

• “Buy Organic and Locally Produced Foods,” BioDiversityProject.org.
• Dowden, Angela. “The food thats travelled 35,000 miles to reach your plate,” The Daily Mail (London). September 2005.
• Harmer, Briony. “How to become a vegetarian without increasing grocery bills,” Essortment.com. 2002. essortment.com/food/vegetarianincre_skfk.htm.
• “How Food Finds its Way to Your Plate,” Talk of the Nation. NPR Radio. November 2006.
• Lempert, Phil. “The squeeze and sniff test: Tips on how you can pick out fresh fruits and vegetables,” SupermarketGuru.com. April 2002. supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/287.
• McWilliams, James E. “Food That Travels Well,” New York Times. August 2007.
• Monks, Helen. “How to buy food that doesnt cost the Earth,” The Independent (London). April 2006.
• “Pass the fresh test,” Canberra Times (Australia). August 2006.
• Pratt, Rebecca. “Seasonal Foods Exceptional Flavor & Nutrition that Fits in Your Budget,” Babyfit.com. babyfit.sparkpeople.com/articles.asp?id=669.
• Ross, Alicia and Beverly Mills. “Save Money: Buy in Season.” Dallas Morning News. July 2007.
• “Seasonal Vegetables in Temperate Countries,” Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. January 2001. agnet.org/library/pt/2001002/
• Watson, Julia, “Eat To Live: Buy seasonally, eat healthily,” UPI. Jaunary 2006.
• Wiebe, Nettie. “Whos cooking the food system? Globalization & the struggle for food sovereignty,” Briarpatch. February 2007.

Can Our Politicians or the Market Improve on NICE

The Disease Management Care Blog continues to welcome blog posts from outside authors.  This one is courtesy of Erik Tollefson, who works in the health policy field.  He can be reached at erikDOTmDOTtollefsonATgmailDOTcom.

In the halcyon dog days of summer 2009, U.S. politicians aimed their rhetorical fire on a rather odd target: the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).  With a vote on President Obama’s proposed health orm on the horizon, politicians hoped to tar the orm effort by association: The NHS was painted as inefficient; a decried relic of “socialized medicine” and state planning; some damning charges were levied against NICE (The National Institute for Clinical Excellence) as the putative “death panel” rationing potential life-saving treatments to patients.

In a strange turn of events, recent developments in implementing the ACA, particularly the legislative appropriation of basic benefits, may show the limits of the US political system in making important decisions for patients in an economically efficient matter.
 
Two recent examples may raise red flags.  ACA’s “Basic Benefit” program, originally conceptualized as a way for the federal government to standardize benefit programs offered on health care exchanges, was devolved to the states in order to dispel concerns over excessive bureaucratic intervention in the process. 

The result: massive lobbying by medical interest groups, including chiropractors and acupuncturists, to include their services in the benefit package without examination of medical evidence or economic value of their use. While these rent-seeking activities were seen as part and parcel of the political process, the Nebraska basic benefits proposal to offer a high-deductible plan did not pass muster. 

One economic case for the ACA (albeit a limited one) was predicated on leveraging efficiencies in drug prescriptions for generic drugs, particularly biosimilars.  Recent reports indicate, however, that biotechnology companies are trying to put additional roadblocks in the process to prescribe biosimilars, perhaps preventing the anticipated competition and forecast savings.
 
Although these are only a few examples, they have rapidly emerged as both the federal and (some) state governments have started to implement ACA provisions. 

Regardless of the political histrionics surrounding “socialized medicine”, the ACA is now (for better or worse) the law of the land. The issue of whether “rationing” exists in any health care system is a red herring; in a world of scarce resources, rationing is performed regardless of political ideology.

The real question is: how will rationing ultimately be conducted- out in the open as part of a rigorous deliberative process, or behind closed doors by legislative fiat?  In this sense, the US politicians’ attack on NICE was both prescient and half-correct:   the ACA would indeed give new power to legislators and bureaucrats to make decisions on the clinical and economic efficiency of medical treatments for patients, and NICE is the (sometimes unpopular) face of those rationing decisions.
 
At the end of the day, however, the implementation of the ACA raises seminal new questions about whether the business of politics can be separated from the dispassionate analysis needed to evaluate clinical treatments.  NICE is far from perfect: the institution has received withering criticism for tough decisions and a less than perfect methodology (e.g., the QALY).  One of the main challenges for US politicians, or the healthcare market, is whether they can come up with a better system. 

Where healthier eating raw vegetables or vegetable juice drink

Where healthier, eating raw vegetables or vegetable juice drink? - Some people prefer to eat vegetables by means processed into juice for taste different flavors. However, some others consider eating raw vegetables is more healthy though sometimes it does not fit on the tongue. Really?

Vegetables really should be consumed two to three servings per day. Portion could even increase with the activities undertaken. However, for the affairs of the nutrients contained between raw vegetables and vegetable juices, you need to listen to the explanation first as reported by the Health Me Up below.

Digestion

Whole foods such as raw vegetables enjoyed it took a long time to digest. While the juice is much faster and easier to be processed by the body.

Fiber

Unfortunately, cultivate vegetables in juice form apparently eliminates fiber content. Though the function of one of them eating vegetables is to meet the needs of the body fibers.

Should stop drinking vegetable juice?

Not really. Vegetable juice can still be enjoyed if you really want to get the nutrients in a way that is easy and fast. But instead of fiber, try to eat other foods such as fresh fruit and grain.

Balance both

Good eating raw vegetables or vegetable juice drink has its advantages and disadvantages of each. But no need to choose one of them. Instead, enjoy them in an equal number.

In addition to be juice, vegetables can also be processed into smoothies if it did not particularly like the original flavor of the vegetable itself.

Salsa Couscous Chicken OR Moroccan Chicken One Award Winning Recipe Many Names

Today on Serious Eats, White Bean Puree with Poached Eggs, one of the easiest and tastiest comfort foods I’ve made in ages.

While it’s sweet having friends who read, it’s even sweeter having friends who’ll lend you their reading material. Borrowed books are how I discovered Philip Roth and Toni Morrison, Betty Smith and John Irving, Art Spiegelman and uh, Stephenie Meyers. (What? I like vampires that sparkle.)

Recently, my pal Mo lent me a bunch of tomes on multitudinous topics: plastic bottles, Batman, herb gardens, some chick with a dragon tattoo, etc. Her collection is as vast as her little boy is adorable. Which is to say, hugely.

The last one was called The Ungarnished Truth: A Cooking Contest Memoir. Written by Washington native Ellie Matthews, it chronicles her victory at the 1998 Pillsbury’s Bake-Off, along with the ensuing whirlwind of publicity. Thanks to a simple dish called Salsa Couscous Chicken (later renamed), Ellie walked away with a million bucks, an appearance on The Rosie O’Donnell Show, and poultry immortality.

You know how everyone has one great story? One tale that’s a bit of a jaw-dropper? (Mine = worst date ever.) This is Ellie’s. The story itself isn’t a rip-roaring, Indiana Jones-style roller coaster of action, but it’s a neat read, because she’s so dang easygoing. By the end, you wanna sit down and knit a blanket with her. I think that’s a good thing.

At the conclusion, she includes the recipe for Salsa Couscous Chicken. Being inexpensive and relatively healthy-looking (not to mention a contest winner), I had to try it.

The first go-round was a disaster. I used bland (mild) salsa, never got the pan hot enough, and tripled the water. Essentially, I proved myself the fool making a supposedly foolproof recipe.

The second time, though? Sweet n’ spicy triumph. The cinnamon and cumin temper the salsa’s heat. The raisins plump when you cook ‘em. The almonds provide crunch, a valuable textural variation in the midst of so much moistness. Speaking of that moistness - the chicken cooks perfectly, remaining juicy and flavorful, as if it’s been braising for hours.

A word on the calculations: the official recipe/book and Recipe Zaar list different nutritional numbers, probably due to chicken thighs of varying sizes. (It rhymes! Kind of!) So, I did my own math. My thighs averaged out to 5.6 ounces each, raw. For me, that’s a lot of meat. For Husband-Elect, that’s not quite enough. Consequently, my numbers are split into four, six, and eight servings.

Next time you’re looking for inspiration (chicken-related or otherwise), check your friends’ libraries. You never know what you’ll find next to Twilight. (Uh ... look! A shiny thing! *runs away*)

~~~
If you like this recipe, you might also like:

• Bruschetta Chicken Bake
• Chicken and Mushroom Marsala
• Chicken Provencal

~~~

Salsa Couscous Chicken OR Moroccan Chicken (Depending)
Serves 4 to 8
Adapted from Ellie Matthews, via Pillsbury.

1 cup uncooked couscous or rice
1 tablespoon olive oil
1/4 cup slivered almonds
2 cloves garlic, minced
8 boneless, skinless chicken thighs (about 5 or 6 ounces each)
1 cup bottled salsa, medium heat
1/4 cup water
2 tablespoons raisins
1 tablespoon honey
3/4 teaspoon ground cumin
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon

1) Cook the couscous or rice according to package directions. Set aside.

2) In a large pan, heat olive oil over medium-high heat. Once hot, add almonds. Cook, stirring occasionally. Once browned, remove from pan with a slotted spoon and set aside.

3) To the same pan, add garlic. Cook 30 to 60 seconds, until fragrant. Add chicken. Cook about 5 minutes, flipping once halfway through. Meat should be slightly browned when finished.

4) While chicken is cooking, combine salsa, water, raisins, honey, cumin, and cinnamon in a small bowl. Stir.

5) Add salsa mixture to pan. Stir to combine. Cover and cook 20 minutes, stirring occasionally. If it’s getting a little dry, add water as you go along. Chicken should be cooked through when finished. If not, give it another few minutes.

6) Serve chicken over rice/couscous. Top with sauce. Sprinkle with almonds.

Approximate Calories, Fat, Fiber, and Price Per Serving
4 servings: 666 calories, 19.9 g fat, 3.4 g fiber, $2.18
6 servings: 444 calories, 13.3 g fat, 2.3 g fiber, $1.46
8 servings: 333 calories, 10 g fat, 1.7 g fiber, $1.09

Calculations
1 cup uncooked couscous: 650 calories, 1 g fat, 8.7 g fiber, $1.30
1 tablespoon olive oil: 119 calories, 13.5 g fat, 0 g fiber, $0.12
1/4 cup slivered almonds: 170 calories, 15 g fat, 3 g fiber, $0.47
2 cloves garlic, minced: 9 calories, 0 g fat, 0.1 g fiber, $0.08
8 boneless, skinless chicken thighs: 1512 calories, 49.6 g fat, 0 fiber, $5.06
1 cup bottled salsa, medium heat: 70 calories, 0.5 g fat, 0.1 g fiber, $1.45
1/4 cup water: 0 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g fiber, $0.00
2 tablespoons raisins: 65 calories, 0 g fat, 1 g fiber, $0.11
1 tablespoon honey: 64 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g fiber, $0.10
3/4 teaspoon ground cumin: negligible calories, fat, and fiber, $0.03
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon: 3 calories, 0 g fat, 0.6 g fiber, $0.01
TOTALS: 2662 calories, 79.6 g fat, 13.5 g fiber, $8.73
PER SERVING (4 servings): 666 calories, 19.9 g fat, 3.4 g fiber, $2.18
PER SERVING (6 servings): 444 calories, 13.3 g fat, 2.3 g fiber, $1.46
PER SERVINGS (8 servings): 333 calories, 10 g fat, 1.7 g fiber, $1.09

Eating bright colored fruits and vegetables may prevent or delay ALS

New research suggests that increased consumption of foods containing colorful carotenoids, particularly beta-carotene and lutein, may prevent or delay the onset of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The study, published by Wiley in Annals of Neurology, a journal of the American Neurological Association and Child Neurology Society, found that diets high in lycopene, beta-cryptoxanthin, and vitamin C did not reduce ALS risk.

Carotenoids give fruits and vegetables their bright orange, red, or yellow colors, and are a source of dietary vitamin A. Prior studies report that oxidative stress plays a role in the development of ALS. Further studies have shown that individuals with high intake of antioxidants, such as vitamin E, have a reduced ALS risk. Because vitamin C or carotenoids are also antioxidants, researchers examined their relation to ALS risk.

According to the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) roughly 20,000 to 30,000 Americans have ALS—also known as Lou Gehrigs disease—and another 5,000 patients are diagnosed annually with the disease. ALS is a progressive neurological disease that attacks nerve cells (neurons) in the brain and spinal cord, which control voluntary muscles. As the upper and lower motor neurons degenerate, the muscles they control gradually weaken and waste away, leading to paralysis.

"ALS is a devastating degenerative disease that generally develops between the ages of 40 and 70, and affects more men than women," said senior author Dr. Alberto Ascherio, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Mass. "Understanding the impact of food consumption on ALS development is important. Our study is one of the largest to date to examine the role of dietary antioxidants in preventing ALS."

Using data from five prospective groups: the National Institutes of Health (NIH)–AARP Diet and Health Study, the Cancer Prevention Study II-Nutrition Cohort, the Multiethnic Cohort, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Nurses Health Study, researchers investigated more than one million participants for the present study. A total of 1093 ALS cases were identified after excluding subjects with unlikely food consumption.

The team found that a greater total carotenoid intake was linked to reduced risk of ALS. Individuals who consumed more carotenoids in their diets were more likely to exercise, have an advanced degree, have higher vitamin C consumption, and take vitamin C and E supplements. Furthermore, subjects with diets high in beta-carotene and lutein—found in dark green vegetables—had a lower risk ALS risk. Researchers did not find that lycopene, beta-cryptoxanthin, and vitamin C reduced the risk of ALS. Long-term vitamin C supplement intake was also not associated with lower ALS risk.

Dr. Ascherio concludes, "Our findings suggest that consuming carotenoid-rich foods may help prevent or delay the onset of ALS. Further food-based analyses are needed to examine the impact of dietary nutrients on ALS."