Nutrigenomics

Image via Wikipedia

Since the DNA sequence of the human genome has been completed, a considerable amount of knowledge is emerging on the topic of human genetic variability and how nutrients/foods affect genes and/or gene expression.  Two definitions are often used in the nutritional genomics literature.  An “allele” is one of several alternative forms of a gene located at a given location on a chromosome resulting in variants.  This determines the genotype.

“Single nucleotide polymorphism” (SNP) describes a variation in sequence between individuals caused by a change in a single nucleotide in the DNA.  This is responsible for most of the genetic variation between individuals. It has been estimated that the human genome contains approximately 10 million SNPs

A bioactive compound (phytochemical)  is provided by epigallocatechin -3 galate (EGCG) found in green tea.   Green tea is produced from the withered leaves and buds of Cameillia sinensis by heating or steaming before drying.   From anecdotal evidence, epidemiological and experimental models, it is thought to have health benefits.   A prospective study of a group of Japanese people younger than 79 years old with a 13-year follow-up indicated a delay of cancer onset and cancer-related death, as well as all-cause mortality with an increased consumption of green tea.  Another cohort of 8,552 general residents of Japan prevented evidence for preventive effects of drinking green tea on both cancer and heart disease.  In one animal study, researchers showed that green tea as a main source of fluid in the diet of mice could suppress colon carcinogenesis.  Another study suggested a reduction of chronic inflammation by green tea and others suggest antiobesity effects.

Green tea consumption may be particularly beneficial to certain individuals already at high risk for cancer.  For example, angiotensin II has been associated with breast cancer development in humans.  The angiotensin-1 converting enzyme (ACE) gene encodes angiotensin-converting -1 converting enzyme, which forms angiotensin II from angiotensin-1.  Women with an ACE genotype that leads to low conversion activity have a reduced risk of breast cancer compared to those possessing the high activity genotype.  In a case-control study with 297 breast cancer cases and 665 control subjects (Singapore Chinese Health Study), women with the high-activity ACE variant, significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer to about 1/3 of the original levels with an increase in intake of green tea.   The researchers proposed that green tea polyphenols are protective against reactive oxygen species generated in the presence of high levels of angiotensin II.  However, there was no association between green tea intake and risk of breast cancer among all women or those with low-activity ACE variant. This appears to be a very good example of how a food compound can influence breast cancer risk in women with genetic variability

Drugs may also influence breast cancer risk.   Long-term use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II inhibitors may help some patients with hypertension reduce their risk of developing breast cancer.  (Cancer, 2008). Patients with a D/D genotype which indicated a high level of angiotensin activity had nearly a 50% increased risk of breast cancer.  Patients with the D/D genotype, however, experienced a 70% reduced risk of developing breast cancer if they received long-term and high-dose treatment with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II antagonists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Antioxidants Pose No Melanoma Threat (nlm.nih.gov)

Paleolithic Nutrition – How Our Diets Changed

A previous post  described how our bodies have not changed, but our diets have.  Our genes evolved in ancient days as our species became Homo sapiens.  We can compare the components of the diet from Paleolithic  days to the present day.

CARBOHYDRATES:  Early humans obtained about half of their calories from carbohydrates.  However, they were not in the form of our present day carbohydrate sources – refined grains, pastas, starchy vegetables, and products high in fat and sugar especially high-fructose corn syrup.   They ate carbs as vegetables and fruits.  What a difference.  When they found sweets, it was more than likely in the form of honey if they could even obtain it easily.

FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND FIBER:  Our ancestors ate an estimated 100 grams of fiber a day from around 100 different species of fruits and vegetables (dependent on the region).  The fiber came from primarily roots, fruits, legumes, nuts, and other naturally occurring noncereal plant sources, says S. Boyd Eaton, a foremost authority on Paleolithic diets.

Today, few Americans eat the recommended five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables and when we do, the foods are usually potatoes as French fries, some form of corn, lettuce, and some tomatoes.  In other words, our choices do not provide much variety in quality, form or color.

PROTEIN AND FAT:  Early H. sapiens ate about 30% protein that was regionally and seasonally determined.  They ate primarily wild game meats such as deer and bison, along with small game they could hunt.  These animals were lean and higher in omega-3 fatty acids.  Domesticated animals contain much more saturated fat and provide us with about  an 11:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids.  A more ideal ratio that is currently recommended varies from 1:1 to 4:1.

VITAMINS AND MINERALS:  Fruits and vegetables were consumed quickly and not stored or carried great distances.  Often they were uncooked.  The variety alone would provide all the vitamins and minerals our bodies needed.  Today, processing destroys many vitamins by high heat and additives.

SODIUM AND POTASSIUM: The Daily Value for sodium intake is less than 2400 mg/day and about 3500 mg/day for potassium. Our intake is about 4000 mg/day of sodium and about 3000 mg/day of potassium.   Early humans had little sodium estimated to be around 600 mg/day and potassium intake at about 7,000 mg/day.  So the ratio is reversed which contributes to the risk of hypertension in many people.

Where do we go from here in our present society?  Based on our dietary evolutionary past, we are clearly on the wrong track. Since most of us do not wish to hunt and gather,  Michael Pollan wrote an article published in the New York Times, January, 2007 entitled “Unhappy Meals” which addresses this problem.  He lists four changes that have occurred in the Western Diet compared to our original diets:

• From whole foods to refined foods
• From complexity to simplicity (four crops provide 2/3 of our calories – corn, soybeans, wheat, rice)
• From leaves to seeds (grains instead of greens)
• From food culture to food science (from “Mom” to advertising)

He offers this advice:

• Eat food – don’t eat anything your Grandmother would not recognize.
• Avoid food products with health claims – claims are shaky and usually the product is highly processed.
• Avoid products containing unfamiliar ingredients – if you cannot pronounce most of them, you know they are highly processed.
• Get out of the supermarket when possible – eat local, pay more, eat less; eat mostly plants
• Eat more like the French, Japanese, or Greeks.
• Plant a garden and cook.
• Eat like an omnivore – try new species for more variety

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michael Pollan’s Rules to Eat By (chefann.com)
• What cavemen can teach us about good eats (nationalpost.com)

Today’s Diet, Yesterday’s Genes

Image via Wikipedia

According to S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., we are out of sync with our genes by eating less and less like our ancient ancestors.  Based on the free radical theory brought forth by Denham Harmon, M.D., PhD, free radicals are thought to have triggered the chemical reactions that led to the first and simplest forms of life about 3.5 billion years ago.  In order to prevent damage from these reactive radicals, antioxidant defenses evolved soon after to continue the survival of the first life organisms.

No one is sure how life forms began.  Stanley L. Miller, PhD. has proposed that compounds oxidized by solar radiation in the primordial oceans may have helped to produce the building blocks of the organic compounds needed to form DNA and RNA, the building blocks of our genes. Subsequently, all life forms needed the same nutrients that were formed, amino acids, lipids, vitamins, and minerals in order to survive.  According to Eaton, 99 percent of our genetic heritage dates from before our biological ancestors became Homo sapiens about 40,000 years ago and 99.9% of our genes were formed before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.

We have been hunter-gatherers for 100,000 generations and agrarians for only 500 generations since the Agricultural Revolution.  Furthermore, we have had only 10 generations living since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  The Agricultural Revolution changed our diets drastically by consuming large amounts of grain, milk, and domesticated meat.  The culture became more sedentary as well.  During the Industrial Revolution, the diet changed even more.  Beginning around 1900, we began to refine our whole grains and refined sugar became plentiful leading to a loss of vital nutrients.  Presently, our diets rely on vast amounts of processed foods – only two generations have lived with highly processed fast foods.  So, our diets have changed, but our genes have not. We are insulting our genetic heritage that possibly contributes to heart disease, cancer, diabetes,  the so-called “diseases of civilization”.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Phytochemicals in plant-based foods could help battle obesity, disease (biosingularity.wordpress.com)
• Why Do We Need Fruits and Vegetables? (thebestrawfooddiet.com)

The World is Fat – What Happened???

Recently the media has featured articles on how the obese contribute to higher morbidity and mortality rates and thus contribute to increased health care costs.  This is actually controversial – many studies show no differences in life expectancies between the obese and non-obese individual and some studies conclude that being overweight adds to life expectancy.

These thoughts add to the already established bias against the obese.  The obese person after the 20^th century was ridiculed for gluttony and laziness.  Bias against the obese occurs in employment, the media, education, and health care.  Dietitians, psychologists, nurses, medical students and physicians are all guilty of obesity bias.  The attitude about obesity in the U.S. is that its onset is controllable and is reversible.  “If an obese person works hard enough, he or she can lose weight”.   “In order to lose weight, all you need to do is eat less and exercise more”.  This may stem from ads for diets and weight loss methods that make it seem that weight loss is easy.  Most people in these commercials say “I lost 50 pounds – you can too by just calling “Jenny”.  Or I love the one that states, “I stole the cookie from the cookie jar” and lost 30 pounds.  All the women swear they went from a size 20 to a size 4 in no time and is that before and after picture really the same person?

So why are some people obese and others can eat most anything and not gain a pound?  That question still remains to be answered, but now research has started to give us some food for thought.

The definition for obesity is having a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30.  Obesity is not just an American problem.  Even in developing countries, obesity has emerged as a major health threat, in fact even more than hunger in some nations. In Mexico, Egypt and South Africa, more than half the adults are either overweight or obese. Even very poor Nigeria and Uganda are facing some problems of obesity.  Worldwide, more than 1.3 billion people are overweight, whereas only about 800 million are underweight.

Mexico is the best example of change.  In 1989 fewer than 10% of Mexicans were overweight.  More focus was on poverty and hunger.  But in 2006, national surveys found that 71% of Mexican women and 66% of men were overweight or obese.  Type 2 diabetes was almost nonexistent 15 years ago, but today almost 1/7^th of the population suffer from this disease.

How could such a radical change occur in less than 20 years?  Does overeating explain it all?  We have always thought that all fat people ate too much and exercised less, but studies show that although some do, a great number do not.  The long held theory is that calories in should equal calories out; however this is now thought to be too simplistic to understand weight loss and weight gain.   The first obesity gene was discovered in 1994 and since then, research has found about 50 genes that may be involved.

Obesity is caused by both genetic and environmental influences or the interaction between the two.  How does nature contribute to obesity?  When identical twins are raised apart, they both tend to have similar weights and body fat distribution.  It is thought that genes account for up to 70% of weight difference between people.  If you have two parents who are genetically obese, you have an 80% chance of also becoming obese; with one parent, only 40% chance.  Even with no obese parents, you have a 10% chance.

Some rats and mice have a higher chance of being obese if they inherited a “thrifty gene” – one that uses energy frugally.  People who can gain weight on very little calories may be genetically programmed to survive in times of famine – when we evolved as a species, this ability was an advantage.  Now with our abundant food supply, it works against us.

Does the body have a set point for weight?  The set-point theory proposes that people have a genetically predetermined body weight or body fat content that the body closely regulates.  The hypothalamus in the brain regulates this weight in a number of ways.  The body protects us from losing weight.  When calorie intake is reduced, thyroid hormones fall and metabolism slows.  As weight is lost, activities that once burned 100 calories may now only burn 80 calories.  And the body becomes more efficient is storing fat by increasing an enzyme, lipoprotein lipase which helps to put more fat into cells.  All these mechanisms work to prevent further weight loss.

But the genes don’t explain it all either.  Studies of identical twins who eat about the same amount of calories can have vastly different weights.  An unlikely new idea has emerged – can microorganisms or viruses in the body and the environment be responsible?   Should we think obesity as an infectious disease?

So a new school of thought has emerged – “infectobesity” coined by a physician, Nikhil Dhurandhar.   Research has uncovered a link between obesity and a common virus, the adenovirus.   Other research points to the influence of microbes that live in everyone’s intestines.  If this theory proves to be involved with even some cases of obesity, we would or should change our attitudes about being fat.  Couple that with the genetic and other biological factors that are now accepted to be causative in obesity, the typical stereotypes of the lazy, gluttonous picture of the fat person should change as well as the biases of the public and health care providers.

The Resurrection of Vitamin D

A lot of attention has been paid to vitamin D in the past few years.  When I took my first nutrition course (decades ago), most all that was stated was that it prevented rickets and was considered to be extremely toxic at high intakes.  Vitamin D acts as a hormone and is best known to regulate (raise) blood calcium at three sites in the body:  the intestines, the bone, and the kidneys.  Thus, it’s main function is to regulate bone metabolism.   Beyond bone regulation, vitamin D influences over 30 body tissues from hair follicles to cells of the immune system as well as some cancer cells.

Research is hinting (sometimes strongly) that vitamin D deficiency may contribute to high blood pressure, some common cancers, infections, heart disease, inflammatory conditions, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and multiple sclerosis.   Recently, it has been discovered that many people, particularly African and Mexican Americans border on insufficiency.  A new study suggests that 70% of U.S. kids lack vitamin D.  Food sources are sparse with only vitamin D found to any great extent in salmon, fortified milk, and shrimp.  Without adequate sunlight, supplements are recommended especially in Northern climates.

How much do we need?  Advancing age increases the risk of deficiency, so 5 micrograms/day is needed for those 19 -50 years; 10 micrograms for those 51-70 years, and 15 micrograms for those over seventy.  The Tolerable Upper Level has been set at 50 micrograms/day, which equals 2000 IU on vitamin labels.

New studies concentrate on seniors.  “Low vitamin D may be deadly for older adults”.  Low levels were reported to increase risk of death from any cause but especially heart disease.  “Vitamin D helps prevent falls in seniors”.  A daily higher supplemental dose of 700 to 1000 IU/day of D3 (preferred) reduced falls by 26% in those people over 65.  Since the recommendation for that age group is only 400-600 IU/day and less than 700 IU/day did not reduce falls,  this recommendation should possibly be adjusted higher in the future.  Stay tuned!!!

What Ever Happened to Hunting and Gathering?

Whatever Happened to Hunting and Gathering?

When I grew up and began to discover the agony of dieting (which I have practiced my whole life), the foods considered “fattening” were spaghetti (now known as pasta), bread, and potatoes.  I believe that some people can eat carbohydrate foods with no problems and others put on 5 pounds by looking at a plate of pasta. We hear that celiac disease (an intolerance to wheat gluten) is on the rise and a large majority of the people of the world is lactose intolerant.  We have an epidemic of diabetes type 2.  All these maladies involve some kind of problem eating some types or so many carbohydrates.

Why do carbohydrates cause problems with some people?  Perhaps some clues can be found by going back to the days of hunter gathering and the later advent of the Agricultural Revolution.

When I began to teach a course in Food and Culture, I ran across an interesting comparison of two cultures in our own country in southern Kentucky.  One was a hunter-gatherer population (HG)  called Indian Knolls (5000 years ago) and the other was a later culture of farmers (agriculturists) named Hardin Village (1500 AD to 1675 AD.)  Then I got interested in nutritional anthropology after reading articles on the Paleolithic Diet, and Jared Diamond’s “The Worst Mistake in the History of the World”.  Perhaps our carbohydrate problems emerged when we changed to farmers from hunter-gatherers.

The skeletal remains of the hunter-gatherers show the nutritional anthropologist a lot of how the health of these people differs.  In other words, when these two populations were compared, the HG’s turned out to be a lot healthier than the agriculturists.  According to Eades in his book, Protein Power, the HGs “had better bones, no signs of iron-deficiency, no signs of infection, few (if any) dental cavities, fewer signs of arthritis and in general were larger and more robust”.  These two groups probably shared some genetic characteristics; both were sedentary; lived in the same general area with the only differences between them being when they lived and their diet.

What did both of these groups eat?  The Hardin Village inhabitants were mainly dependent on corn, beans, and squash, mostly starchy vegetables. There is little evidence of much meat eating except for small animals.  Few deer remains were found in this area. They began to drink milk from domesticated goats and cattle.

The Indian Knolls group ate river mussels and snails.  They hunted more animals such as deer, wild turkey, turtle, and fish.  The bottom line was that they consumed more protein foods while the HGs ate more carbohydrate foods.  They had little to no dairy except from breast milk.

In Hardin Village the researchers found 296 skeletons and in Indian Knolls site yielded 285.  From these skeletons, it was discovered that life expectancy was higher and infant mortality was lower in Indian Knolls as well as the generally more healthy characteristics stated above.

So changing the carbohydrate content of the diet, mainly to starchy foods from the more fiber-rich foods of the HG, we may have done ourselves a great disservice.  It changed not only civilization (read Worst Mistake) but it also changed our health.

What Are Phytochemicals?

Eat tomatoes for cancer prevention!  Forgetful?  Eat blueberries!  Don’t forget your broccoli!  Can simply eating certain foods prevent chronic disease?  From broccoli sprouts to flaxseed – these foods  (of plant origin) have one thing in common – they contain phytochemicals.   In nature, these compounds are biologically active components of plants believed to confer plant protection. They provide antioxidants to protect the plant or often function as pigments in highly colored fruits and vegetables. Phytochemical –containing foods are often called functional foods– those foods that confer a health benefit beyond that of just providing nutrients.  Manufacturers who add nutrients to candy bars, juice, margarine that was not originally in the food, formulate some of these foods.  Research with these phytochemicals has mostly shown benefits to cell cultures and animals while human research is in its infancy.  Only a few of the thousands of these chemicals have been studied.

TOP TEN PHYTOCHEMICALS

1. Capsacin: May lessen blood clots in heart and arteries.  Found in hot peppers.

2. Carotenoids (beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein ):   Act as antioxidants and reduction of heart disease, macular degeneration, and some cancers.  Deeply pigmented fruits and vegetables.  Do not take antioxidant supplements especially beta carotene.

3.  Curcumin: May inhibit certain enzymes that activate carcinogens.  Turmeric and curry.

4.  Flavonoids: Antioxidants that scavenge carcinogens, improve memory and promote healthy urinary tracts (cranberries).  Found in berries, black tea, chocolate, citrus fruits, green tea, olives, onions, oregano, purple grapes, soy products, red and white wine.

5.   Isothiocyanates (sulforaphane):  May inhibit enzymes that activate carcinogens; produce enzymes that promote cancer promotion and cell proliferation.  Found in cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower), horseradish, mustard greens.

6.   Organosulfur compounds: May speed production of carcinogen-destroying enzymes or slow proliferation of carcinogen-activating enzymes.  Found in chives, leeks, garlic, and onion.

7.  Phytic acid: Binds to minerals, preventing free radicals.  Found in whole grain.

8.  Protease inhibitors: May suppress enzyme production in cancer cells, slowing tumor growth; inhibit hormone binding; inhibit malignant changes in cells.  Found in broccoli sprouts, potatoes, soybeans and other legumes.

9.  Resveratrol: May offset artery-damaging effects of high-fat diets.  Found in red wine, peanuts.

10.  Tannins: May inhibit carcinogen activation and cancer promotion; act as antioxidants.  Found in black-eyed peas, grapes, lentils, red and white wine, tea.

BOTTOM LINE:  Until more research is done, eat whole fruits and vegetables, NOT supplementary pills or extracts.  These phytochemicals work together to protect us from disease, so taking one alone will probably have no effect on health or longevity.

Finding Fake Nutrition Credentials

The field of nutrition is loaded with self-proclaimed “nutritionists” that often have obtained worthless certifications by merely sending in a form with enough money to be called some kind of professional sounding title.  These people often call themselves nutrition counselors, “nutritionists”, holistic nutritionists, certified nutritionist and so on.   They may sound meaningful but most of these people lack the educational standards needed for this complex field. Most legitimate nutritionists and dietitians have at least a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited college or university and many have more advanced degrees. Many states require further licensing. Accreditation is often confusing; the best accreditation is one certified by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.  Often some schools claim accreditation, but only by regional agencies.  Fake nutrition degrees are available from schools “accredited” by more than 30 phony accrediting agencies.  In contrast, others may claim to be nutrition “expert” by displaying a degree from a six-month correspondence course or even less.  Many of these schools are actually mail-order diploma mills- fraudulent businesses that sell certificates of competency to anyone who pays the fees, from under a thousand dollars to several thousand for a doctorate.   To obtain these degrees, a candidate need not read any books or pass any exams. An example of how easy it is to obtain a fake nutrition degree was that one writer enrolled for $82.00 in a nutrition diploma mill that billed itself as a correspondence school.  She made every attempt to fail, intentionally answering all the exam questions incorrectly.  Even so, she received a “nutritionist” certificate at the end of the course, together with a letter from the “school” officials that they were sure she had misread the test. Another example was that Ms. Sassafras Herbert was named a “professional member” of a nutrition association.  She received a wallet card and is listed in a fake “Who’s Who in Nutrition”.  She is a poodle.  In addition, Charley Herbert is also a member of the organization. He is a cat.  Their owner,  Dr. Victor Herbert paid $50 in their names to obtain these memberships.  The late Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D., M.A.C.P, F.R.S.M. (London\ had long been a proponent of accurate and responsible nutrition information. What to do?  First look for the degrees and credentials listed after the person’s name (such as MD, RD, MS, PhD or LD.).  Find out what you can about the reputation of the institution that awarded the degrees. The RD certification guarantees that the nutritionist has graduated from an accredited university or college. Call your state’s health-licensing agency to see if dietitians/nutritionists are licensed. Note: On Quackwatch Home Page, search “Why Nutrition Licensing is Important”.

Nuts Are Among the Berries

Where to Find Reliable Nutrition Information

Nutrition quackery has plagued the nation for decades ever since the first traveling salesmen began to claim the health benefits of their tonics, potions, and “diet” supplements.   Since then, we have been flooded with varying degrees of misinformation from simple false advertising to scams, promises, and schemes with some downright fraudulent.

Nutrition misinformation is found in abundance everywhere from TV, radio commercials, magazines and books, health food stores, and of course the Internet.   Other information may come from personal trainers, health food store clerks, a doctor, or actually anyone.   Some is based on sound, scientific, reliable sources; it is just hard to tell the differences between legitimate science and pseudoscience.   About 27 billion dollars are spent on legitimate and non-legitimate products and services in the name of nutrition and health.

Valid nutrition information is based ideally on carefully designed, peer-reviewed scientific studies that can be replicated.  No one should trust the results of just one study or transfer data from animal studies to humans.  No one should rely on anecdotal evidence or testimonials, either.  Reliable science relies on using new findings to add to or discount the existing knowledge base. That is one of the reasons why so much nutrition news appears to constantly change.

So who are the experts?  Physicians?  Probably not.   Only thirty percent of all medical schools in U.S. require a comprehensive nutrition course.  Less than half require the minimum 25 hours of nutrition education recommended by the Academy of Sciences.  If you have ever taken one nutrition class in high school or college, you would more than likely have completed 45 hours of instruction.

The following should be the individuals you may trust or look for when seeking accurate nutrition advice:

• The American Dietetic Association is the professional organization of  registered dietitians in the U.S and offers consumers reliable nutrition information and publications on its website.
• A Registered Dietitian (RD) has graduated from a university or college after completing an approved or accredited  academic program by the American Dietetic Association.  They must serve an approved internship to practice the necessary skills; pass the five parts of the registration exam and maintain competency through continuing education.  Many states require additional licensing to practice, so many will have LD, or LDN credentials.
• A Registered Dietetic Technician (DTR) is someone who has completed a two-year academic degree from an accredited college or university and an approved program.  They must pass a national exam and maintain registration through continuing education.
• A Public Health Nutritionist has completed an advanced degree in nutrition and specializes in public health nutrition.

The bottom line is to look for the credentials of anyone who called himself or herself “nutritionist” as someone who has completed an advanced degree (MS or PhD) from an accredited institution.  Some may be registered dietitians.

What Are Polyphenols?

Phenolic Compounds

A headline in the news today says: “Popcorn is good for you”.  The article goes on to say this is due to a high content of antioxidants known as polyphenols.

What are Polyphenols?

Polyphenols are a group of chemical substances found in plants and divided chemically into tannins, lignins, and flavonoids.  The largest and best-studied polyphenols are the flavonoids, which include several thousand compounds, among them the flavonols, flavones, catechins, flavanones, anthocyanidins and isoflavonoids. Notable sources include berries, tea, beer, grapes/wine, olive oil, chocolate/cocoa, coffee, walnuts, peanuts, pomegranates, fruits and vegetables, and now apparently popcorn.

Olive Oil

Tyrosol esters are the predominant phenolic compounds in olive oil (OO).  Phenolic compounds in olive oil may help explain the benefits to the cardiovascular system associated with the Mediterranean Diet.  These phenolic compounds have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting properties.

Breakfasts including olive oil with either high or low phenolic content were fed to 21 participants with high cholesterol levels; otherwise they were healthy.  Outcome measures were the functioning of the epithelium of small blood vessels of the fingers and the concentration of nitric oxide in the blood.  Nitric oxide is an artery protector.

After fasting overnight, participants ate a breakfast of 60 grams of white bread with 40 milliliters of virgin olive oil with vitamin A supplementation.  Over the next four hours, blood samples were taken and Doppler laser was used to measure endothelial responses to sudden change in blood flow.  Poor responsiveness to this test is considered an early warning sign of heart disease.  Each participant was put through this process twice in a randomized order, once using high phenolic olive oil (400 parts per million) and once with same brand of olive oil that had been processed to remove most of the phenolic compounds (80 parts per million remaining).  The high phenolic olive oil improved circulation as measured by improved dilation.

Wine

Anthocyanins are phenolic compounds responsible for the blue to red colors found in flowers, fruits, and leaves.  In most grapes anthocyanins are found only in the outer cell layers of the skin, leaving the grape juice inside to be virtually colorless.  A growing number of scientific reports suggest that anthocyanins exhibit a wide range of protective effects with potential benefits for human health.  Some of these effects may be related to the associated antioxidant capacity of these compounds or alteration of gene expression.

Pure anthocyanins or extracts include a large list of beneficial roles on eye health, brain cognitive function, obesity, ulcer protection, cardiovascular risk, and cancer prevention.

Proanthocyanidins

After lignans, these compounds are the second most abundant natural phenolics.  They are found in fruits (grapes, apples, strawberries), beans, nuts, cocoa, and wine.  They are not abundant in vegetables. 

Grape seed extracts have shown to have effects on the cardiovascular system due to increased plasma antioxidant activity, improved blood circulation in legs, reduction of fluid retention in pre-menopausal women, and the improvement of endothelial function in people at high cardiovascular risk.

Resveratrol

Resveratrol is a naturally occurring polyphenolic compound found in the skins of wine grapes. Both red and white grape varieties have resveratrol but more frequent use of skin contact and maceration in red winemaking means that red wines will normally have 10 times more than white wines.  Most of the studies on the health benefits have been done only in animal models, mainly mice.  In addition, to get the same dose of reservatrol used in the mice studies, a person would have to consume 100-1,000 bottles of red wine a day. 

Some research shows that resveratrol could be linked to a reduced risk of inflammation and blood clotting.  Simply eating grapes, or drinking grape juice has been suggested as one way to get resveratrol without drinking alcohol.  Other foods that contain some resveratrol include peanuts, blueberries and cranberries

Nutraceuticals

What about supplements currently advertised as nutraceuticals?  Studies on long-term supplementation of these products are generally missing and studies on possible adverse effects, accumulation and toxicity are needed.  Most of these products recommend a specific dose and it has not been determined what dose is best.  Most commercially available nutraceuticals contain a mixture of compounds since they are usually prepared from raw extracts from different food products. No one known how these compounds interact with each other in the human body.  At the present time, the recommendation of these supplements is not warranted.  There are already some health care professionals such as physicians, nutritionists, and pharmacists who prescribe and/or give advice on the consumption of some nutraceuticals, but most of them may not have the necessary knowledge on these compounds to give accurate advice to both consumers and producers.  

BOTTOM LINE: FOR NOW, GET YOUR POLYPHENOLS FROM FOODS, NOT PILLS.