Choose Your Poisons

Food additives vary tremendously in character, from diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic female hormone used to stimulate cattle growth by 15 percent and boost efficiency of feed by 12 percent, to butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), an antioxidant used to retard or prevent rancidity and flavor deterioration. Then there is glycerol monostearate, an emulsifying agent derived from partial decomposition of fats, which is used in making ice cream, and a wide variety of artificial coloring compounds (there are now thirty-three permitted in Britain, only nineteen in the EEC, ten in the U.S., and four in the U.S.S.R.). Much of our animal food is laced with antibiotics, which are given to retard meat spoilage. They are also used to suppress evidence of disease in animals that are raised in adverse circumstances and are, therefore, prone to illness. They offer no nutritional benefits.

There are three main ways that food additives can be threats to health: they can be carcinogenic (tending to produce cancer), teratogenic (tending to harm the unborn child in the womb), and mutagenic (tending to produce changes in the gene pattern which can be passed on to future generations). One can add the danger of producing genetic changes in the cell material which promote early aging in the body—of particular concern to a woman intent on preserving her youthfulness and good looks.

Government agencies try to regulate the safety of additives in fabricated foods, but judging from the Canadian and American records of failure and the number of permitted additives that have in recent years been suddenly whisked off the market, this is an impossible task. Only 60 percent of the additives used in Britain have been tested at all and even then only for acute toxicity—that is, to determine whether or not they bring immediate adverse reactions to an organism ingesting them—not for teratogenicity nor for possible genetic effects. In fact, there is simply no way for them to be tested. The tests that are done are carried out on animals, not humans, and as the thalidomide tragedy showed, a substance can appear quite safe from teratogenic effects in laboratory animals, yet result in tragic consequences for a human fetus.

But even our methods of testing are outdated. According to Ross Flume Hall, this is because we have all our assumptions wrong. "Both the standards of nutrition by which these foods are judged and the methods of toxicology used to determine their safety are outmoded nineteenth- century models," he says. Nineteenth-century nutritional theory is based on the notion that all we need from food is protein, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, and minerals regardless of their source. It is unaware of the interrelationships in natural foods, and of the implications of possible nutrients as yet undiscovered (as with fiber until fifteen years ago) which may be vital for good health. "This limited concept of what constitutes nourishment persists," says Hall, "even though it has been completely outmoded by the enormous advances in understanding of cell and molecular biology."

The nineteenth-century toxicology still practiced today assumes that each chemical tested has its own level of toxicity. As long as one's consumption of that chemical remains below that level, it says, one is safe. It gives no consideration to how different chemicals, tested separately, affect an organism when they are consumed together; nor is any thought given to the cumulative effects of taking a substance regularly over the years.

"What we are beginning to realize," says Hall, "is that not only can chemicals poison in the short term, they can also cause long-term subtle and undetected changes in personal biology. These changes can show themselves in devastating ways such as cancer and other degenerative diseases and birth defects."

Food additives are not the only problems with convenience foods either. Their simple nutritional worth is highly questionable. For in addition to their lack of fiber (natural fiber is largely removed in the manufacture of convenience foods), government surveys in Canada and the United States—where 80 percent of food eaten is now factory-produced —show that in spite of the great wealth of these countries and the availability to the public of a vast variety of foods, in general people are not getting enough vitamins and minerals in their diet. This is in large part because so many of the nutrients are lost in processing.

Researchers at Rutgers University experimented with frozen chicken pies to see what vitamin loss, if any, had taken place in the processing. They chose vitamin C levels. To their amazement, researchers found no vitamin C whatever in commercially prepared frozen pies. Then they added vitamin C to the pies and refroze them. When they were reheated two days later, three quarters of the vitamin had disappeared.

A random sampling of 6.5 million elderly people in Britain, in an investigation sponsored by the Ministry of Health, revealed that four out of five were suffering from vitamin deficiencies—a factor that is probably responsible for a large number of illnesses, including many mental disorders suffered by the elderly. According to Dr. Geoffrey Taylor, who has made a long study of the problem in Britain, "There is every reason to believe these deficiencies are present in other age groups of the population as well."

These are a few of the reasons why the Lifestyle Diet does not include convenience foods. For lasting health and beauty you need the very best complement of nutrients you can get. The McCarrison Society, an organization of doctors and dentists in Britain dedicated to the study of the relationship between nutrition and health, issued a directive that expresses it very well: "Food should be left as close as possible to its natural state. It should be grown on healthy soil. Stored, canned, packaged or precooked food should, whenever possible, be replaced by fresh food. The protective value of a wide range of fresh vegetables, fruits, and low-fat dairy produce is particularly important. Cereal carbohydrates should not be refined and sugar consumption should be at an absolute minimum." These are the basic principles of the Lifestyle Diet. Now let's see how to put it all into practice.

Secrets of Athletes and weight control

For many sportsmen and -women, there are distinct advantages to maintaining an optimum ratio between body fat and lean body mass. Gymnasts, wrestlers, ballet-dancers and even jockeys strive for a low mass and a high strength-to-mass ratio. Fat tissue does not contribute to the generation of force or power and therefore, must be carried as 'dead' weight in activity involving strength or during any weight- bearing exercise (for example, in a sport like distance running). In fact, leanness is often a good predictor of performance. However, for many athletes, the 'quest for thinness' may become a pre-occupation.

An athlete may try to control body weight in one of several ways. Firstly, he or she may attempt to reduce and maintain a minimal body mass. This is commonly achieved in what amounts to chronic 'undernutrition'- which may in fact result in nutritional deficiencies. It has been shown that it is difficult to take in adequate amounts of certain vitamins and micronutrients - such as B12, folic acid, iron and calcium - when food energy intake is below 5 000 kilojoules (or 1 200 calories) per day.

In addition, chronic low energy (kilojoule) intake in endurance trained athletes will result in certain changes in metabolism, in order to 'spare' energy. An athlete with a low intake may be able to eat less to maintain his or her current body mass, than one with a normal intake. There may be changes in thyroid hormone function, menstrual irregularities in women and a decrease in 'resting metabolism' (see page 128). All these factors point to undernutrition.

Many athletes - particularly young ones - aim to increase their lean body mass or 'muscle bulk', so as to improve performance in some sport. This may involve special diets, protein supplements, drugs to stimulate appetite and anabolic drugs (such as the much-publicised anabolic steroids). A recent study of 76 local resistance-trained athletes revealed that they were taking in nearly 3 times the RDA (recommended dietary allowance) for protein, and then supplementing their diet with protein powders. These sportsmen would be expensive to feed - and, as already shown, their efforts would be to no avail.

It is important for an athlete to recognize that attempts at weight gain in order to increase muscle mass are only effective if accompanied by a resistance training programme which overloads the muscle. In addition, there is no strong scientific argument for supplementing the diet with protein to this extreme, and the long-term consequences on kidney function are as yet, unknown. Drugs, especially anabolic steroids, also have potentially harmful long-term side effects; in addition, they are illegal and generally considered as a 'cheating' method of improving performance.

Finally, many sports involve specific weight categories and certain athletes are regularly involved in 'making weight' prior to competition. Examples of these sporting activities include body building, boxing, martial arts, horse racing and collegiate wrestling. There has been a great deal of research into the weight control practices and dietary patterns of American collegiate wrestlers. In a study of over 700 high school wrestlers, it was estimated that these athletes lost between 2 and 12% of their body mass within 2-48 hours prior to competition. This 'weight cycling' was repeated between 5 and 30 times per season for each wrestler! Sixty-nine college wrestlers were surveyed and results revealed that the average weight a wrestler needed to lose to compete in a specific category was approximately 4,5 kg, 3 days prior to competition. All of those surveyed gained weight in the off-season, and tended to flucuate between 5 and 9 kg above competition weight each week during the season!

The rapid weight losses achieved by these athletes usually involve cutting down severely on food and fluid intake and 'thermal' methods designed to lose water through sweating (plastic suits, saunas, etc.). But studies show that this can be counterproductive, since a loss of as little as 2% of total body weight through dehydration causes reduced exercise and heat tolerance, which in turn may result in poor performance.

There is also evidence that athletes who regularly undergo 'weight cycling' or 'yo-yo' dieting and weight loss may experience long-term changes in growth and metabolism. Wrestlers who constantly have to 'cut weight' in order to compete have been shown to have a slower metabolic rate than those who can compete without losing mass. So, while leanness may be a good indicator of performance in some sports, the 'quest for thinness' itself may have a detrimental effect. Manipulating body weight through weight 'cycling' may also result in long-term changes in metabolism; the athlete should rather strive for a balance in weight control which will improve his or her performance in the long-term.

It is unlikely that manipulating food intake or a single isolated nutrient will lead to enhanced performance on its own. An overwhelming number of studies have shown that supplementing a balanced diet, containing sufficient protein, vitamins and minerals has no benefit on athletic performance. A consistent and well planned training programme is still the most effective way of improving athletic performance. However, good nutrition supports the training programme in ensuring optimal performance, and sound nutritional practices will allow the athlete to achieve his or her potential.

Cancer – Can Your Diet Make the Difference?

Firstly, can it really be said with confidence that if you eat much less, or much more, of a particular foodstuff - or combination of foodstuffs - you will become immune or less at risk to this or that cancer? To begin with, it has been proved beyond doubt that cancer can be prevented in experimental animals through dietary changes. In particular, reduced energy (kilojoule) and fat intakes and increased consumption of fibre- rich foods and certain vitamins have been found to inhibit the development of cancer. The question is, can these findings be appliedto human beings?

Here there are two very important questions: Firstly, to what extent is there a link between human diet and cancer, and secondly, how drastic are the changes we have to make to our eating patterns in order to bring about a significant drop in cancer development?

The first question is possibly easier to answer than the second. Researchers are now convinced that, in dietary terms, humans share the same cancer risks as animals. Simply put, these are:

• eating too much food in general and too much fat in particular
• not eating enough of the fibre contained in grains, legumes (beans, peas, lentils), fruit and vegetables
• low intakes of certain vitamins

The fat, vitamin and fibre factors

A high fat intake leads to a high concentration of faecal bile acids which can, under certain circumstances, act as carcinogens (cancer- producing substances). A low fibre intake results in a high faecal pH value, which favours the development of carcinogens; it also causes waste to take longer to move through the bowel, allowing time for cancer-causing substances to develop and take effect. On the other hand, a low intake of certain vitamins has a negative effect on the mechanisms which combat damaging reactions in the body's cells.

High fat diets - especially those high in saturated fats - have been linked to cancers of the breast, prostate and colon-rectum and low fibre diets to the latter in particular. A diet low in vitamin C is associated with gastric cancer, while one that is deficient in vitamin A seems to create favourable conditions for prostate cancer; a lack of vitamin D is linked to cancer of the colon. The mechanisms involved in all these processes are far from clear and much research still has to be done. (See also The Cabbage Patch Diet on page 187.)

The challenge to change

Authorities on cancer such as the US National Cancer Institute, the 1988 US Surgeon-General's Report and the 1989 Report of the UK COMA (Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy) have laid down guidelines for dietary changes which they regard as vital in the fight against cancer. Firstly, they maintain that fat should supply only 25-30% - instead of the present 40⁰/a - of our total food intake. In effect, this reduction by a third or so would bring our fat consumption to the level of the poorest people in the big cities in the 1920s! No fall in fat intake has occurred recently in Western populations.

For a marked fall, there would have to be a big increase in the intake of carbohydrate, or starchy, foods. But as mentioned above, our bread consumption is low - 120-150g or 3 to 4 slices daily - and possibly decreasing. Why has it fallen? Firstly, there has been a marked increase in the consumption of more 'palatable' foods such as dairy produce, meat, fish and eggs and secondly, the modern era's obsession with slimness has led to the (erroneous) belief that bread is specially fattening. It is invariably one of the first foods to be restricted or cut out totally in any attempts at weight loss.

In practical terms, to reduce our fat intake to the recommended levels, the average person would have to eat a good 50% less of all visible fat - butter, margarine, spreads and obvious fat on meat - than at present. The realization that changes in this area must be large, not trivial, has been underlined by recent studies which show that in the case of breast cancer, only a very low fat intake which supplies as little as 25% of energy (50-60g fat daily), is likely to give protection.

What about fibre? The experts recommend that it be increased from the present 10-15g to 25-30g or more daily, through a higher consumption of fibre-containing foods, cereal products (wholewheat bread, brown rice and unrefined breakfast cereals), legumes, vegetables and fruit. This means adopting a diet similar to that of strict vegetarians. In the USA, surveys show that only half of the population eat one serving of fruit and one serving of 'garden' vegetables on any one day - yet four or five helpings arerecommended. The fact of the matter is that in most countries, there have been no significant increases in the amounts of plant foods eaten daily.

The picture is much the same when it comes to intakes of vitamins and mineral salts. Admittedly, pill manufacturers are doing a roaring trade, but as any doctor will tell you, that is not the way to get your vitamins. Nature has provided us with an abundance of fruit and vegetables which, apart from being excellent sources of vitamins and fibre, are a good deal lighter on the pocket than the packaged variety. In addition, some vegetables have been found to be particularly effective in fighting diet-related cancers because of their high concentrations of certain vitamins.

What are the choices?

First let's look at the choices open to you, which also happen to reflect three different 'schools of thought' on the subject of diet and cancer:

The first choice is to carry on as before, on the grounds that there is still controversy over the extent to which diet is involved in cancer development, that the changes you would have to make are huge and unacceptable, that success is not guaranteed and that in any case there is a large element of individual susceptibility.

Next, there is the stance of the 'activists' who believe that the evidence available is very convincing, that major changes are needed and that they can be put into practice. If you take this approach, you will find a good deal of support in the marketplace, since food products with a low energy or fat content and/or which are high in fibre are becoming more readily available.

Many in this activist group take the holistic approach to avoiding disease, in other words, they believe that we should improve our diets so as to protect ourselves against all diet-related 'killers', not only cancer. Sir Richard Doll, a well-known British medical statistician, expressed this attitude in his 1982 Harveian Oration in London on 'Prospects for Prevention', when he urged:

'...whether the object is to avoid cancer, coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, diverticulitis, duodenal ulcer or constipation ... the type of diet least likely to cause disease is one that provides a high proportion of calories in whole grain cereals, vegetables and fruit; provides most of its animal protein in fish and poultry; limits the intake of fats and if oils are to be used, gives preference to liquid vegetable oils; includes very little dairy produce, eggs and refined sugar; and is sufficiently restricted in amounts not to cause obesity'.

The third group recognizes the truth of the evidence put forward and accepts that dietary changes are required. But their view is that what is needed is simply to eat less and to practice moderation, even to the extent of cutting out alcohol and rich foods. This was the attitude taken by Hippocrates, Galen, Moses Maimonides and numerous other great physician-philosophers of the past.

The bottom line

Firstly, in spite of what might be regarded as a pessimistic tone to this chapter, it must be emphasised that what has been given here is an overview. The results of research may certainly give the experts good cause to be pessimistic - but remember that they deal in statistics. As in so many areas of life, if you as an individual are motivated enough to make the necessary changes, you can make the difference - to yourself and possibly to your family. In fact, considering the wealth of information now available, the prospect of taking individual avoiding action has never been better!

A diet which supplies 25% of energy from fat, and which contains 30g of fibre on a daily basis can certainly be formulated and could, with determined effort, become your personal norm. To do this you will probably have to eat far more of cereal products (which include whole grain breads, unrefined rice and breakfast cereals) and increase your vegetable and fruit intake considerably. You may also have to combat conservatism, inertia and lack of conviction and get used to a 'less palatable' diet - at least until you begin to enjoy foods that are closer to the way nature intended them to be!

It is important to realise that our eating habits are just that - habits - which we have learned and are capable of 'unlearning' if necessary. We don't come into the world craving over-refined breads, fried foods or creamy desserts; our tastes are developed from an early age in our own homes (which is why parents have a particularly important responsibility to guide the development of those tastes). A child who is regularly given white bread sandwiches and sweets for school lunches will probably always regard wholewheat bread and fresh fruit as hard work - yet getting into the habit of eating these and other unrefined foods will undoubtedly put him or her on a healthier nutritional path for life.

In conclusion, the take-home anti-cancer message could be reduced to simply this:

'Stop smoking; eat moderately; eat plenty of plant foods; and seek medical help early'.

Points to ponder

• Recently, there have been major reductions in the occurrence of a number of common diseases, including strokes and coronary heart disease. The full reasons are not known. Hence, it is conceivable that decreases could occur in some cancers, again for reasons not altogether understood. For example, there has already been a major fall in stomach cancer and in some childhood cancers.
• Individuals differ tremendously in their susceptibility to diseases. Obviously, if a parent had colon cancer, or a mother or sister had breast cancer, then the chances of getting such cancers are increased. However, because of differences in the ways people respond to cancer-producing substances, protection against the disease may not require too much avoiding action by a section of the community. This means that even partial reduction in the risk factors mentioned could put some people in a less vulnerable position.
• The dietary and non-dietary measures for the avoidance of cancer are exactly the same as those urged for the avoidance of coronary heart disease and other important diseases. So by following a low fat, high fibre diet you will in any case be protecting yourself against other 'killer' diseases.
• The field of alternative medicine may well produce some useful guidelines for fighting cancer in the future. Already the question is being asked: Are there 'non-orthodox' methods to prevent cancer, or to treat it, or even to cure it? Some interesting recommendations have been made, for example in the diets put forward by Kelley, by Gerson and by Forbes. These diets are largely or wholly vegetarian, with much of the plant food being eaten raw. There are encouraging case- histories which record the arrest and even regression of tumours, but none of the programmes described have been subjected to any form of controlled trial. At present enormous amounts of money are spent on trials in the treatment of various diseases, especially coronary heart disease. Perhaps some money should be devoted to investigating cases of possible 'alternative' cures for cancer. Even the validation of a small number of individual cases would be of great value, bearing in mind the formidable nature of the disease.