Pasteurization: What It Does And Doesn’t Do
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Pasteurization’s Effect On Risks & Nutrients
In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions of raw (cow’s) milk, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 47% said “raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer”
- About 31% said “raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy”
- About 14% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally unhealthy”
- About 9% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally healthy”
Quite polarizing! So, what does the science say?
“Raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer: True or False?”
True! Coincidentally, the 47% who voted for this are mirrored by the 47% of the general US population in a similar poll, deciding between the options of whether raw milk is less safe to drink (47%), just as safe to drink (15%), safer to drink (9%), or not sure (30%):
Public Fails to Appreciate Risk of Consuming Raw Milk, Survey Finds
As for what those risks are, by the way, unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to cause 840x more illness and 45x more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.
This is because unpasteurized milk can (and often does) contain E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and other such unpleasantries, which pasteurization kills.
Source for both of the above claims:
(we know the title sounds vague, but all this information is easily visible in the abstract, specifically, the first two paragraphs)
Raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy: True or False?
False! Whether it’s a “good” source can be debated depending on other factors (e.g., if we considered milk’s inflammatory qualities against its positive nutritional content), but it’s undeniably a rich source. However, pasteurization doesn’t destroy or damage those nutrients.
Incidentally, in the same survey we linked up top, 16% of the general US public believed that pasteurization destroys nutrients, while 41% were not sure (and 43% knew that it doesn’t).
Note: for our confidence here, we are skipping over studies published by, for example, dairy farming lobbies and so forth. Those do agree, by the way, but nevertheless we like sources to be as unbiased as possible. The FDA, which is not completely unbiased, has produced a good list of references for this, about half of which we would consider biased, and half unbiased; the clue is generally in the journal names. For example, Food Chemistry and the Journal of Food Science and Journal of Nutrition are probably less biased than the International Dairy Association and the Journal of Dairy Science:
FDA | Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption
this page covers a lot of other myths too, more than we have room to “bust” here, but it’s very interesting reading and we recommend to check it out!
Notably, we also weren’t able to find any refutation by counterexample on PubMed, with the very slight exception that some studies sometimes found that in the case of milks that were of low quality, pasteurization can reduce the vitamin E content while increasing the vitamin A content. For most milks however, no significant change was found, and in all cases we looked at, B-vitamins were comparable and vitamin D, popularly touted as a benefit of cow’s milk, is actually added later in any case. And, importantly, because this is a common argument, no change in lipid profiles appears to be findable either.
In science, when something has been well-studied and there aren’t clear refutations by counterexample, and the weight of evidence is clearly very much tipped into one camp, that usually means that camp has it right.
Milk generally is good/bad for the health: True or False?
True or False, depending on what we want to look at. It’s definitely not good for inflammation, but the whole it seems to be cancer-neutral and only increases heart disease risk very slightly:
- Keep Inflammation At Bay ← short version is milk is bad, fermented milk products are fine in moderation
- Is Dairy Scary? ← short version is that milk is neither good nor terrible; fermented dairy products however are health-positive in numerous ways when consumed in moderation
You may be wondering…
…how this goes for the safety of dairy products when it comes to the bird flu currently affecting dairy cows, so:
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
‘I keep away from people’ – combined vision and hearing loss is isolating more and more older Australians
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our ageing population brings a growing crisis: people over 65 are at greater risk of dual sensory impairment (also known as “deafblindness” or combined vision and hearing loss).
Some 66% of people over 60 have hearing loss and 33% of older Australians have low vision. Estimates suggest more than a quarter of Australians over 80 are living with dual sensory impairment.
Combined vision and hearing loss describes any degree of sight and hearing loss, so neither sense can compensate for the other. Dual sensory impairment can occur at any point in life but is increasingly common as people get older.
The experience can make older people feel isolated and unable to participate in important conversations, including about their health.
bricolage/Shutterstock Causes and conditions
Conditions related to hearing and vision impairment often increase as we age – but many of these changes are subtle.
Hearing loss can start as early as our 50s and often accompany other age-related visual changes, such as age-related macular degeneration.
Other age-related conditions are frequently prioritised by patients, doctors or carers, such as diabetes or heart disease. Vision and hearing changes can be easy to overlook or accept as a normal aspect of ageing. As an older person we interviewed for our research told us
I don’t see too good or hear too well. It’s just part of old age.
An invisible disability
Dual sensory impairment has a significant and negative impact in all aspects of a person’s life. It reduces access to information, mobility and orientation, impacts social activities and communication, making it difficult for older adults to manage.
It is underdiagnosed, underrecognised and sometimes misattributed (for example, to cognitive impairment or decline). However, there is also growing evidence of links between dementia and dual sensory loss. If left untreated or without appropriate support, dual sensory impairment diminishes the capacity of older people to live independently, feel happy and be safe.
A dearth of specific resources to educate and support older Australians with their dual sensory impairment means when older people do raise the issue, their GP or health professional may not understand its significance or where to refer them. One older person told us:
There’s another thing too about the GP, the sort of mentality ‘well what do you expect? You’re 95.’ Hearing and vision loss in old age is not seen as a disability, it’s seen as something else.
Isolated yet more dependent on others
Global trends show a worrying conundrum. Older people with dual sensory impairment become more socially isolated, which impacts their mental health and wellbeing. At the same time they can become increasingly dependent on other people to help them navigate and manage day-to-day activities with limited sight and hearing.
One aspect of this is how effectively they can comprehend and communicate in a health-care setting. Recent research shows doctors and nurses in hospitals aren’t making themselves understood to most of their patients with dual sensory impairment. Good communication in the health context is about more than just “knowing what is going on”, researchers note. It facilitates:
- shorter hospital stays
- fewer re-admissions
- reduced emergency room visits
- better treatment adherence and medical follow up
- less unnecessary diagnostic testing
- improved health-care outcomes.
‘Too hard’
Globally, there is a better understanding of how important it is to maintain active social lives as people age. But this is difficult for older adults with dual sensory loss. One person told us
I don’t particularly want to mix with people. Too hard, because they can’t understand. I can no longer now walk into that room, see nothing, find my seat and not recognise [or hear] people.
Again, these experiences increase reliance on family. But caring in this context is tough and largely hidden. Family members describe being the “eyes and ears” for their loved one. It’s a 24/7 role which can bring frustration, social isolation and depression for carers too. One spouse told us:
He doesn’t talk anymore much, because he doesn’t know whether [people are] talking to him, unless they use his name, he’s unaware they’re speaking to him, so he might ignore people and so on. And in the end, I noticed people weren’t even bothering him to talk, so now I refuse to go. Because I don’t think it’s fair.
Dual sensory loss can be isolating for older people and carers. Synthex/Shutterstock So, what can we do?
Dual sensory impairment is a growing problem with potentially devastating impacts.
It should be considered a unique and distinct disability in all relevant protections and policies. This includes the right to dedicated diagnosis and support, accessibility provisions and specialised skill development for health and social professionals and carers.
We need to develop resources to help people with dual sensory impairment and their families and carers understand the condition, what it means and how everyone can be supported. This could include communication adaptation, such as social haptics (communicating using touch) and specialised support for older adults to navigate health care.
Increasing awareness and understanding of dual sensory impairment will also help those impacted with everyday engagement with the world around them – rather than the isolation many feel now.
Moira Dunsmore, Senior Lecturer, Sydney Nursing School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, University of Sydney; Annmaree Watharow, Lived Experience Research Fellow, Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney, and Emily Kecman, Postdoctoral research fellow, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Fast Diet, Fast Exercise, Fast Improvements
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Diet & Exercise, Optimized
This is Dr. Michael Mosley. He originally trained in medicine with the intention of becoming a psychiatrist, but he grew disillusioned with psychiatry as it was practised, and ended up pivoting completely into being a health educator, in which field he won the British Medical Association’s Medical Journalist of the Year Award.
He also died under tragic circumstances very recently (he and his wife were vacationing in Greece, he went missing while out for a short walk on the 5th of June, appears to have got lost, and his body was found 100 yards from a restaurant on the 9th). All strength and comfort to his family; we offer our small tribute here today in his honor.
The “weekend warrior” of fasting
Dr. Mosley was an enjoyer (and proponent) of intermittent fasting, which we’ve written about before:
Fasting Without Crashing? We Sort The Science From The Hype
However, while most attention is generally given to the 16:8 method of intermittent fasting (fast for 16 hours, eat during an 8 hour window, repeat), Dr. Mosley preferred the 5:2 method (which generally means: eat at will for 5 days, then eat a reduced calorie diet for the other 2 days).
Specifically, he advocated putting that cap at 800 kcal for each of the weekend days (doesn’t have to be specifically the weekend).
He also tweaked the “eat at will for 5 days” part, to “eat as much as you like of a low-carb Mediterranean diet for 5 days”:
❝The “New 5:2” approach involves restricting calories to 800 on fasting days, then eating a healthy lower carb, Mediterranean-style diet for the rest of the week.
The beauty of intermittent fasting means that as your insulin sensitivity returns, you will feel fuller for longer on smaller portions. This is why, on non-fasting days, you do not have to count calories, just eat sensible portions. By maintaining a Mediterranean-style diet, you will consume all of the healthy fats, protein, fibre and fresh plant-based food that your body needs.❞
Read more: The Fast 800 | The New 5:2
And about that tweaked Mediterranean Diet? You might also want to check out:
Four Ways To Upgrade The Mediterranean Diet
Knowledge is power
Dr. Mosley encouraged the use of genotyping tests for personal health, not just to know about risk factors, but also to know about things such as, for example, whether you have the gene that makes you unable to gain significant improvements in aerobic fitness by following endurance training programs:
The Real Benefit Of Genetic Testing
On which note, he himself was not a fan of exercise, but recognised its importance, and instead sought to minimize the amount of exercise he needed to do, by practising High Intensity Interval Training. We reviewed a book of his (teamed up with a sports scientist) not long back; here it is:
Fast Exercise: The Simple Secret of High Intensity Training – by Dr. Michael Mosley & Peta Bee
You can also read our own article on the topic, here:
How To Do HIIT (Without Wrecking Your Body)
Just One Thing…
As well as his many educational TV shows, Dr. Mosley was also known for his radio show, “Just One Thing”, and a little while ago we reviewed his book, effectively a compilation of these:
Just One Thing: How Simple Changes Can Transform Your Life – by Dr. Michael Mosley
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Mung Beans vs Soy Beans – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing mung beans to soy beans, we picked the soy.
Why?
Mung beans are great, but honestly, it’s not close:
In terms of macronutrients, soy has more than 2x the protein (of which, it’s also a complete protein, containing significant amounts of all essential amino acids) while mung beans have more than 2x the carbs. In their defense, mung beans also have very slightly more fiber, but the carb:fiber ratio is such that soy beans have the lower GI by far.
When it comes to vitamins, mung beans have more of vitamins A, B3, B5, and, B9, while soy beans have more of vitamins B2, B6, C, E, K, and choline, making for a moderate win for soy beans, especially as that vitamin K is more than 7x as much as mung beans have.
In the category of minerals, soy wins even more convincingly; soy beans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. On the other hand, mung beans have more sodium.
In short, while mung beans are a very respectable option, they don’t come close to meaningfully competing with soy.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
How To Sprout Your Seeds, Grains, Beans, Etc
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
If I’m diagnosed with one cancer, am I likely to get another?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Receiving a cancer diagnosis is life-changing and can cause a range of concerns about ongoing health.
Fear of cancer returning is one of the top health concerns. And managing this fear is an important part of cancer treatment.
But how likely is it to get cancer for a second time?
Why can cancer return?
While initial cancer treatment may seem successful, sometimes a few cancer cells remain dormant. Over time, these cancer cells can grow again and may start to cause symptoms.
This is known as cancer recurrence: when a cancer returns after a period of remission. This period could be days, months or even years. The new cancer is the same type as the original cancer, but can sometimes grow in a new location through a process called metastasis.
Actor Hugh Jackman has gone public about his multiple diagnoses of basal cell carcinoma (a type of skin cancer) over the past decade.
The exact reason why cancer returns differs depending on the cancer type and the treatment received. Research is ongoing to identify genes associated with cancers returning. This may eventually allow doctors to tailor treatments for high-risk people.
What are the chances of cancer returning?
The risk of cancer returning differs between cancers, and between sub-types of the same cancer.
New screening and treatment options have seen reductions in recurrence rates for many types of cancer. For example, between 2004 and 2019, the risk of colon cancer recurring dropped by 31-68%. It is important to remember that only someone’s treatment team can assess an individual’s personal risk of cancer returning.
For most types of cancer, the highest risk of cancer returning is within the first three years after entering remission. This is because any leftover cancer cells not killed by treatment are likely to start growing again sooner rather than later. Three years after entering remission, recurrence rates for most cancers decrease, meaning that every day that passes lowers the risk of the cancer returning.
Every day that passes also increases the numbers of new discoveries, and cancer drugs being developed.
What about second, unrelated cancers?
Earlier this year, we learned Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, had been diagnosed with malignant melanoma (a type of skin cancer) shortly after being treated for breast cancer.
Although details have not been confirmed, this is likely a new cancer that isn’t a recurrence or metastasis of the first one.
Australian research from Queensland and Tasmania shows adults who have had cancer have around a 6-36% higher risk of developing a second primary cancer compared to the risk of cancer in the general population.
Who’s at risk of another, unrelated cancer?
With improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment, people diagnosed with cancer are living longer than ever. This means they need to consider their long-term health, including their risk of developing another unrelated cancer.
Reasons for such cancers include different types of cancers sharing the same kind of lifestyle, environmental and genetic risk factors.
The increased risk is also likely partly due to the effects that some cancer treatments and imaging procedures have on the body. However, this increased risk is relatively small when compared with the (sometimes lifesaving) benefits of these treatment and procedures.
While a 6-36% greater chance of getting a second, unrelated cancer may seem large, only around 10-12% of participants developed a second cancer in the Australian studies we mentioned. Both had a median follow-up time of around five years.
Similarly, in a large US study only about one in 12 adult cancer patients developed a second type of cancer in the follow-up period (an average of seven years).
The kind of first cancer you had also affects your risk of a second, unrelated cancer, as well as the type of second cancer you are at risk of. For example, in the two Australian studies we mentioned, the risk of a second cancer was greater for people with an initial diagnosis of head and neck cancer, or a haematological (blood) cancer.
People diagnosed with cancer as a child, adolescent or young adult also have a greater risk of a second, unrelated cancer.
What can I do to lower my risk?
Regular follow-up examinations can give peace of mind, and ensure any subsequent cancer is caught early, when there’s the best chance of successful treatment.
Maintenance therapy may be used to reduce the risk of some types of cancer returning. However, despite ongoing research, there are no specific treatments against cancer recurrence or developing a second, unrelated cancer.
But there are things you can do to help lower your general risk of cancer – not smoking, being physically active, eating well, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol intake and being sun safe. These all reduce the chance of cancer returning and getting a second cancer.
Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and Terry Boyle, Senior Lecturer in Cancer Epidemiology, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Honey vs Maple Syrup – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing honey to maple syrup, we picked the honey.
Why?
It was very close, as both have small advantages:
• Honey has some medicinal properties (and depending on type, may contain an antihistamine)
• Maple syrup is a good source of manganese, as well as low-but-present amounts of other mineralsHowever, you wouldn’t want to eat enough maple syrup to rely on it as a source of those minerals, and honey has the lower GI (average 46 vs 54; for comparison, refined sugar is 65), which works well as a tie-breaker.
(If GI’s very important to you, though, the easy winner here would be agave syrup if we let it compete, with its GI of 15)
Read more:
• Can Honey Relieve Allergies?
• From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’sDon’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Alzheimer’s may have once spread from person to person, but the risk of that happening today is incredibly low
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
An article published this week in the prestigious journal Nature Medicine documents what is believed to be the first evidence that Alzheimer’s disease can be transmitted from person to person.
The finding arose from long-term follow up of patients who received human growth hormone (hGH) that was taken from brain tissue of deceased donors.
Preparations of donated hGH were used in medicine to treat a variety of conditions from 1959 onwards – including in Australia from the mid 60s.
The practice stopped in 1985 when it was discovered around 200 patients worldwide who had received these donations went on to develop Creuztfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), which causes a rapidly progressive dementia. This is an otherwise extremely rare condition, affecting roughly one person in a million.
What’s CJD got to do with Alzehimer’s?
CJD is caused by prions: infective particles that are neither bacterial or viral, but consist of abnormally folded proteins that can be transmitted from cell to cell.
Other prion diseases include kuru, a dementia seen in New Guinea tribespeople caused by eating human tissue, scrapie (a disease of sheep) and variant CJD or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as mad cow disease. This raised public health concerns over the eating of beef products in the United Kingdom in the 1980s.
Human growth hormone used to come from donated organs
Human growth hormone (hGH) is produced in the brain by the pituitary gland. Treatments were originally prepared from purified human pituitary tissue.
But because the amount of hGH contained in a single gland is extremely small, any single dose given to any one patient could contain material from around 16,000 donated glands.
An average course of hGH treatment lasts around four years, so the chances of receiving contaminated material – even for a very rare condition such as CJD – became quite high for such people.
hGH is now manufactured synthetically in a laboratory, rather than from human tissue. So this particular mode of CJD transmission is no longer a risk.
Human growth hormone is now produced in a lab.
National Cancer Institute/UnsplashWhat are the latest findings about Alzheimer’s disease?
The Nature Medicine paper provides the first evidence that transmission of Alzheimer’s disease can occur via human-to-human transmission.
The authors examined the outcomes of people who received donated hGH until 1985. They found five such recipients had developed early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
They considered other explanations for the findings but concluded donated hGH was the likely cause.
Given Alzheimer’s disease is a much more common illness than CJD, the authors presume those who received donated hGH before 1985 may be at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is caused by presence of two abnormally folded proteins: amyloid and tau. There is increasing evidence these proteins spread in the brain in a similar way to prion diseases. So the mode of transmission the authors propose is certainly plausible.
However, given the amyloid protein deposits in the brain at least 20 years before clinical Alzheimer’s disease develops, there is likely to be a considerable time lag before cases that might arise from the receipt of donated hGH become evident.
When was this process used in Australia?
In Australia, donated pituitary material was used from 1967 to 1985 to treat people with short stature and infertility.
More than 2,000 people received such treatment. Four developed CJD, the last case identified in 1991. All four cases were likely linked to a single contaminated batch.
The risks of any other cases of CJD developing now in pituitary material recipients, so long after the occurrence of the last identified case in Australia, are considered to be incredibly small.
Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (defined as occurring before the age of 65) is uncommon, accounting for around 5% of all cases. Below the age of 50 it’s rare and likely to have a genetic contribution.
Early onset Alzheimer’s means it occurs before age 65.
perfectlab/ShutterstockThe risk is very low – and you can’t ‘catch’ it like a virus
The Nature Medicine paper identified five cases which were diagnosed in people aged 38 to 55. This is more than could be expected by chance, but still very low in comparison to the total number of patients treated worldwide.
Although the long “incubation period” of Alzheimer’s disease may mean more similar cases may be identified in the future, the absolute risk remains very low. The main scientific interest of the article lies in the fact it’s first to demonstrate that Alzheimer’s disease can be transmitted from person to person in a similar way to prion diseases, rather than in any public health risk.
The authors were keen to emphasise, as I will, that Alzheimer’s cannot be contracted via contact with or providing care to people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Steve Macfarlane, Head of Clinical Services, Dementia Support Australia, & Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: