Before trying to conceive, most couples decide to improve their eating habits in the hopes of becoming healthier for not only successful conception, but successful pregnancy and a healthy baby. We're all familiar with what's touted as healthy: whole grains, lots of fresh veggies, lean meats, skim dairy products, low-fat items, and on and on. Some of these assertions are perfectly reasonable with lots of supporting research, such as the whole grains and fresh veggies. One very commonly held misconception is that saturated fats in any form are harmful. For the past few decades, saturated fats have been demonized as unhealthy, presumed to cause hosts of health problems, while unsaturated fats have enjoyed relative success as a healthier option. Or worse, many "experts" recommend that we eliminate fats entirely from our diets. Fat is not only an essential part of the human diet, but that saturated fats in particular are necessary for restoring cellular function and overall health, and will promote fertility and healthier offspring.
Before discussing further the benefits of fats in the diet, we need to get past an issue that I know will be in the forefront of everyone's minds: heart disease. Saturated fat does not cause heart disease; it does not cause weight gain; it does not cause high cholesterol. This idea was introduced and popularized by Dr. Ancel Keys in 1953, despite numerous recognized flaws in the data and conclusions. However, food companies took this idea and ran with it, producing cheap, rancid oils from engineered corn, soy, and cotton products.
Since the 1950's, study after study has shown these conclusions to be without merit. In a recent meta-analysis of 21 studies that included 348,000 adults, no difference in risk of high cholesterol or heart disease was found between groups consuming the highest amounts of saturated fats and the lowest amounts of saturated fats. Strikingly, consumption of refined sugar and carbohydrates emerged as a risk factor for cardiovascular problems, but that's a topic for another post. Quite notably, saturated fat consumption was not linked to heart disease.
In the Framingham Heart Study, less publicized results showed that the more saturated fats and cholesterol the participants consumed, the lower their blood cholesterol levels. They also weighed less and were the most active. I could go on to cite many more studies drawing similar conclusions, but since heart disease is not the topic of this post, I'd like to shift focus.
Let's wax biological for a minute and discuss cells. Cells need saturated fats in order to function properly. Each cell has a structure; an outer membrane and tiny little organelles inside that carry out different tasks such as energy production, transport, waste removal, etc. In at least 50% of the trillions of cells in your body, saturated fatty acids constitute the outer membranes, which give each cell structure, stiffness, and integrity so that the functions inside the cells operate smoothly. When the cellular membranes are properly formed, materials (such as vitamins and minerals) can be transported efficiently into the cells and waste products (such as carbon dioxide) can be transported efficiently out of the cells. Calcium is one mineral that needs saturated fats in order to be incorporated effectively. Calcium is not effectively absorbed into the skeletal system unless at least 50 percent of our dietary fat intake is saturated.
Let's move on to organ and tissue level. We've all probably heard of the benefits of essential fatty acids (EFA's) such as omega-3's and omega-6's. In order for the body to effectively utilize its intake of EFA's, saturated fats must be a part of the diet. The body stores omega 3's in the tissues more readily in the presence of saturated fats. Saturated fats also protect the heart and liver; saturated 18-carbon stearic acid and 16-carbon palmitic acid are the preferred foods of the heart, and the liver is protected from toxins by saturated fats. In order for the lungs to function properly, they must be completely coated with a surfactant, made up entirely of saturated fatty acids. The brain's optimal food is saturated fat; diets low in saturated fats rob the brain of important nutrients. They are also involved in proper nerve signaling. Short-and-medium-chain fatty acids also have antimicrobial properties and protect us from harmful microorganisms in the digestive tract. These are just a few of the very critical functions that saturated fats perform in the body.
In addition to these whole-body health benefits, saturated fats have also been shown necessary for optimal fertility. In a recent study out of Harvard, women who ate diets higher in fat and higher in saturated fats in particular were more fertile than women who consumed low-fat diets, and women whose fat intake was low in saturated fats. Women who ate low-fat diets were more likely to experience anovulation (failure to ovulate) than women who consumed high-fat diets, as were women who replaced saturated fats with other types of fats. The quality of eggs also improved in women who ate diets higher in saturated fats, which is no wonder, considering that saturated fat is necessary for proper cellular structure.
So, toss out the low-fat yogurt. Replace your margarine with fresh butter from grass-fed cows. Don't trim all the fat off of your meat. You will enjoy more vitality, improved cardiovascular function, clearer thinking, and increased fertility.
Sources
Dr. Joseph Mercola. Saturated fat is not the cause of heart disease. Mercola.com. February 25, 2010. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/25/saturated-fat-is-not-the-cause-of-heart-disease.aspx
Dr. Joseph Mercola. 7 reasons to eat more saturated fat. Mercola.com September 22, 2009. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/22/7-Reasons-to-Eat-More-Saturated-Fat.aspx
Nan N. Ransohoff. Eating ice cream may boost fertility. The Harvard Crimson. March 1, 2007. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/3/1/eating-ice-cream-may-boost-fertility/
Sally Fallon. Nourishing Traditions. 2001. Washington, DC: New Trends Publishing.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Hidden Hormones May Affect Fertility
We've all seen the commercials and heard the claims extolling the healthful benefits of milk and other dairy products. (Got milk?) And, as far as research shows, these claims are true; whole milk and whole milk products are packed with nutrients and healthy fats for optimal cellular and organ function (skim milk is not included in this, but that's a topic for another blog). However, there is a major caveat to the health benefits you receive from milk: not all milk is equal. In fact, all of these wonderful benefits derived from whole milk may be for naught if you're not careful about the source. The source of that milk is what we will address here today.
I'm assuming that most of us are familiar with where milk comes from. Cows are bred to produce young, and the female cows will thus begin producing milk. They are milked continuously to keep up the flow until they are past peak production, at which time they are bred again to keep up production. Healthy cows are bred responsibly, allowed to nurse their calves, and then milked daily to extract what they make naturally. However, most conventional (non-organic) milk doesn't come from healthy cows. Instead of using breeding cycles to naturally stimulate milk production, cows are given rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone (also knows as rBST, recombinant bovine somatotropin). This hormone forces an increase in milk production by as much as 15 - 25%, allowing the cow to be milked much more frequently. The nursing calves are also removed from their mothers at a very early stage. So what's wrong with increasing milk production this way? We have lots of people that want to drink milk, right?
Unfortunately, rBGH seems to have stimulated much more than milk production in dairy cows. Cows treated with the hormone have developed mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udders, have given birth to deformed calves, and have even developed cancer. Those who appeared otherwise "healthy" had significantly shorter life spans than cattle not treated with rBGH; dairy cows typically live 15 - 20 years, but the cows treated with rBGH were dying as early as 2 years after the initial injections. These health concerns were enough to give even Monsanto pause; it scaled back production of rBGH beginning in 2003 and is currently considering halting all production.
So, how does this affect fertility? Don't they label milk and dairy products saying that there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rBGH and milk from cows not treated with rBGH? Let's first address this false claim using common sense. Any woman who has endured monthly cycles of hormone testing knows that unbound hormones are excreted in all of your bodily fluids; blood, urine, and saliva. Milk is not excluded from the list of bodily fluids through which hormones are excreted. The same goes for cows.
Now for the research: humans who drink milk regularly from cows treated with rBGH were found to have elevated levels of IGF - 1 in their blood. IGF - 1 is Insulin-like Growth Factor, a protein found in higher levels in rBGH cows' blood and milk than in cows not treated with rBGH. The presence of this protein is thought to significantly slow the degradation of the hormones present in the milk. Thus, the hormones are likely to enter the human bloodstream intact (undigested) and bond with our own hormone receptors. Because there's an excess of hormones in milk from cows treated with rBGH, there is now an excess of intact foreign growth hormones coursing unchecked through our bloodstream, and more of our own hormone receptors will be filled by these foreign (and much more powerful) hormones, blocking our own hormones. After our own hormones are continually rejected by the receptor sites, our hypothalamus eventually receives the signal that we have an excess of unbound hormones and will reduce production. This phenomenon results in several potential health problems, only two of which will be mentioned here. I encourage you to research further for other risks. First, elevated levels of IGF - 1 as well as foreign hormones in the blood are linked with cancer growth in humans. Second, and most important to this particular blog, a decrease in the production of our own hormones results in impaired fertility.
All is not lost, however. To combat this problem, I recommend at least drinking organic milk and eating organic dairy products. Even better, drinking fresh unpasteurized milk and consuming fresh, unpasteurized dairy products from grass-fed, humanely raised cattle is the best way to enjoy the maximum health benefits of dairy (I also encourage you to further research the benefits of unpasteurized milk, especially if it sounds odd to you). You'll not only enjoy increased fertility, but improved overall health. Got milk, indeed.
Sources
I'm assuming that most of us are familiar with where milk comes from. Cows are bred to produce young, and the female cows will thus begin producing milk. They are milked continuously to keep up the flow until they are past peak production, at which time they are bred again to keep up production. Healthy cows are bred responsibly, allowed to nurse their calves, and then milked daily to extract what they make naturally. However, most conventional (non-organic) milk doesn't come from healthy cows. Instead of using breeding cycles to naturally stimulate milk production, cows are given rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone (also knows as rBST, recombinant bovine somatotropin). This hormone forces an increase in milk production by as much as 15 - 25%, allowing the cow to be milked much more frequently. The nursing calves are also removed from their mothers at a very early stage. So what's wrong with increasing milk production this way? We have lots of people that want to drink milk, right?
Unfortunately, rBGH seems to have stimulated much more than milk production in dairy cows. Cows treated with the hormone have developed mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udders, have given birth to deformed calves, and have even developed cancer. Those who appeared otherwise "healthy" had significantly shorter life spans than cattle not treated with rBGH; dairy cows typically live 15 - 20 years, but the cows treated with rBGH were dying as early as 2 years after the initial injections. These health concerns were enough to give even Monsanto pause; it scaled back production of rBGH beginning in 2003 and is currently considering halting all production.
So, how does this affect fertility? Don't they label milk and dairy products saying that there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rBGH and milk from cows not treated with rBGH? Let's first address this false claim using common sense. Any woman who has endured monthly cycles of hormone testing knows that unbound hormones are excreted in all of your bodily fluids; blood, urine, and saliva. Milk is not excluded from the list of bodily fluids through which hormones are excreted. The same goes for cows.
Now for the research: humans who drink milk regularly from cows treated with rBGH were found to have elevated levels of IGF - 1 in their blood. IGF - 1 is Insulin-like Growth Factor, a protein found in higher levels in rBGH cows' blood and milk than in cows not treated with rBGH. The presence of this protein is thought to significantly slow the degradation of the hormones present in the milk. Thus, the hormones are likely to enter the human bloodstream intact (undigested) and bond with our own hormone receptors. Because there's an excess of hormones in milk from cows treated with rBGH, there is now an excess of intact foreign growth hormones coursing unchecked through our bloodstream, and more of our own hormone receptors will be filled by these foreign (and much more powerful) hormones, blocking our own hormones. After our own hormones are continually rejected by the receptor sites, our hypothalamus eventually receives the signal that we have an excess of unbound hormones and will reduce production. This phenomenon results in several potential health problems, only two of which will be mentioned here. I encourage you to research further for other risks. First, elevated levels of IGF - 1 as well as foreign hormones in the blood are linked with cancer growth in humans. Second, and most important to this particular blog, a decrease in the production of our own hormones results in impaired fertility.
All is not lost, however. To combat this problem, I recommend at least drinking organic milk and eating organic dairy products. Even better, drinking fresh unpasteurized milk and consuming fresh, unpasteurized dairy products from grass-fed, humanely raised cattle is the best way to enjoy the maximum health benefits of dairy (I also encourage you to further research the benefits of unpasteurized milk, especially if it sounds odd to you). You'll not only enjoy increased fertility, but improved overall health. Got milk, indeed.
Sources
BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret. Mercola.com. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/27/rbgh.aspx. February 27, 2007.
Dairy cattle. Wikipedia.org. December 2008.
Information on rBGH or rBST - aka Posilac - Eli Lilly's Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone. Organic Consumer's Association. http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.cfm.
The Issues: rbgh. Sustainable Table. http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/#risks. Updated July 2008.
The Issues: rbgh. Sustainable Table. http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/#risks. Updated July 2008.
More Reasons to Avoid Milk. Mercola.com. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/11/milk-part-one.aspx. April 11, 2001.
Risks of Ice Cream Made with Monsanto's Artificial Hormones. Mercola.com. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/13/monsanto-rbgh-can-cause-cancer.aspx. September 13, 2010.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Engineering Ourselves Out of Existence?
The Austrian government recently published a study conducted by the Austrian Ministry for Agriculture and Health demonstrating that genetically engineered crops may have serious long-term health consequences for humans. A short summary of the findings is this: laboratory mice were divided into two groups and fed two different diets. One group was fed with genetically engineered (GE) maize. The other group was fed non-GE maize. By the third and fourth generations, the mice fed the GE maize were producing significantly fewer offspring at lower birth weights, while the non-GE group continued to reproduce efficiently. As a result of this study, Greenpeace is now demanding a recall of all genetically engineered crops worldwide.
This study does have to be considered for both its strengths and weaknesses. The mice were kept under identical conditions in a laboratory; the only difference between the two groups was their diet, which helps clarify that the effect of reduced fertility is most likely attributed to the food. However, the study was conducted for only a period of 20 weeks, through the fourth generation of mice, and of course, we are studying mice and not humans. Skeptics will throw out words such as correlation versus causation, non-longitudinal, different species, etcetera, to question the credibility of the study. Let me say here that I am never a proponent of blindly accepting research results without first considering any study's flaws and potential issues concerning generalization to a larger (or different, in this case) population. So let's consider these results from a broader scientific perspective.
The popular scientific theory explaining how all creatures came into existence is evolution. I won't give any more background about the theory or how it was derived, as I assume the vast majority of us are familiar with it. For billions of years, life has been evolving 'just so' on planet Earth to create the biodiversity we have today. This means that plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc., have been co-evolving, resulting in somewhat of a planetary symbiosis. Therfore, omnivorous and herbivorous species of animals have co-evolved with Earth's plant life, having their nutritional needs filled by the natural genetic combinations that have been flourishing for thousands, nay, millions, of years. Let's also consider that while modern science has made leaps and bounds in their understanding of genetics, we still don't know how the genome works. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between genes and proteins as scientists originally thought. Thus, one gene can be responsible for a multitude of functions. The point is this: we just don't know how genes really work.
Putting our incomplete understanding of evolution and genetics together with the results from this Austrian study, it makes complete sense that genetically modified crops have unintended consequences on the human body. First, we are evolved to eat the material on Earth that has co-evolved with us. We have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years. Second, we have no idea what will actually result from altering the genetic structure of plants, because altering even one gene can have widespread effects over the whole organism. We can't even create an exact copy of a genetic code and create a viable organism (remember Dolly the sheep?).
Now, what about those who are creationists, and believe that God created all life on Earth as part of His master plan? Maybe you believe in intelligently designed, purposeful evolution as part of God's plan, and maybe you don't. But either way, consider this: if God created this abundance of diversity, and intended all on Earth to exist symbiotically, does it make sense to trust man to alter what God has created, in the belief that we can make it better? Not at all. So whether you're a staunch follower of science or of God, or somewhere in the middle, genetically engineered foods don't fit.
In sum, should you avoid genetically modified foods? My answer is an emphatic YES, and an even more emphatic YES for those trying to conceive and even those just entering their childbearing years, who aren't planning to conceive for a while. I don't think we can say definitively that genetically modified foods are directly causing our infertility, but I do think that they are a large piece of a complex puzzle, and one that we have complete control over. So take control of your overall health. Do a small amount of homework before going to the grocery store and choose items that are not made from genetically engineered foods. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank you for it.
Sources
Genetically engineered food: potential threat to fertility. Greenpeace Press Release.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ge-threat-to-fertility-11112008/
James Shreeve. The Genome War. New York: Knopf, 2004.
Nature, February 15, 2001.
Tom Bethell. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Washington, D.C., Regenery, 2005.
This study does have to be considered for both its strengths and weaknesses. The mice were kept under identical conditions in a laboratory; the only difference between the two groups was their diet, which helps clarify that the effect of reduced fertility is most likely attributed to the food. However, the study was conducted for only a period of 20 weeks, through the fourth generation of mice, and of course, we are studying mice and not humans. Skeptics will throw out words such as correlation versus causation, non-longitudinal, different species, etcetera, to question the credibility of the study. Let me say here that I am never a proponent of blindly accepting research results without first considering any study's flaws and potential issues concerning generalization to a larger (or different, in this case) population. So let's consider these results from a broader scientific perspective.
The popular scientific theory explaining how all creatures came into existence is evolution. I won't give any more background about the theory or how it was derived, as I assume the vast majority of us are familiar with it. For billions of years, life has been evolving 'just so' on planet Earth to create the biodiversity we have today. This means that plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc., have been co-evolving, resulting in somewhat of a planetary symbiosis. Therfore, omnivorous and herbivorous species of animals have co-evolved with Earth's plant life, having their nutritional needs filled by the natural genetic combinations that have been flourishing for thousands, nay, millions, of years. Let's also consider that while modern science has made leaps and bounds in their understanding of genetics, we still don't know how the genome works. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between genes and proteins as scientists originally thought. Thus, one gene can be responsible for a multitude of functions. The point is this: we just don't know how genes really work.
Putting our incomplete understanding of evolution and genetics together with the results from this Austrian study, it makes complete sense that genetically modified crops have unintended consequences on the human body. First, we are evolved to eat the material on Earth that has co-evolved with us. We have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years. Second, we have no idea what will actually result from altering the genetic structure of plants, because altering even one gene can have widespread effects over the whole organism. We can't even create an exact copy of a genetic code and create a viable organism (remember Dolly the sheep?).
Now, what about those who are creationists, and believe that God created all life on Earth as part of His master plan? Maybe you believe in intelligently designed, purposeful evolution as part of God's plan, and maybe you don't. But either way, consider this: if God created this abundance of diversity, and intended all on Earth to exist symbiotically, does it make sense to trust man to alter what God has created, in the belief that we can make it better? Not at all. So whether you're a staunch follower of science or of God, or somewhere in the middle, genetically engineered foods don't fit.
In sum, should you avoid genetically modified foods? My answer is an emphatic YES, and an even more emphatic YES for those trying to conceive and even those just entering their childbearing years, who aren't planning to conceive for a while. I don't think we can say definitively that genetically modified foods are directly causing our infertility, but I do think that they are a large piece of a complex puzzle, and one that we have complete control over. So take control of your overall health. Do a small amount of homework before going to the grocery store and choose items that are not made from genetically engineered foods. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank you for it.
Sources
Genetically engineered food: potential threat to fertility. Greenpeace Press Release.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ge-threat-to-fertility-11112008/
James Shreeve. The Genome War. New York: Knopf, 2004.
Nature, February 15, 2001.
Tom Bethell. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Washington, D.C., Regenery, 2005.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Infertility as a grief process
"A lot of people don't understand that infertility is very much like have a child die. You grieve for the baby who wasn't conceived this month, and for all the babies you'll never have." (quote taken from Lasker & Borg, 1987, p. 20)
Does this describe the way you feel? Grief-stricken, or maybe hopeless? Prolonged experiences of infertility can cause emotional and psychological reactions similar to grief. Even if you've never experienced a miscarriage, the arrival of each monthly period can feel like one. It can feel like the death of your child, the death of your life goals and dreams, the death of hope, or the death of your self-identity. Don't feel alone - it's normal to feel this way! Seek support from trusted family members and friends as well as your spouse. And if you're in a place where you feel you need a little more help, we're happy to provide you extra support. We'll help you understand and work through your grief, either individually or as a couple. Don't suppress your natural instinct to grieve, but don't struggle alone.
Does this describe the way you feel? Grief-stricken, or maybe hopeless? Prolonged experiences of infertility can cause emotional and psychological reactions similar to grief. Even if you've never experienced a miscarriage, the arrival of each monthly period can feel like one. It can feel like the death of your child, the death of your life goals and dreams, the death of hope, or the death of your self-identity. Don't feel alone - it's normal to feel this way! Seek support from trusted family members and friends as well as your spouse. And if you're in a place where you feel you need a little more help, we're happy to provide you extra support. We'll help you understand and work through your grief, either individually or as a couple. Don't suppress your natural instinct to grieve, but don't struggle alone.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Follow us on Twitter!
Awaiting Abundance has joined Twitter. Follow us for facts and updates! AwaitgAbundance
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Awaiting Abundance Fertility Coaching Coming Soon to Washington, D.C.
Struggling through infertility is a heart-wrenching challenge. It's easy for stress, anxiety, relationship troubles, and even depression to overtake our lives during this difficult time. We see our doctors and/or adoption counselors for medical and practical advice, but who is here to take care of us emotionally? Who helps us through the mental toll infertility takes on us? Awaiting Abundance Fertility Coaching is a life-coaching service devoted specifically to helping individuals and couples through the emotional and psychological stress associated with infertility, and is coming soon to Washington, D.C. Check back often for more information!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)