Doctor,And,Patient,Discussing,Something,While,Sitting,At,The,Table

How should you talk to your doctor? Short answer: Like you would talk to any other human. It’s your doctor’s job to listen.

Here goes the longer answer.

This week, I gave a lecture to first-year medical students on how to take a medical history from a patient. I’ve delivered this lecture for the past seven years. The central message I impart to the students is one that reaches back to the beginning of modern medicine, but is no less relevant today.

Sir William Osler, a physician from the 1800s, stated it most clearly when he said, “Listen to your patient. (They are) giving you the diagnosis.”

I put this quote up on a slide for the students, who are new to medical school, but who have nevertheless heard this quote already from several faculty before hearing it from me. I tell them, “We repeat it a lot, but then we ignore it.”

I ask the students, “If it is so important to listen to our patients, why don’t we?”

“There’s not enough time.”

“We’re too busy.”

“We have biases.”

“We forget how important it is.”

The students call out all the right answers. What used to a be a 30-minute office visit has been cut down to 15 minutes, if that. Computer work and paperwork have increased at an astronomical rate, further cutting into patient care time. We rush to judgement, abandoning the idea that we should be thinking about all possible diagnoses before narrowing our focus. And, in an era where blood tests and imaging studies abound and require only a click of the computer mouse to order, minutes can be saved by just doing that, at the expense of giving our attention to the person in front of us.

Over the next three hours, through practice patient interviews and other small group exercises, I try to convince the students that no matter what the external forces pressing on them are, when they have a patient in front of them over the course of their careers, they should try to block out the rest of the world and just listen. They will have many more practice and empathy-building sessions over the next several years of their medical education, but eventually, they will enter the real world. And the real world does not pay doctors to listen to their patients. It pays them to go quickly and “efficiently” through their day.

So, what’s a patient to do?

I have a friend who is dealing with a very serious health issue. She tells me how she brings copies of her tests and CDs of her scans along with her so the results are always on hand in case the doctor doesn’t have them. She tries to be as brief as possible and show little emotion to her obviously harried physician, who she fears will dismiss her if she is too “difficult.” Instead of being able to focus on what she needs from her visit, she tries to bond with the doctor over shared interests and manage the doctor’s needs. And my heart breaks for her every time I hear about her latest visit. In addition to dealing with a miserable diagnosis, she has to expend mental energy to try to figure out how to make the most of the time with her physician.

It shouldn’t be this way, but for so many patients, it is. As medical professionals, we have to do better. Someone who comes to us for care and compassion deserves just that. There are some medical facilities that give their physicians the resources to be able to spend more time with their patients. There are physicians in private practice who have, through a combination of good luck and good business sense, figured out how to keep a practice afloat and give their patients the time they need. In some areas, these practices can be hard to find, or even if they exist, they are not necessarily on your insurance plan.

I can ask you to find a doctor who will give you the time to listen, but I imagine that you’ve tried this already. So, as much as it pains me to say it, my friend is doing what she needs to do to be heard and treated appropriately. Bring your important records with you (never assume the doctor has them). Be ready to summarize your story as “efficiently” (yes, I hate this word in medicine) as possible. For some people, bringing a typed-out version of their story can help. Tell your doctor all the issues you would like for them to address at the beginning of the visit so you can be sure that something you may need isn’t left until the end when time may have run out. And importantly, be your own advocate. If something isn’t right, say so. If something isn’t working, say so. Ultimately, your doctor wants you to get better. They want to help, but the system we all find ourselves in isn’t conducive to forming a strong patient-doctor relationship. There are some who are working to change this, but as always, change can never come fast enough.

 

A few years ago, my not-quite-teenage son began commenting on whether or not the food I was making was a “superfood.” Salmon and blueberries had been designated by him as “super” and not because they were particularly tasty (although I think they are). According to my son and the latest articles he had perused on the internet, there was supposedly a magical array of nutrients in the food that would somehow help us to live longer.

“The search for superfoods (or whatever they were called back then) has been a time-honored tradition since at least the 1950s, when American physiologist, Ancel Keys traveled to countries around the Mediterranean and documented their lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and other ailments.”

I was just glad he was eating salmon and blueberries and let him keep on thinking they were magically super since I was also super exhausted trying to get my kids to eat foods that were nutritionally sound. So, if nutritionally sound was being rebranded as super, I wasn’t going to argue the point.

The allure of finding a faraway magical food or foods, is in many ways like the quest for the Fountain of Youth, and so, my son had hit on a historically popular trend. The search for superfoods (or whatever they were called back then) has been a time-honored tradition since at least the 1950s, when American physiologist, Ancel Keys traveled to countries around the Mediterranean and documented their lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and other ailments. He posited it was something in their diet. It was called the Seven Countries Study and like its name implies, Keys looked at food from seven countries—which happens to be a lot of countries and a lot of different foods. The common threads in the so-called Mediterranean Diet, were identified as olive oil, fish, fruits, veggies, nuts, whole grains, and wine.

Scientists wondered what exactly was in those foods that was so super and began doing research studies that added nuts or wine or olive oil to see if those things in isolation were helpful. Many of those studies (though poorly designed) showed that they were. And so, in the coming decades, Americans were encouraged to eat more of those foods. Not a bad idea, but not the whole story either. Despite switching over from canola oil to olive oil and from white pasta to whole grain pasta (which isn’t exactly traditionally Mediterranean), our higher rates of disease persisted. It turns out that you can’t take out two or three components of a healthy diet and add them to an unhealthy diet and viola—expect similar results. Even worse, you can’t extract a chemical or two, package them in a supplement and declare victory over disease.

Resveratrol was supposed to be one of the substances that made blueberries super and was also found in red wine. But instead of having to find berries out of season or drink wine which was high in calories (and also one would be limited by the alcohol content if one were sensible), a pill was created. Why bother with actual foods and beverages if one could just find a magic pill? Better yet, pill purveyors could charge upwards of $100 a bottle and so advertised their wares heavily. By offering the secret to longevity with barely any effort required, daytime talk shows brought in lots of viewers, clinics sprung up, and people parted with billions of dollars. And yet, our life expectancy has not increased.

What is starting to be increasingly recognized by researchers is that it isn’t one substance or a handful of foods that make the Mediterranean Diet special. It isn’t even the Mediterranean. There is longevity to be found around the world (see: “Blue Zone” below) where there are fewer chronic diseases and people live longer lives (but even Blue Zones are somewhat Western-centric and undoubtedly there are many other places that would qualify). Blue Zone residents practice lifestyles where they eat whole, fresh foods, have communities ties, and walk or do a fair amount of physical work. This is what was going on in the Mediterranean when Keys visited.

And yet, as my son made clear, we are still looking for the magical super foods, or even more reductive, magical supplements, when the answer for how to eat and how to live has been staring us in the face for decades (Hint: the answer isn’t in a supplement).

 

My mother’s mother, who had lived with us, passed away when I was still quite young, so I don’t remember too much about her. But I do remember the prunes.

Every morning, my Bubbeh (grandmother in Yiddish), would have a handful of prunes with her breakfast. I had a vague sense that it was to help her in the bathroom and it was something that older people just happened to eat regularly—like soup. I’m not sure where these ideas came from, but I suppose I must have seen other older people eating prunes while discussing their digestion. At some point, I had also decided that they were somehow not delicious and politely declined prune-containing desserts when they were infrequently offered to me.

So, you can imagine my surprise when one day, desperate for Hamentashen (Jewish holiday cookies) and finding only prune-filled ones remaining, I decided to go for it and eat the geriatric flavor which turned out to be my new favorite. You can further imagine my surprise when I discovered that prunes are not only delicious, but actually magical.

“a serving of prunes a day helps with constipation more than a similar amount of psyllium fiber”

While doing some reading on constipation for the book I am currently working on, I fell down a rabbit hole of research, with one article leading me to look up another and that article leading me to look up yet another. This path ended at a well-done study published in an obscure journal called “Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics” which showed that a serving of prunes a day helps with constipation more than a similar amount of psyllium fiber (the stuff most often recommended for constipation). The authors of the study were gastroenterologists from the University of Iowa who carefully selected their patients to make sure they didn’t have other diseases and then did something called a “cross over” so that the same people switched and got the same treatments separated by a week. It is a way to compare like to like and probably the best way to do a study where you can’t keep the treatment a secret (called blinding).

Even if the prunes had worked just as well, it should have been big news. But they had actually worked a bit better. Here’s a truly natural and fairly inexpensive way to help with constipation—a problem about 20% of people are thought to suffer with. And yet, ten years on, I hadn’t heard about this miracle cure. Perhaps I had been lacking in my keeping up to date with guidelines? So, I looked up the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines on constipation. Nope. No mention of prunes. Then I went to their website geared towards the lay-person. Surely they would suggest that people pop a couple prunes (more like 12 to be consistent with the aforementioned study) before bringing out the medications. Also no!

Are the authorities on the GI system as biased against prunes as I once was? It would seem so.

This isn’t to say that prunes will work for everyone. The study, while well done, was small in size with only 40 participants, and people who haven’t discussed their constipation with their doctors may need a medical work up to make sure there isn’t a more serious condition underlying the slow stools.

But for now, I’ll be keeping a bag of prunes in my pantry. Just like my Bubbeh did.

 

In the past decade, we have learned that the more ultra-processed food you eat, the higher your risk of obesity, heart disease, cancer, gastrointestinal maladies, and maybe even dementia. The problem is, these so-called foods are getting harder and harder to avoid. A recent JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article notes that kids’ consumption of a substance called ultra-processed foods has increased significantly in the past 20 years, going from about 61% to 67% or what is now two-thirds of their diets.

Kids’ consumption of ultra-processed foods has increased to 67% of their diets.

Why are ultra-processed foods so hard to avoid?

The reason these substances are hard to avoid is that they’ve been manufactured and marketed to look like real, actual food, but perhaps a bit cheaper and flashier. Take pizza, for example. My husband likes to make pizza. He makes a dough from scratch with the following ingredients: wheat flour, water, yeast, salt. He makes his sauce from scratch too with tomatoes, salt, pepper, a little bit of sugar, garlic, basil, oregano. The cheese, he buys, but it contains only milk, cultures, and salt. Compare that to the ingredients of a frozen supermarket pizza (which may not be any better, ingredient-wise than the take-out pizza you get from your local chain). Can you picture what all the individual ingredients in my husband’s pizza look like in your mind’s eye? Now can you picture what all the ingredients listed on the frozen pizza look like? I can’t.

I’m not arguing that my husband’s pizza is health food. It isn’t. It’s a processed food. It’s not a banana or an apple or kale for that matter, but it’s still recognizable as food to our bodies. The stuff that we are all now consuming, and our kids are consuming at an alarming rate, isn’t. Your mind can’t picture what some of the ingredients widely used in 67% of kids’ diets look like and your body isn’t quite sure what to do with some of them either. They are more than just processed. They are ultra-processed.

A New Nutrition Classification

That’s why in 2009, a new nutrition classification system, called NOVA, put ultra-processed foods into its own category.

We have to be able to name a thing as a first step in figuring out what to do about it, so NOVA groups foods into four categories:

  • Category 1 is made up of foods that are unprocessed or minimally processed. Unprocessed foods are eaten as nature gives them to you—an apple, banana, or kale. If you take the kale and bake it into chips, you’ve processed it, but minimally (it’s still basically kale).
  • Category 2 is made up of what are called processed culinary ingredients like oil or salt. Nature does not give us oil or salt directly. We have to make them from basic starting points (pressing olives in the case of oil and grinding whatever it is that salt comes from—rocks? The sea?). They should be used sparingly to enhance the flavor of Category 1 foods.
  • Category 3 foods are processed foods. It generally is how we have historically preserved food to last a bit longer. Bread and pasta are processed. Real cheese and yogurt are processed. The ingredients used to make them have to go through a few steps to get to their final stage, but they are essentially still wheat or milk.

Category 4 are the ultra-processed foods. NOVA says these are made up of: substances that are of “rare” or of “no culinary use” or are “additives whose function is to make the final product sellable, palatable and often hyper-palatable. Food substances of no or rare culinary use, employed in the manufacture of ultra-processed foods, include varieties of sugars (fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, ‘fruit juice concentrates’, invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose, lactose), modified oils (hydrogenated or interesterified oils) and sources of protein (hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, and ‘mechanically separated meat’). Classes of additives used only in the manufacture of ultra-processed foods, are flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, artificial sweeteners, thickeners, and foaming, anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, gelling and glazing agents.”

Category 4 foods are the culprit in many diet-related diseases…

Here’s what I want to communicate clearly—Category 1 foods are best, but Category 2 and 3 foods are fine as long as we don’t go crazy with them. Category 4 foods are the culprit in many diet-related diseases and now we can identify them (at least when we have access to the list of ingredients).

What’s the next step?

Well, according to the JAMA study, in the past 20 years, there was a notable DECREASE in the consumption of sugary beverages by kids. This is probably due to numerous campaigns to steer kids away from sodas. So, we know how to make our diets healthier and it’s not just about avoiding fast food. Ultra-processed foods are in pricier restaurants too. They are in our school cafeterias and in our homes, though the JAMA article notes that the more we eat at home, the less ultra-processed foods we tend to eat. If we can put them in, we can take them out. We didn’t always eat ultra-processed foods. They are a relatively recent invention. Like sodas, we can learn to limit them or cut them out entirely. NOVA means “new” in Portuguese and it’s a good, new way to think about what we eat this year.

What makes something trashy?

Urban Dictionary tells us that “trashy people contribute little or nothing to society.” They are flashy, but don’t have much substance. No one wants to be called “trashy.” And we shouldn’t call people “trashy”—everyone deserves respect. Some food, on the other hand, deserves no respect. There is definitely some trashy food out there.

 Similar to a celebrity who hires a publicist to make sure he is photographed at a soup kitchen, so that no one is paying attention to his sexual harassment charges[AG2] , trashy foods cover themselves in clever packaging that hails them as “organic” or “high in fiber.”

Dr. Carlos Monteiro, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair of the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, calls this trashy food, “ultra-processed” because he’s classier than I am.

Dr. Monteiro developed the NOVA food classification system, defining the ultra-processed stuff as, “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact (whole) foods.” This makes a lot of sense to me. However, when nutrition professionals were asked to place food into one of his four NOVA categories (ultra-processed being the 4th one), there wasn’t much consistency in where ultra-processed stuff should go.1[AG3]  

Which begs the question—why can’t we agree on what an ultra-processed (trashy) food is?

 

I’m not big into conspiracy theories, but in this case, I’m going to have to go with the possibility that the ultra-processed food industry has been working for decades on muddying the waters of what an ultra-processed food vs. a processed food vs. even what a whole food is. [AG4] If the celebrity has a publicist, trashy foods have an army of them.

italy-changed-my-life

 I went to Italy where I ate only whole foods. My years-long symptoms of irritable bowels went away—completely gone—in two days. I came back to the U.S. and my IBS was back within a day of returning.

So, I started removing different emulsifiers and thickeners (used in over 50% of what we eat in the U.S.) from my diet and my gut felt and acted exactly like it did in Italy. I advised friends and patients to do likewise and they improved too. It wasn’t hard. It just took some careful label-reading at first. And a bit more cooking, which I like to do anyway (don’t ask me about cleaning—try to get someone else to do this).

“This happened!!!” I wanted to shout from every rooftop and started to.

“That’s not possible,” I was told by some other physicians.

And maybe I would have started to think that I was wrong except for my very practical physician husband having been there for the whole thing.

“You are right,” he would insist (I told him he should say that about other things I do too, but I digress).

It seems weird that I would start to doubt my own experience. But then I recalled the idea of scientific paradigms that I learned about in college. Basically, frameworks for ideas get set up and everything that follows needs to fit into that framework. If it doesn’t fit, it gets rejected.

And dietary emulsifiers causing some bowel disease, and contributing to other diseases, doesn’t fit with the current food and gastrointestinal paradigm which says that if a substance is derived from natural sources, it is safe for us to consume. In order for a paradigm to change or shift, enough evidence has to build up and not fit into the paradigm to convince people to create a new paradigm.

And that’s happening here. But slowly. Too slowly. For the past decade researchers have been showing that certain substances added to food to make it softer, thicker, and more shelf-stable, alter our gut microbiomes and gut lining. Diets are being developed for the sufferers of the most severe bowel ailments, called inflammatory bowel disease, that eliminates these additives.

One of the biggest known offenders, carrageenan, was slated to be decertified from products marketed as “organic” in 2018 by the USDA upon the suggestion of groups that advise the regulatory agency. Instead, the USDA rejected the advice of consumer health and safety groups and kept carrageenan, not only in our food supply, but in the foods that are marketed as somehow being better for us.

And so, it seems, we are on our own here. That’s the bad news. The good news is that it isn’t hard to cut out emulsifiers and thickeners from our diet and see what happens for a week. Just eat food that doesn’t come from a package, or if it does, make sure that you read the ingredient list and you can create a mental image of what that ingredient would look like if you were to go and get it from nature. Can’t? Don’t buy it or eat it. Or, use the list I’ve made. Since we mostly don’t know what they are putting in our food (in general) in restaurants, just skip eating out for that week.

See how you feel.

If skipping the additives for a week gets you feeling better, see if you can keep doing it. It gets easier and easier the more you eat real food. There is a saying that we need to create the change we want to see. In this case, change begins with a single meal.

Get the book!