Dr Reece Yeo - Holistic Chinese Medicine Practitioner

27/08/2025

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by researchers from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center (The Institute) and published in eClinicalMedicine reveals that children of mothers with gestational diabetes or fathers with type 2 diabetes have higher chances o...

27/08/2025

27/08/2025

Pesticides on Your Plate: What You Need to Know About the Dirty Dozen in the U.S. and Australia

Every year, conversations flare up around pesticides in our fruits and vegetables. Many people have heard of the U.S. “Dirty Dozen” list—produce items most likely to carry pesticide residues—but here in Australia, the situation is less clear. Let’s dive into what pesticide residues actually are, why they matter, and what the best available Australian data tell us.

⸻

What Are Pesticide Residues?

Pesticides are chemicals used to control weeds, fungi, and insects on crops. Residues are the small amounts that remain on or in food after harvesting. In Australia, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) sets maximum residue limits (MRLs). These aren’t direct safety thresholds but regulatory markers designed to keep exposures well below levels thought to cause harm.

⸻

Why Should We Care?

Most Australians’ exposures are within “safe” limits. But research shows that chronic, low-level exposure to certain pesticides may still raise concerns, especially in children. Potential health effects from high or long-term exposure include:
• Neurodevelopmental impacts (e.g., organophosphate exposure in children)
• Hormone disruption
• Potential links to cancers
• Effects on gut microbiome and immune function

While the risk from any one piece of fruit is small, patterns of exposure over years may matter.

⸻

The U.S. Dirty Dozen (2025 – EWG list)

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) ranks produce based on USDA and FDA residue testing. Their current “Dirty Dozen” are:
• Spinach
• Strawberries
• Kale, collard, mustard greens
• Grapes
• Peaches
• Cherries
• Nectarines
• Pears
• Apples
• Blackberries
• Blueberries
• Potatoes
(EWG Food News)

⸻

What About Australia?

We don’t have an official national Dirty Dozen. But by pulling together data from:
• Victoria’s Targeted AgChem Residue Program (2019–2024)
• FSANZ Total Diet Studies
• National Residue Survey reports
• WA Department of Health retail surveys

…we can sketch a “best-evidence” picture. These commodities most often showed unacceptable or concerning residues:
• Grapes
• Leafy greens (kale, spinach, lettuce, Chinese cabbage)
• Celery
• Capsicum & chillies
• Citrus (lemons as a marker)
• Apples & pears
• Stone fruit (peaches, nectarines, apricots)
• Berries (strawberries, blackberries, blueberries)
• Avocados (mainly post-harvest fungicides)
• Broccoli
• Zucchini
• Fresh herbs (parsley, coriander, basil)

Important notes:
• These findings are based on targeted surveys, not random market baskets, so they may over-represent problem crops.
• A breach of an MRL doesn’t necessarily mean a health risk—MRLs are strict compliance tools, often with large safety margins.
• FSANZ’s dietary exposure assessments continue to find Australian exposures generally within safe limits, with a past exception being grapes and the insecticide prothiofos (since addressed).

⸻

Practical Advice: What You Can Do
• Don’t stop eating fruits and vegetables! Their health benefits vastly outweigh potential pesticide risks.
• Wash thoroughly under running water. This alone can remove a large proportion of residues.
• Boost your wash with kitchen basics: soaking produce for 10–15 minutes in a mild baking soda solution (about 1 teaspoon per 2 cups of water) is particularly effective for surface pesticide residues, especially on apples and firm produce. A vinegar solution (1 part vinegar to 3 parts water) also helps reduce surface residues and microbes on delicate produce like berries and leafy greens. Always rinse well after soaking.
• Peel when practical. This reduces residues but may also remove nutrients and fibre.
• Buy organic or spray-free for items at the top of the “dirty” lists if your budget allows—especially grapes, berries, leafy greens, and apples/pears.
• Diversify your diet. Eating a wide variety reduces the chance of repeated exposure to the same pesticide.
• Grow your own herbs or leafy greens—these are among the highest-risk categories but also the easiest to cultivate at home.

⸻

The Bottom Line

Both in the U.S. and Australia, some fruits and vegetables are more likely to carry pesticide residues than others. But the solution isn’t to fear produce—it’s to make smarter choices: prioritise washing, vary your diet, and buy organic selectively if you can. Food should nourish, not worry.

⸻

References
• Environmental Working Group. 2025 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce. EWG Food News
• FSANZ. 25th Australian Total Diet Study: Pesticides and Agricultural & Veterinary Chemicals. 2019.
• Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Vic). Targeted AgChem Residue Program reports 2019–2024.
• National Residue Survey. NRS Results and Reports 2020–2024.
• WA Department of Health. Retail Pesticide Residue Survey 2020.
• NSW Food Authority. Targeted Produce Pesticide Survey 2023–24.
• He L et al. Effectiveness of household washing treatments in removing pesticide residues on apples. J Agric Food Chem. 2017;65(40): 8223–8230.
• Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(3):330-338.
• Mostafalou S, Abdollahi M. Pesticides: an update of human exposure and toxicity. Arch Toxicol. 2017;91:549–599.

⸻

27/08/2025

🧂 A new modeling study by researchers at the highlights that the ratio of potassium to sodium in the diet is key to regulating blood pressure.

While it is well-known that excessive sodium raises blood pressure and potassium lowers it, this study used computer simulations to explore how these effects differ between men and women and the underlying mechanisms involved.

Western diets are typically high in sodium and low in potassium, which may contribute to the prevalence of high blood pressure in industrialized societies. The study found that increasing potassium-rich foods, such as bananas and broccoli, may have a greater effect on lowering blood pressure than simply reducing salt intake.

Additionally, men are more prone to developing high blood pressure than pre-menopausal women, but also respond more positively to a higher potassium-to-sodium ratio.

The researchers suggest that human bodies may be better adapted to a high-potassium, low-sodium diet, reflecting early human eating patterns. The mathematical model used in the study allows for rapid, ethical, and cost-effective exploration of how diet and s*x differences affect blood pressure regulation.

Follow Science Sphere for regular scientific updates

📄 RESEARCH PAPER

📌 Melissa Stadt et al, “Modulation of blood pressure by dietary potassium and sodium: s*x differences and modeling analysis”, American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology (2025).

27/08/2025

Could our allergies be protecting us from lung cancer? A large-scale study has found a surprising link between common allergies and reduced lung cancer risk, especially for men and those with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Despite the reduction in smoking, the number of lung cancer cases and deaths has increased by 26% and 20%, respectively, between 2010 and 2019. Meanwhile, lung cancer-attributable disability-adjusted life years has increased by 16%.

The search protocol yielded 226 studies. Following removal of duplicates, title/abstract screening, and full-text reviews, 10 studies were selected for meta-analysis. Of these, eight were case-control studies and two were cohort studies, cumulatively encompassing over 3.8 million participants.

Meta-analysis indicated that allergic diseases were inversely associated with the risk of lung cancer. Subgroup analyses were performed by gender, allergy type, and geographic region. Overall, there was no significant association between eczema and the risk of lung cancer. By contrast, there was a negative correlation between AR and lung cancer risk. Specifically, allergic rhinitis was associated with 26% lower odds of lung cancer (odds ratio, OR 0.74). In men, the odds ratio for allergic diseases and lung cancer was 0.56 (a 44% lower odds); in women, it was 0.71 (a 29% lower odds).
According to one hypothesis, allergies may reduce the risk of lung cancer through increased immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated immune surveillance, which may help eliminate malignant cells in their early stages. Conversely, another hypothesis suggests that chronic immune stimulation may induce random mutations in rapidly dividing cells, thereby increasing the risk of cancer.

The authors of the current study also noted that allergic reactions may play a dual role, being detrimental at primary sites of inflammation but potentially protective at distant sites (in this case the lungs).

Further studies are needed to uncover the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of this association. The authors also highlighted the need for future epidemiological research to clarify these relationships and inform risk assessment and prevention strategies.

For more information see: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250720/Allergies-linked-to-lower-lung-cancer-risk-new-study-finds.aspx
and
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1560000/full

27/08/2025

Water Fasting Done Right: What Helps, What Hurts, and What’s Safe

Water-only fasting (just water, no calories) isn’t a magic switch—it’s a metabolic stress that can help some people when used carefully, and backfire in others when pushed too far. Here’s what solid human research says about benefits, risks, and safer practice—from 24 hours to ~10 days.

⸻

What changes—by duration

24 hours (a single-day water fast)
• Triggers ketosis “on ramp” and a marked rise in growth hormone (GH), which helps spare lean tissue during calorie absence. In modern studies, 24 h water fasting raised GH multiple-fold (often independent of any weight change).
• Typical clinical markers (e.g., hs-CRP, blood pressure) don’t reliably improve during that 24-hour window; most effects are mechanistic and transient.

48–72 hours (2–3 days)
• Immune cells remodel: multi-omics in humans show innate immune activation after ~72 h, alongside signals consistent with autophagy in leukocytes. That’s an adaptive stress response—not proof of anti-inflammatory therapy.
• Expect the feeling of a stress response (sleep disruption, fatigue) in some people; benefits emerge more clearly after you refeed.

4–6 days
• In a 5-day water-only human trial (n=41), participants lowered insulin and IGF-1 and improved several metabolic-syndrome markers—while uric acid rose (gout risk in susceptible people).

7 days
• A Nature Metabolism study sampling blood daily for 7 days found most system-wide proteomic changes don’t kick in until after ~72 h—so the “big switch” flips around day 3 and continues evolving.
• Performance trade-off: in a Nature Communications study, max strength was preserved, but VO₂peak dropped ~13% and high-intensity endurance fell after 7 days.

~10 days (plus supervised refeed)
• In a 2025 medically supervised ~10-day water-only fast (n=20) with ~5 days of refeeding, volunteers lost ~7.7% body weight and showed reductions in circulating amyloid-β (a protein linked to Alzheimer’s pathology). But key inflammatory proteins (hs-CRP, IL-8, hepcidin, midkine) increased, and platelet activation/coagulation pathways were upregulated—potentially a vascular risk signal. Headache, insomnia and orthostatic low BP were common.

⸻

So…is the “inflammation” good or bad?

Short fasts likely create a mixed signal—some adaptive stress (autophagy/immune tuning), plus nonspecific inflammatory stress. The 10-day data lean away from “good inflammation”: CRP/IL-8 rises and platelet activation aren’t the hormetic bump you want if you have cardiovascular risk. Translation: longer isn’t necessarily better.

⸻

Where water fasting may help (with caveats)
• Weight & metabolic risk: multi-day fasts can lower weight quickly; some trials also show short-term improvements in insulin/IGF-1, BP, lipids and liver-fat indices—mostly after refeeding. Durability varies and benefits can wane in months without lifestyle change.
• Blood pressure: supervised programs report meaningful BP reductions with prolonged water fasting plus a structured plant-based refeed. Randomized trials are still sparse.
• Cell-clean-up/autophagy: signals appear by ~48–72 h and likely deepen with duration, but direct human tissue flux data across long fasts remain limited. Aim for the fast → refeed cycle rather than chasing extreme lengths.

⸻

Who should consider it (with professional oversight)
• Adults with hypertension or features of metabolic syndrome who are motivated and can be medically supervised, especially if pursuing fasts beyond 48–72 h.

Who should avoid or exercise extra caution
• Anyone with cardiovascular or vascular disease, prior clots, or on anticoagulants/antiplatelets (given the platelet/coagulation activation seen with prolonged fasting).
• Diabetes on insulin/sulfonylureas (hypoglycaemia risk), arrhythmias, CKD/gout (uric acid rises), eating disorders, pregnancy/breastfeeding, children/teens, frail older adults. Seek clinician guidance; often not appropriate.

⸻

Side effects & safety signals to respect
• Common (usually mild under supervision): headache, fatigue, insomnia, orthostatic hypotension.
• Electrolytes/over-hydration: don’t “chug and pray.” Water intoxication can cause dangerous hyponatraemia; drink to thirst and avoid forced gallons.
• Refeeding syndrome: after longer fasts, reintroduce calories slowly with electrolytes (especially phosphate, potassium, magnesium) and thiamine per medical guidelines. This is not DIY.
• Temporary performance drop: plan fewer high-intensity sessions around day 4–7+; strength may hold, but endurance usually dips.

⸻

How to do it more safely (evidence-aligned)
1. Pick a duration that matches your goal & risk.
• For most healthy adults curious to “try fasting,” 24–36 h is a reasonable entry.
• To engage deeper metabolic/autophagy signals, 48–72 h can be adequate—but expect a stress response.
• >3 days should be medically supervised with a plan for labs, BP checks, and structured refeeding. Longer ≠ better.
2. Prepare meds and monitoring. Antihypertensives, diabetes meds, lithium, etc., often need adjustments; organise oversight before you start.
3. Hydrate wisely. Drink to thirst; avoid excessive water without electrolytes to reduce hyponatraemia risk.
4. Refeed gently. After ≥3–5 days, start at ~20–25% of caloric needs and titrate over several days; prioritise whole foods (e.g., vegetables, fruit, legumes), adequate electrolytes and thiamine.
5. Train smart. Keep heavy endurance blocks away from the back half of a longer fast; resume intensity after a few days of refeed.

⸻

The balanced bottom line
• Shorter fasts (24–72 h): good for a controlled “reset,” GH rise, and metabolic switching—with a transient stress signal.
• Mid-length (3–5 days): can improve metabolic markers in the short term, but raise uric acid; plan supervision and a careful refeed.
• Prolonged (~7–10 days): deepen biological changes and amplify risks—especially inflammation/platelet activation and functional endurance loss. Reserve for clinical contexts with oversight.

This post is educational, not medical advice. If you’re considering fasting—especially beyond 48–72 h—work with a clinician who can screen for contraindications, adjust medications, and supervise refeeding.

⸻

References
• Commissati S, et al. Molecular Metabolism. 2025. Prolonged water-only fasting: ↑hs-CRP, ↑IL-8, platelet activation; ↓amyloid-β.
• Queen Mary Univ. London. Nature Metabolism. 2024. Systemic proteome changes; most after ~72 h of water-only fasting.
• Kolnes KJ, et al. Nature Communications. 2025. 7-day water-only fast: preserved strength; ↓VO₂peak/endurance.
• Jiang Y, et al. Clinical Translational Medicine. 2021. 5-day water-only fast: metabolic improvements, uric acid ↑.
• Myers TR, et al. Nutrients. 2022/2024. ≥10-day water-only fast + structured refeed: BP/lipid improvements; transient refeed insulin resistance.
• Ho KY, et al. J Clin Invest. 1988. 24-h fast: growth hormone pulsatility ↑.
• NICE Clinical Guideline 32 (Refeeding Syndrome).
• Cleveland Clinic. Hyponatraemia guidance.

⸻

27/08/2025

☕ Is Coffee Good for Health? The Surprising Science Behind Your Morning Cup

Coffee is more than a morning ritual. It’s one of the most studied beverages in nutrition science, with evidence linking it to benefits for blood sugar regulation, heart health, liver protection, brain function, bone metabolism, and even longer life expectancy. But not all cups of coffee are created equal—and what you add to it, or how you brew it, may matter just as much as the beans themselves.

⸻

🔬 Coffee and Blood Sugar

Short-term effects
A single caffeinated coffee before a meal can temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, leading to higher post-meal blood glucose for a few hours. This “acute caffeine effect” is most noticeable in people who aren’t habitual coffee drinkers and in those with underlying insulin resistance.

Long-term effects
Large cohort studies and umbrella reviews consistently show that habitual coffee drinking—both regular and decaf—is linked with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. The protective effects are thought to come from coffee’s chlorogenic acids, polyphenols, and anti-inflammatory compounds, which appear to improve insulin sensitivity over time despite caffeine’s transient effects.

Decaf coffee
Randomized trials indicate that decaf can improve insulin sensitivity and beneficial biomarkers (e.g., higher adiponectin, lower fetuin-A) without the short-term glucose spikes caused by caffeine—suggesting many benefits are driven by polyphenols rather than caffeine alone.

⸻

❤️ Cardiovascular and Mortality Benefits
• Moderate consumption—often 3–5 cups/day—has been associated with lower all-cause mortality in large cohorts.
• Both caffeinated and decaf coffee are linked with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and heart failure.
• Antioxidants in coffee may lower inflammation and oxidative stress, supporting endothelial function and vascular health.
• Using paper-filtered brewing avoids cholesterol-raising diterpenes while retaining polyphenols.

⸻

🧠 Brain and Neurological Health
• Observational data link regular coffee drinking with a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease and possibly Alzheimer’s disease.
• In the short term, caffeine improves alertness, reaction time, vigilance, and mood; over time, polyphenols may help modulate neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.

⸻

🩺 Liver, Kidney, and Cancer Protection
• Coffee consumption is strongly associated with reduced risk of chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and liver cancer.
• Several cohorts suggest coffee may be linked with a lower risk of chronic kidney disease progression.
• Protective associations have also been reported for colorectal, endometrial, and liver cancers—likely via anti-inflammatory and antioxidant actions (association ≠ causation).

⸻

🫀 Coffee and Cholesterol

How coffee is prepared strongly influences its lipid effects.
• Unfiltered coffee—French press, espresso, Turkish, or boiled—retains diterpenes (cafestol, kahweol) that can raise LDL cholesterol and triglycerides when consumed regularly.
• Filtered coffee—drip, pour-over, Aeropress with paper—removes most diterpenes, minimizing LDL elevation while preserving antioxidants.
• For those monitoring cholesterol, filtered coffee is the safer default.

⸻

🔥 Coffee and Inflammation

Coffee is a major dietary source of antioxidants (chlorogenic acids, melanoidins, and others) with overall anti-inflammatory patterns in most populations.

Systemic inflammation
Habitual coffee intake is generally associated with lower C-reactive protein (CRP) and often lower IL-6 and TNF-α. Some large cohorts suggest that reduced systemic inflammation may partly mediate coffee’s protective link with type 2 diabetes.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)
• Genetics-based (Mendelian randomization) studies report no causal increase in Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis risk from coffee.
• Newer genetic work suggests higher plasma caffeine may be associated with lower IBD risk, especially for ulcerative colitis.
• Clinically, tolerance varies: some with Crohn’s report symptom aggravation, while others—particularly with UC—show lower f***l calprotectin when consuming coffee. Individual response should guide use.

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)
Evidence is mixed. Early cohorts suggested higher RA risk with decaf, but more recent, well-adjusted analyses (especially those rigorously controlling for smoking) find no significant association overall.

Gout
Multiple prospective cohorts—and genetic analyses—associate higher coffee intake with lower gout risk, likely through urate-lowering mechanisms.

Bottom line: For most people, 2–4 cups/day of filtered black coffee aligns with an anti-inflammatory dietary pattern. Decaf retains many of these benefits.

⸻

🩺 Coffee and Blood Pressure

Short-term (minutes to hours)
In non-habitual drinkers, caffeine can cause a small to moderate rise in blood pressure (often peaking within 1–3 hours).

Long-term (habitual intake)
With regular use, tolerance develops and most studies do not show sustained elevations in blood pressure; cardiovascular outcomes are generally neutral or favorable in moderate drinkers.

Decaf vs regular
Switching to decaf avoids the acute pressor effect and, in some trials, produces slight BP reductions.

Genetics (CYP1A2)
“Slow” caffeine metabolizers may experience stronger pressor/cardiovascular effects at high intakes; “fast” metabolizers tend to show neutral profiles. If BP is difficult to control, consider decaf, smaller doses, earlier timing, and filtered brewing.

⸻

🦴 Coffee and Osteoporosis

Calcium concerns
Caffeine increases urinary calcium excretion by roughly 2–3 mg per cup, raising the question of bone effects.

Evidence
• Moderate coffee (2–4 cups/day) is not significantly associated with osteoporosis or fracture risk if calcium/vitamin D intake is adequate.
• High intake (≥6–8 cups/day) combined with low calcium (