Did you ever wonder if the food you eat? Is a direct effect on your health well-being and Longevity? Well, I'm here to end that mystery. You are the food, you eat, welcome to the nutrition facts podcast. I'm your host dr. Michael Greger today, we take a slug of Kombucha and wonder one of the risks versus benefits of doing such a thing. My video on
kombucha profile, the report published
In the Journal of intensive care Medicine, of a case of Kombucha Tea toxicity, young guy ending up in acidotic coma, which included a wild Kombucha tea is considered a healthy Elixir. The Limited evidence. Currently available races considerable concern that it may pose, serious. Health risks consumption of this tea should be discouraged. It may be associated with a life-threatening, a lactic acidosis. This is just one of several case reports of serious and sometimes fatal.
Dysfunction and lactic acidosis within close proximity of ingestion. For example, two cases in Iowa of severe, metabolic acidosis, including one death, the triggering of a life-threatening autoimmune muscle disease. Requiring emergency surgery, probably related to kombucha shaking shortness of breath in a movement disorder after consumption of tea and no other medications xerostomia, dizziness nausea vomiting headache and neck pain which record on re ingestion of the T. Then another case.
Of severe metabolic lactic acidosis. The case of hepatotoxicity liver toxicity that result after stopping kombucha. Why these sporadic cases? Maybe some unusual toxins developed in a particular batch. I mean it is a fermented product. So it's possible. Just some are contaminated by some bad bug. Like the time, people smeared kombucha on their skin because they were told at that magical healing power would instead it had
Was Anthrax growing in it. So even though such reports were rare ten years ago, I concluded, maybe we should stick to foods that I haven't put people in a coma. But look, everything in life is all about risks versus benefits. Maybe it's worth it. After all, it's reputed to cure cancer, eliminate wrinkles and even restore gray hair to its original color, marketed by alternative and naturopathic healers throughout the United States.
Currently, kombuchas praised as the Ultimate Health drank or damned as unsafe claimed to be a universal. Wonderful drug known as a purifying potion. But is it a potion or poison? Everything back in the 20s 30s and 40s. There were several medical studies conducted by recognized physician confirming, all sorts of beneficial effects. I couldn't wait to read them. Okay, so they side to do friend and farm worth. Okay, there it is.
Same claim citing Alan. Okay, what's Allen 1998? Oh you gotta be kidding me right? You're signing some Rando. Come boots your website here it is defunct. Since 2001 sourced citation list from stuff that was posted on some mailing list. Finally 2003, a systematic review of the clinical evidence that was published and the main result of the systematic review was the
the total lack of efficacy data. No clinical studies were found. So we just have these, you know, these cautionary tale case, reports and so on the basis of these data was concluded that the largely undetermined benefits, do not outweigh, the documented risks of Kombucha can therefore not be recommended, okay? But that was back in 2003. How about a 20-19 systematic review of the empirical evidence of human health benefit? The non-human
Literature claim, numerous health benefits of Kombucha, meaning, mice and rats. But we need our human clinical trials, and still not a single controlled human study, but they did find one uncontrolled study showing a significant before and after reduction and fasting. And after a meal blood sugar's among type 2 diabetics. Nonetheless, despite no controlled trials significant commercial shelf. Space is now dedicated.
Kombucha products and this is widespread belief that the products promote health. So we're left with this kind of extreme disparity between science and belief with little convincing clinical evidence. Yet, Health claims that are as far-reaching. As they are implausible, while the potential for harm seems considerable in such extreme cases. Healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using and paying for anything that only seems to benefit those.
Who's who sell it
in our next story? We look at some scary reports of people ending up in a coma after drinking Kombucha tea is healthy mushrooms are healthy. What if you put them together, Kombucha Tea, a fizzy fermented, drink complete with chunks of slimy fungus. Now, if you base your nutrition knowledge on the kinds of books, you find in health food stores, bestsellers like kombucha, the magical.
Fungus will tell you that already by the
Singh Dynasty. It was known and honored as a beverage with magical powers
enabling people to live forever.
Given the fact that you don't tend to meet many people from that sin Dynasty, these days not only make kombucha not give you eternal life, it apparently won't even Grant you a measly two thousand years never believe. Anything you read in health food stores but what does the science say Kombucha Tea.
Harmful.
Just harmless or helpful.
Kombucha tea can be harmful published last year in the Journal of intensive care medicine. Kombucha May
pose, serious health
risks consumption of this T should be discouraged as it may be associated with life-threatening a lactic acidosis. This is just the latest in a series of case reports of people ending up in a coma because their blood turned to acid. After drinking kombucha. How does it do that? We have no idea, maybe
It's a magical fungus. After all, finally, today we've got a timely review on the health effects of tea coffee milk wine. And soda. One phrase, you'll hear repeatedly my videos and books is best available balance of evidence. What does that mean when making decisions is life, or death important as to, what to best feed ourselves and our families? It matters less, what a single study says, but rather what the
Ality of peer-reviewed science has to say, to know if there's really a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it would be better to look at a review or meta-analysis. That compiles, multiple studies together. The problem is that some reviews say, one thing, breathing, other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and some reviews say another, the saying, the effects of second-hand smoke are insignificant. And further, such talk me, Foster irrational, fears, and hey, while we're at it, you can even
Directly smoke four, or five cigarettes a day, and not really worry about it. So, light up, why do review articles on the health effects reach? Such different conclusion? Well, as you can imagine about 90% of reviews written by tobacco industry Affiliated. Researchers said it was not harmful, whereas you get the exact opposite number with independent reviews, reviews written by tobacco researchers had 88 times the odds of concluding secondhand smoke was harmless.
It was all part of their deliberate corporate strategy to discredit the science to in other words, develop and widely publicized evidence that secondhand smoke is harmless, okay? Well can't you just stick to the independent reviews? The problem is that industry funded researchers have all sorts of sneaky ways to get out of declaring conflicts of interest. So it's hard to follow the money but even without knowing, who funded what the majority of
Use still concluded. Secondhand, smoke was harmful. So just like a single study may not be as helpful as looking at a compilation of studies on a topic. A single review may not be as useful as a compilation of reviews. So, looking at a review of reviews, can give you a better sense of where the best available balance of evidence May lie.
In this case, it's probably best not to inhale, wouldn't it be cool if there were reviews of reviews for different foods, Wallah in exhaustive, review, meta-analysis and systematic reviews on the associations between food and beverage groups and major, or diet-related, chronic diseases. Let's start with the beverages. The findings were classified into three categories. Protective neutral or deleterious, first up TV,
Is coffee right? In both cases, most reviews for whichever condition. They were setting found both beverages to be protective, but you can see how this supports my recommendation, 40 over coffee every cup of coffee is a lost opportunity to drink something, even healthier a cup of green tea, no surprise soda, sinks to the bottom, but still 14% of reviews, mentioned protective effects of drinking soda. Well,
most were references to paper's like this across sectional study, that found that 8th grade. Girls, who drink more, soda were skinnier than girls who drank less, okay? But this was just a snapshot in time. What do you think, is more likely that the federal girls were heavier because they drink less soda or that they drank less sugary soda because they were heavier right, soda abstention May therefore be a consequence of obesity rather than the cause yet it
It's marked down as protective. It was a protective Association study design. Flaws may also account for these wine numbers. Write this review of reviews was published back in 2014 before the Revolution in our understanding of the evaporating health benefits of alcohol, suggesting that the presumed health benefits from moderate alcohol. May have finally collapsed. Thanks to impart to a systematic error of
Defying former drinkers, as if they were lifelong abstainers, sometimes there are unexplainable Association. So for example, one of the soft drink studies found that increased soda consumption was associated with lower risk of a certain type of esophageal cancer. Now, don't don't tell me. The review is funded by
Coca-Cola. The review was funded by Coca-Cola.
Does that help explain these positive milk studies? I mean, were they all just funded by the dairy Council?
Even more conflicts of interest have been found among milk studies. Then soda studies with industry-funded studies of all, such beverages approximately four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the study sponsor.
Funding bias aside, though, there could be, you know, legitimate reasons for the protective effects associated with milk consumption, after all those who drink more milk as a beverage made, drink less soda, which is even worse. So they come out ahead but it may be more than just relative benefits. The soda cancer link seems a little tenuous not just because the coke connection but it's, you know, hard to imagine a biologically plausible mechanism. Whereas
In something as universally condemned as tobacco isn't universally bad, right? It's of explored before. More than 50 Studies have consistently found a protective association with Parkinson's. Thanks to nicotine, even secondhand smoke may be protective, of course, you still want to avoid it. May decrease risk of Parkinson's, but increases risk of an even deadlier. Brain disease stroke, not to mention lung cancer and heart disease, which look has killed off millions of Americans and
The first surgeon general's report was released thankfully by eating certain vegetables, may be able to get some of the benefits without the risks and the same may be true of dairy as I've described before. The consumption of milk is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. Leading to me a recommendation, suggesting men may want to cut down or minimize their intake, but milk consumption associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk. This appears to be a calcium effect. Thankfully, we may be able to get, you know, the best
Both Worlds by eating high calcium. Plant foods such as you know, Greens and Beans.
We would love it if you could share with us your stories about, Reinventing Your Health through evidence-based nutrition. Good nutritionfacts.org /. Testimonials, we make sure it on our social media to help Inspire others to see any graphs charts Graphics images of studies mentioned here, please go to the nutrition facts podcast, landing page there, you'll find all the detailed information. You need plus links to all the sources we cite for each of these topics.
For a vital timely text in the pathogens that cause pandemics you can order the e-book audiobook or the hard copy of my second delay. This book how to survive a pandemic for recipes. Check out my latest the how not to diet cookbook. It's beautifully designed with more than a hundred recipes for delicious and nutritious meals. And of course all proceeds are received from the sales of my books. Go to charity nutrition,
Facts, that organization, nonprofit science-based public service, we can sign up for free daily updates and least in nutrition research via bite-sized videos and articles everything on the website is free, there's no ads, no corporate sponsorship, it's strictly non-commercial, I'm not selling anything. I just put up his up Public Service, as a labor of love, as a tribute to my grandmother, whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.
