Does Vitamin D Prevent Type 1 Diabetes?

Does Genetics Influence Supplementation Benefits?

diabetesThe cause of type 1 diabetes is a mystery. If you go to an authoritarian source like the Mayo Clinic, you will discover that:

  • Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that selectively attacks the insulin-producing islet cells of the pancreas.
  • Certain genetic variants predispose individuals to type 1 diabetes.
  • The autoimmune response may be triggered by a viral infection or other unknown environmental factors in genetically susceptible individuals.
  • The incidence of type 1 diabetes increases as you travel away from the equator, which suggests that vitamin D may be involved.

The idea that vitamin D may be involved is an important concept because it suggests that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. This idea was reinforced by a Finnish study (E Hyponnen et al, Lancet, 358: 1500-1503, 2001) published in 2001 showing the vitamin D supplementation of newborn infants reduced the incidence of type 1 diabetes at age 1.

However, subsequent studies in other parts of the world have had mixed results. Some have confirmed the results of the Finnish study. Others have come up empty.

Similarly, some studies have shown a correlation between low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the blood and the development of type 1 diabetes in children, while other studies have found no correlation.

Why the discrepancy between studies? Some of the differences can be explained by differences in the populations studied or differences in study design. But what if there were another variable that none of the previous studies has considered?

The study (JM Norris et al, Diabetes, 67: 146-154, 2018) I review this week describes just such a variable. The authors of the study hypothesized that the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and the risk of developing type 1 diabetes is influenced by mutations that affect the way vitamin D works in the body. Previous studies have not taken these mutations into account. If the author’s hypothesis is true, it might explain why these studies have produced conflicting results.

In this article, I will answer 3 questions:

  • Does vitamin D prevent type 1 diabetes?
  • If so, is supplementation with vitamin D important?
  • Who will benefit most from vitamin D supplementation?

But, before I answer those questions, I should begin by providing some background. I will start by reviewing the how diet, increased need, disease, and genetics influence the likelihood that we will benefit from supplementation. Then I will review vitamin D metabolism.

Does Genetics Influence Supplementation Benefits?

need for supplementsThe reason so many studies find no benefit from supplementation is that they are asking the wrong question. They are asking “Does supplementation benefit everyone?” That is an unrealistic expectation.

I have proposed a much more realistic model (shown on the left) for when we should expect supplementation to be beneficial. Simply put, we should ask:

  • Is the diet inadequate with respect to the nutrient that is being studied?
  • Is there an increased need for that nutrient because of age, gender, activity level, or environment?
  • Is there a genetic mutation that affects the metabolism or need for that nutrient?
  • Is there an underlying disease state that affects the need for that nutrient?

When clinical studies are designed without taking this paradigm into account, they are doomed to fail. Let me give you some specific examples.

  • The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study concluded supplementation with folate and other B vitamins did not reduce heart disease risk. The problem was that 70% of the people in the study were getting adequate amounts of folate from their diet at the beginning of the study. For those individuals not getting enough folate in their diet, B vitamin supplementation decreased their risk of heart disease by 15%. This is an example of poor diet influencing the need for supplementation.

The other three examples come from studies on the effect of vitamin E supplementation on heart disease that I summarized in an article in “Health Tips From The Professor” a few years ago. Here is a brief synopsis.

  • The Women’s Health Study concluded that vitamin E did not decrease heart disease risk in the general population. However, the study also found that in women over 65 (who are at high risk of heart disease), vitamin E supplementation decreased major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths by 25%. This is an example of increased need because of age and gender influencing the need for supplementation.
  • The Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study” concluded that vitamin E did not decrease heart disease risk in the general population. However, when they looked at women who already had cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the study, vitamin E supplementation decreased risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 23%. This is an example of an underlying disease affecting the need for supplementation.
  • The HOPE study concluded that vitamin E did not decrease heart disease risk in the general population. However, when they looked at individuals with a mutation that increases the risk of heart disease, vitamin E supplementation significantly decreased their risk of developing heart disease. This is an example of genetics affecting the need for supplementation.

These are just a few of many examples. When you ask whether supplementation benefits everyone, the answer is often no. However, when you look at people with inadequate diet, increased need, underlying disease, and/or genetic predisposition, the answer is often yes.

This background sets the stage for the current study. Of course, to understand the author’s hypothesis that mutations in genes involved in vitamin D metabolism might influence the effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes, you need to know a little about vitamin D metabolism.

Biochemistry 101: Vitamin D Metabolism

Vitamin D MetabolismWhen sunlight strikes a metabolite of cholesterol in our skin, it is converted to a precursor that spontaneously isomerizes to form vitamin D3. Because this series of reactions is usually not sufficient to provide all the vitamin D3 our bodies require, we also need to get vitamin D3 from diet and supplementation.

However, vitamin D3 is not active by itself. It first needs to be converted to 25-hydroxyvitamin D by our liver and then to the active 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is an important hormone that regulates many cells in our body.

Some of the 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is synthesized by our kidneys and released into the bloodstream. This 1,25-dihyroxyvitamin D binds to vitamin D receptors on the surface of many cells and initiates regulatory pathways that affect metabolism inside the cell.

Other cells take up 25-hydroxyvitamin D and convert it to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D themselves. In these cells both the synthesis and regulatory effects of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D occur entirely inside the cell.

In both cases, it is 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D that regulates cellular metabolism. The only difference is the way this regulation is accomplished.

There are two additional points that are relevant to this study.

  • The efficiency of conversion of vitamin D to 25-hydroxyvitamin D varies from person to person.
    • Thus, blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are considered a more reliable measure of vitamin D status than dietary intake of vitamin D or sun exposure.
    • Blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥50 nmol/L are considered optimal, while levels of 30 to <50 nmol/L are considered suboptimal, and levels <30 nmol/L are considered deficient.
  • 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D binds to the vitamin D receptor on immune cells. This initiates a series of reactions that decrease the risk of autoimmune responses by our immune system.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was called TEDDY (The Environmental Determinants Of Type 1 Diabetes in the Young). Between September 2004 and February 2010, 424,788 newborn infants from 6 medical centers in Colorado, Georgia, Washington, Finland, Germany, and Sweden were screened for genes that predispose to type 1 diabetes.

The investigators identified 21,589 high-risk infants, and 8,676 of them were enrolled in this study before age 4 months. Clinic visits for the children occurred every 3 months between 3 and 48 months of age and every 6 months thereafter.

  • A DNA sample was taken at the time they entered the study and analyzed for mutations in genes involved in vitamin D metabolism.
  • 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels were obtained at each office visit. Because some studies have suggested the vitamin D status during the first year of life is important, the data were analyzed in two ways.
    1. An average of all 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (referred to as “childhood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels”).
    1. An average of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels during the first 12 months (referred to as “early infancy 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels”).
  • Serum autoantibodies to pancreatic islet cells were measured at each office visit as a measure of an autoimmune attack on those cells. Persistent autoimmune response was defined as positive autoantibodies on two consecutive office visits.

While this study did not directly measure type 1 diabetes, children with an autoimmune response to their pancreatic islet cells are highly likely to develop type 1 diabetes. Thus, for purposes of simplicity I will refer to “risk of developing type 1 diabetes” rather than “persistent autoimmune response” in describing these results.

    1. 418 children developed persistent autoantibodies to their pancreatic islet cells during the study. The onset of this autoimmune response ranged from 2 months to 72 months with an average of 21 months.
    1. These children were compared to 3 matched controls from their medical center who did not develop an autoimmune response.

This study was remarkable for two reasons:

1) It was much larger than previous studies. This gave it greater power to detect an effect of vitamin D status on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

2) This was the first study to ask whether mutations in genes controlling the metabolism of vitamin D influenced the effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

Does Vitamin D Prevent Type 1 Diabetes?

Vitamin DThe study compared the risk of developing type 1 diabetes in children whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were optimal (≥50 nmol/L) to children whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were suboptimal (30 to <50 nmol/L). The results were:

  • Optimal vitamin D status during childhood was associated with a 31% decrease in the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
  • Optimal vitamin D status during early infancy (first 12 months) was associated with a 40% decrease in the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

In other words, having optimal vitamin D status significantly reduces the likelihood of developing of type 1 diabetes in childhood.

  • 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels >75 nmol/L provided no additional benefit.

In other words, you need sufficient vitamin D, but higher levels provide no additional benefit.

  • They tested 5 genes involved in vitamin D metabolism to see if they influenced the effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Only the VDR (vitamin D receptor) gene had any influence.
    • When the VDR gene was fully functional, optimal vitamin D status had no effect on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. This means that even suboptimal (30 to <50 nmol/L) levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D were sufficient to prevent type 1 diabetes when the vitamin D receptor was fully functional.
    • Only 9% of the children in this study were vitamin D deficient (<30 nmol/L 25-hydroxyvitamin D). Presumably, these children would be at high risk of developing type 1 diabetes even with a fully functional VDR gene. However, there were not enough children in that category to test this hypothesis.
  • When they looked at children with mutations in the VDR gene:
    • Optimal vitamin D status during childhood was associated with a 59% decrease in the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
    • Optimal vitamin D status during early infancy (first 12 months) was associated with a 67% decrease in the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

In short, the need for optimal vitamin D levels to reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes is only seen in children with a mutation in the VDR (vitamin D receptor) gene.

  • This is a clear example of genetics affecting the need for a nutrient.
    • For children with a fully functional VDR gene, even 30-50 nmol/L 25-hydroxyvitamin D was sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
    • However, children with mutations in the VDR gene required ≥50 nmol/L 25-hydroxyvitamin D to reduce their risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
  • This is also an example of genetics affecting the need for supplementation with vitamin D.
    • 42% of the children in this study had suboptimal levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Those who also have a mutation in the VDR gene would require supplementation to bring their 25-hydroxyvitamin D up to the optimal level to reduce their risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
    • Other studies have estimated that up to 61% of children in the US may have suboptimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanLet’s start with the three questions I proposed at the beginning of this article.

1) Does vitamin D prevent type 1 diabetes? Based on this study, the answer appears to be a clear yes. However, this is the first study of this kind. We need more studies that into account the effect of mutations in the VDR gene.

2) If so, is supplementation with vitamin D important? If we think in terms of supplementation with RDA levels of vitamin D or sufficient vitamin D to bring 25-hydroxyvitamin D into the optimal range, the answer is also a clear yes. However, there is no evidence from this study that higher doses of vitamin D provide additional benefits.

3) Who will benefit most from vitamin D supplementation? Based on this study, the children who will benefit the most from vitamin D supplementation are those who have a suboptimal vitamin D status and have a mutation in the VDR (vitamin D receptor) gene. To put this into perspective:

    • Up to 60% of children and adults in this country have suboptimal vitamin D levels.
    • The percentage of suboptimal vitamin D levels is highest for people who are obese, have pigmented skin, are institutionalized (eg, elderly in nursing homes), and/or live far from the equator.
    • Supplementation with a multivitamin containing the RDA for vitamin D reduces the risk of having suboptimal vitamin D status by 2.5 to 5-fold depending on the person’s ethnicity.
    • This study may be just the tip of the iceberg. The vitamin D receptor is also found on many other cells that control important biological functions.

Finally, if you are a parent or parent-to-be, you probably have several questions. Here are the ones I have New Parentsanticipated:

#1: Is my child at risk for developing type 1 diabetes? If you or a close family member has type 1 diabetes, you can assume your child is genetically predisposed to developing type 1 diabetes. Other factors that increase your child’s risk of developing type 1 diabetes are obesity, non-White ethnicity, and geographical location far from the equator.

#2: Should I have my baby tested for genetic predisposition to type 1 diabetes? That is not currently recommended. Just be aware of the risk factors listed above.

#3: Should I have my baby tested for VDR mutations? That is unnecessary. If your child has a VDR mutation, they just need sufficient vitamin D, not mega doses of vitamin D. And there are lots of other reasons for making sure your child gets sufficient vitamin D.

#4: How much vitamin D should my child be getting? The recommendation is 400 IU up to age 1 and 600 IU over age 1.

#5: Should I give my child vitamin D supplements? It is a good idea. For children over age 1, I recommend a multivitamin supplying 600 IU of vitamin D.

For infants, the American Association of Pediatrics recommends 400 IU vitamin D drops, regardless of whether the infants are breast or formula fed. That is because studies during the first year of life show that less than one-fifth of all infants get the recommended 400 IU/d from any source, and fewer than one out of 10 breast-fed infants meet the requirement – even if the mother is getting adequate vitamin D in their diet.

One Caution: I do not recommend exceeding 400 IU for infants or 600 IU for children unless directed by your health care provider. In terms of the risk of developing type 1 diabetes, your child needs sufficient vitamin D, and more is not better.

#6: Should I have my child tested for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels? That is not done routinely at the present time. However, if your child has one or more of the risk factors listed above, it is a conversation you should have with your health care provider.

The Bottom Line

While it is widely accepted that vitamin D helps reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes in childhood, that has been difficult to prove. Clinical studies have provided conflicting results. The authors of a recent study postulated that the discrepancies between studies may have arisen because the studies neglected the effect of mutations in genes controlling vitamin D metabolism which may affect the ability of vitamin D to reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

This study found that:

1) Infants and children with optimal vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥50 nmol/L) were 31-40% less likely to develop type 1 diabetes than children with suboptimal vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D = 30 to <50 nmol/L).

2) However, the effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes was only seen in children with one or more mutations in the VDR (vitamin D receptor) gene. To interpret this observation, you need to know that:

    • Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune attack on the pancreatic islet cells that release insulin.
    • 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D promotes immune tolerance and decreases the risk of autoimmune responses.
    • 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D exerts this effect by binding to the vitamin D receptor on the surface of immune cells.

3) Thus, mutations in the VDR gene modify the effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Specifically:

    • When the VDR gene is fully active, even suboptimal levels of vitamin D appear to be sufficient to prevent the development of type 1 diabetes in childhood.
    • However, when the VDR gene has mutations that reduce its activity, suboptimal levels of vitamin D no longer prevent type 1 diabetes. Optimal levels of vitamin D are required to reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

This is an example of genetics increasing the need for a nutrient (vitamin D) and increasing the need for supplementation to make sure that optimal levels of that nutrient are achieved.

While this study focused on the effect of vitamin D on the development of type 1 diabetes, this may just be the tip of the iceberg. The vitamin D receptor is also found on many other cells that control important biological functions.

For more details, read the article above. You will probably want to read the section “What Does This Mean For You?”, including my recommendations for parents of young children

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Which Foods Should I Avoid?

What Is Nutritionism?

In Defense Of FoodRecently, I have been reading Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food”. Yes, I know the book has been around for a long time. Normally I read the scientific literature rather than popular health books. However, in the past few weeks I have had a lot more time to read books, so I decided to read this one.

Some of the things he says are “off the wall”. As he readily admits, he isn’t a scientist or a medical doctor. However, a lot of what he says is “right on”. He echoes many of the things I have been talking about for years. But he does a masterful job of pulling everything together into a framework he calls “nutritionism”.

If you have a chance, I highly recommend that you read his book.

I will briefly summarize his discussion of nutritionism below. I will also share some scientific support for what he is saying. Finally, I will close by sharing what the Bible says on the subject.

What Is Nutritionism?

Low Fat LabelSimply put, nutritionism is the belief that we can understand food solely in terms of its nutritional and chemical constituents and our requirements for them. I use the term “belief” purposely. As Michael Pollan puts it: “As the ‘-ism’ suggests, nutritionism is not a scientific subject, but an ideology.”

What Michael Pollan is referring to is taking food constituents like saturated fats, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, fiber, antioxidants, and probiotics and labeling them as either “good” or “bad”.

As he points out, that leads to debacles like the creation of margarine as a substitute for butter. Of course, everyone reading this article knows that we subsequently found out that the trans fat in margarine was worse for us than the saturated fat in butter. He offers many other examples like this.

He also points out that the nutritionism concept has given free rein to the food industry to replace whole foods with processed foods that are cholesterol-free, sugar-free, low-fat, low-carb, or high in fiber, omega-3s, etc. He says that these foods are seldom healthier than the foods they replace. I agree.

Finally, he points out that the scientific support for the classification of individual ingredients or foods as “good” or “bad” is weak. That’s because when scientists design a study that removes a chemical constituent or a food from the diet, they have to replace it with something. And what they replace it with determines the outcome of the study. I give some examples of this in the next section.

The essence of Michael Pollan’s message is:

  • The effect of an individual nutrient or chemical constituent on your health depends on the food it is found in. Forget the fancy nutrition labels. Whole foods are almost always healthier than processed foods.
  • The effect of a food or food constituent on your health also depends on your overall diet. We should be thinking about healthy diets rather than the latest “magical” or “forbidden” food.

I will discuss these points below.

Which Foods Should I Avoid?

Question MarkNow, let’s get to the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” If we are talking about whole foods, the short answer is “None”. As I said in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”, “We have 5 food groups for a reason”.

For example, if we are talking about plant foods, each plant food group:

  • Has a unique blend of vitamins and minerals.
  • Has a unique blend of phytonutrients.
  • Has a unique blend of fiber.
  • Supports the growth of a unique combination of beneficial gut bacteria.
  • Dr Strangelove and his friends are telling you to eliminate whole grains, fruits, and legumes (beans) from your diet. Recent studies suggest that might not be a good idea. Here is one example.

If we are talking about animal foods, each animal food group:

  • Has a unique blend of vitamins and minerals.
  • May have unique components that are important for our health. [Note: This is an active area of research. Theories have been proposed for which components in animal foods may be important for our health, but they have not been confirmed.]
  • Vegan purists will tell you that you have no need for meat and dairy foods. Recent studies suggest otherwise. Here is one example.

With that as background, let’s turn our attention to nutritionism and look at some of science behind claims that certain food components are either good for us or bad for us.

Saturated Fat. Saturated fat is the poster child for nutritionism.lowfat

First, we were told by the American Heart Association and other health organizations that saturated fat was bad for us. Recently Dr. Strangelove and his friends are telling us that saturated fat is good for us. Instead of limiting saturated fat, we should be limiting carbs by cutting out fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Both cite clinical studies to support their claims. How can this be?

Perhaps a little history is in order. When the American Heart Association recommended that we decrease intake of saturated fat, they were envisioning that we would replace it with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat in the context of a healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. That never happened.

Big Food quickly realized that if the American public were to follow the AHA guidelines, it would be disastrous for their bottom line. So, they sprang into action. They mixed sugar, white flour, and a witch’s brew of chemicals to create highly processed, low fat “foods”. Then they told the American public, “Don’t worry. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods. We have created low fat alternatives.”

This is the essence of what Michael Pollan refers to as nutritionism. By marketing their fake foods as low fat Big Food created the halo of health. In fact, Big Food’s fake foods were less healthy than the foods they replaced. Americans got fatter and sicker.

Now let’s look at the conflicting claims that saturated fat is bad for us or good for us. How can clinical studies disagree on such an important question? The answer is simple. It depends on what you replace it with. You need to consider saturated fat intake in the context of the overall diet.

I discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, but let me summarize it briefly here. The American Heart Association tells us that replacing half of the saturated fat in a typical American diet with:

  • Trans fats, increases heart disease risk by 5%.
  • Refined carbohydrates and sugars (the kind of carbohydrates in the typical American Diet), slightly increases heart disease risk.
  • Complex carbohydrates (whole grains, fruits & vegetables), decreases heart disease risk by 9%.
  • Monounsaturated fats (olive oil & peanut oil), decreases heart disease risk by 15%.
  • Polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils and fish oil), decreases heart disease risk by 25%.
  • Unsaturated fats in the context of a Mediterranean diet, decreases heart disease risk by 45%.

My advice: Saturated fat is neither good for you nor bad for you. A little bit of saturated fat in the context of a healthy diet is fine. A lot of saturated fat in the context of an unhealthy diet is problematic.

fatty steakRed Meat. Is red meat bad for you? Like saturated fat, it depends on the amount of red meat and the overall diet. I covered this in detail in “Slaying The Food Myths”, but let me summarize briefly here:

According to the World Health Organization, red meat is a probable carcinogen. If we look at the postulated mechanisms by which it causes cancer, they can be mostly neutralized by components of various plant foods.

My advice: An 8-ounce steak with fries and a soda is probably bad for you. Three ounces of that same steak in a green salad or stir fry may be good for you.

I should make one other point while I am on the topic. Dr. Strangelove and his friends have been telling you that grass-fed beef is better for you than conventionally raised beef. Once again, that is nutritionism.  Grass-fed beef is lower in saturated fat and high in omega-3s than conventionally raised beef. That may be better for your heart, but it has no effect on the cancer-causing potential of red meat. It doesn’t give the license to eat 8-ounce steaks on a regular basis. You still want to aim for 3-ounces of that grass-fed beef in a green salad or stir fry. 

High-Fructose Corn Syrup. This one seems to be on everyone’s “naughty list”. You are being told to read labels, and if the food has high-fructose corn syrup on the label, put it back on the shelf. But is that good advice?

It turns out that all the studies on the bad effects of high-fructose corn syrup have been done with sodas and highly processed foods. This should be your first clue.

Of course, as soon as high-fructose corn syrup gained its “bad” reputation, Big Food started replacing it with Sugar Comparisons“heathier” sugars. Does that make those foods healthier?

The answer is a clear “No”. Both chemically and biologically, high-fructose corn syrup is identical to sucrose (table sugar), honey, molasses, maple syrup, coconut sugar, date sugar, or grape juice concentrate. Agave sugar is even higher in fructose than high-fructose corn syrup. This is your second clue.

Substituting these sugars for high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t turn sodas and processed foods into health foods. This is nutritionism at its worst.

My advice: Forget reading the label. Forget trying to avoid foods with high-fructose corn syrup. Avoid sodas and processed foods instead.

Sugar. Once the public started to realize that natural sugars in processed foods were just as bad for us as high-fructose corn syrup, sugars became “bad”. We were told to avoid all foods containing sugar in any form. In fact, we were told we needed to become “label detectives” and recognize all the deceptive ways that sugar could be hidden on the label.

Apple With Nutrition LabelI have discussed this in detail in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Let me just summarize that article with one quote, “It’s not the sugar. It’s the food. There is the same amount and same types of sugar in an 8-ounce soda and a medium apple. Sodas are bad for you, and apples are good for you.” If you are wondering why that is, I have covered it in another issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

Before leaving this subject, I should mention that nutritionism has risen its ugly head here as well. Big Food has struck again. They have replaced sugar with a variety of artificial sweeteners.

Once again, nutritionism has failed. Those artificially sweetened sodas and processed foods are no healthier and no more likely to help you keep the weight off than the sugar-sweetened foods they replace. I have covered the science behind that statement in several previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is one example.

My advice: Forget about sugar phobia. You don’t need to become a label detective. Just avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweet processed foods. Get your sugar in its natural form in fruits and other whole foods.

low carb dietCarbs. Dr. Strangelove and his friends are now telling you that you need to avoid all carbs. That is pure nutritionism. Carbs are neither good nor bad. It depends on the type of carb and what you replace it with.

Once again, clinical studies have given conflicting outcomes. Each side of the carbohydrate debate can provide clinical studies to support their position. How can that be? The answer is simple. It depends on what assumptions went into the design of the clinical studies. I have written several articles on this topic in “Health Tips From the Professor”, but let me give you one example here.

In this example, I looked at two major studies. The PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study included data from 135,000 participants in 18 countries. In this study, the death rate decreased as the % carbohydrate in the diet decreased. The low-carb enthusiasts were doing a victory dance.

However, it was followed by a second, even larger study. The ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study included 432,000 participants from even more countries. In this study, the death rate decreased as the % carbohydrate decreased to about 40%. Then a curious thing happened. As the % carbohydrate in the diet decreased further, the death rate increased.

How can you explain this discrepancy? When you examine the PURE study:

  • The % carbohydrate only ranged from 70% to 40%.
  • The data for the PURE study was obtained primarily with third world countries. That is an important distinction because:
    • In those countries, it is primarily the well to do that can afford sodas, processed foods, and meat.
    • The poor subsist on what they can grow and inexpensive staples like beans and rice.
  • Simply put, in the PURE study, the type of carbohydrate changed as well as the amount of carbohydrate.
    • At the highest carbohydrate intakes, a significant percentage of the carbohydrate came from sugar and refined grains.
    • At the lowest carbohydrate intakes, most of the carbohydrate intake came from beans, whole grains, and whatever fruits and vegetables they could grow.

When you examine the ARIC study:how much carbohydrates should we eat aric

  • The % carbohydrate ranged from 70% to 20%.
  • The ARIC study added in data from the US and European countries. That is an important distinction because:
    • Low carb diets like Atkins and Keto are popular in these countries. And those are the diets that fall into the 20-40% carbohydrate range.
    • Most people can afford diets that contain a lot of meat in those countries.
  • Simply put, at the lower end of the scale in the ARIC study, people were eating diets rich in meats and saturated fats and eliminating healthy carbohydrate-containing foods like fruits, whole grains and legumes.

My advice: The lesson here is to avoid simplistic nutritionism thinking and focus on diets rather than on foods. When you do that it is clear that carbs aren’t bad for you, it’s unhealthy carbs that are bad for you.

Which Foods Should I Avoid? By now the answer to the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” is clear. Avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods (The term processed foods includes convenience foods, junk foods, and most sweets).

What Does This Mean To You?

Questioning ManNow that we are clear on which foods you should avoid, let’s look at the flip side of the coin. Let’s ask, “Which foods should you include in your diet?

As I said at the beginning of this article, “We have 5 food groups for a reason”. We should consider whole foods from all 5 food groups as healthy.

Of course, each of us is different. We all have foods in some food groups that don’t treat us well. Some of us do better with saturated fats or carbs than others. We need to explore and find the foods and diets that work best for us.

However, whenever we assume one diet is best for everyone, we have crossed the line into nutritionism.

What Does The Bible Say?

Let me start this section by saying that I rely on the Bible for spiritual guidance rather than nutritional guidance. However, as part of our church’s Bible reading plan, I was reading 1 Timothy. A passage from 1 Timothy 4:1-5 leapt out at me. It reinforces the theme of Michael Pollan’s book and seems uniquely applicable to the times we live in.

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They…order people to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

Interesting.

The Bottom Line

In this article, I have discussed the concept of “nutritionism” introduced in Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense Of Food”. He defines nutritionism as the belief that we can understand food solely in terms of its nutritional and chemical constituents and our requirements for them.

What Michael Pollan is referring to is taking food constituents like saturated fats, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, fiber, antioxidants, and probiotics and labeling them as either “good” or “bad”. He points out that when we accept these simplistic labels, we often end up creating foods and diets that are less healthy than the ones we were trying to replace.

At the beginning of the article, I asked the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” I then looked at several foods or food groups we have told to avoid, including saturated fats, red meat, high-fructose corn syrup, sugar, and carbs. When you look at the science behind these recommendations from the lens of nutritionism, you come to two conclusions:

  • We should avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods (The term processed foods includes convenience foods, junk foods, and most sweets).
  • Whole foods from all 5 food groups should be considered as healthy.

Of course, each of us is different. We all have foods in some food groups that don’t treat us well. Some of us do better with saturated fats or carbs than others. We need to explore and find the foods and diets that work best for us.

However, whenever we assume one diet is best for everyone, we have crossed the line into nutritionism.

For more details and a bible verse that supports the theme of Michael Pollan’s book and seems uniquely applicable to the times we live in, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Relief From Sinus Pain

Are Spring Allergies Ruining Your Time Outdoors?

spring flowersThe lovely month of May!  The air is warm, the breezes are soft, and the flowers are blooming.  We’re surrounded by nature coming alive as animal’s pair-up to again start the circle of life, and it’s all beautiful!

Hopefully, you are having the opportunity to go out and enjoy this wonderful time of year.

So many of us have been forced into inactivity due to all that is happening around the world, and not only does that add to your stress level, it also doesn’t benefit your body.  Hopefully, you are doing some type of purposeful movement at home.  My recommendation is:

  • Step 1: Exercise at home. There are many exercise programs on the internet so you can move along with the instructor.
  • Step 2: Self-treat the muscles you just exercised. Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living or The Pain-Free Athlete books are perfect to show you exactly where to find the knots that are putting a strain on your joints.  Find the shaded area where you feel tension/pain and then do the self-treatment to untie the knots in the muscle.
  • Step 3: Finish your exercise session off with stretching to release the tension in the muscle. There is a perfect safe-stretching routine taught in Focused Flexibility Training. It’s self-treatment of each muscle you’re going to stretch, followed by a 30-minute yoga routine.

Movement is important for the proper functioning of so many systems in your body, including your circulation, digestion, and your immune system.

Are Spring Allergies Ruining Your Time Outdoors?

This is a wonderful time of year to enjoy the great outdoors. It is a time to enjoy spring flowers, plant your gardens, and enjoy long walks, perhaps with your dog(s). But if you have sinus problems because of spring allergies, the outdoors is no fun. You may have sinus headaches. You may have sinus pressure that feels like you have a vice around your skull, pressing into your eyes and temples. You may even have a challenge keeping your eyes open.

I received several emails about sinus problems, most likely caused by spring pollen.  As a result, I figured it would help the most people by talking about how to ease the pressure in your sinuses this month. I want you to be able to enjoy the outdoors this spring without worrying about sinus problems.

Relief From Sinus Pain

To relieve sinus pain, take your three middle fingers and put them onto your cheeks as shown in this picture.  Your back teeth should be under your fingertips.

Press UP onto your cheekbones, as if you were trying to push your fingers into your eyes and the bone is in the way.

Alternate sides so you press up on your left side, hold for 5 seconds, then release while you are pressing up on your right side.  Keep going back and forth.

You can move along your cheekbone, going all the way next to your nostrils.  Then press the same way into the bone on both sides of your nose.

Finally, press into your eyebrows, close to midline, so you can be adding pressure onto the sinus cavities directly underneath your fingertips.

It will help if your head is tilted back a little so your sinuses can start to drain. Visualize pressing and squeezing your sinus cavities as that is exactly what you are actually doing!

By the way, this has also helped people who have a sinus infection because it enables the sinuses to drain, and then I always use a sinus rinse mixture and a squeeze bottle to wash the pollen out of my sinuses.

Trigger-Point Yoga And Focused Flexibility Training Update

Like so many people who are stuck indoors, I’m finding all kinds of projects that have been neglected for a long time.  One that has been on my mind, but never had enough time to do anything about, is a wonderful safe-stretching program that was developed back around 2010.

It was actually put together by an incredible yoga instructor named Ana.  Ana had a calf pain that wasn’t being resolved with yoga, so she finally searched online, and she found me.  She bought my book, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living,” and she also had a telephone consultation with me (I didn’t do any online meetings yet) to discuss her situation.  I told her which treatments to do and she was shocked that in just two days her pain and stiffness was gone.

The missing piece in yoga is stretching the muscle fibers without first untying the knots (spasms) that put a strain on the joints.  Yet, doing some simple techniques releases the knots and you can stretch without overstretching the muscle fibers.

Ana looked into the self-treatments for her hips and she was surprised to find multiple spasms. After treating them her yoga got better. That inspired her to do the self-treatments for her shoulders and sure enough, she had spasms that she treated, and her yoga got even better.  She knew this was something that needed to be shared with yoga-lovers everywhere.

After we met by telephone, she shared her ideas with me and Trigger-Point Yoga (TPY) was born.  Ana did an amazing job putting the program together.  I was filmed teaching an athlete named Scott how to do all the treatments taught in my book, which we called “The Foundation.”  Then Ana designed and filmed two sessions, one for the upper body and one for the lower body. Each session starts with 15 minutes of self-treating the muscles that will be stretched, and then 30 minutes of yoga stretching.

I found that athletes didn’t want to take a yoga class, but when I changed the name to Focused Flexibility Training, they were excited to do the program.

If you would like to stretch safely, without potentially tearing tight muscle fibers, I suggest you bring Trigger-Point Yoga into your home. For only $67 you can do the entire thing in your living room or den and feel more flexible than you have in a long time!

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Preparing For The New Normal

Can Supplements Strengthen My Immune System?

COVID-19The United States and the rest of the world are facing the biggest challenge of our lifetimes. COVID-19 has killed hundreds of thousands of people and decimated economies around the world.

As of the publication date of this article we have no vaccine and only one treatment option that appears to be about 30% effective in a preliminary clinical trial. People are scared.

The question I get asked most often is: “Can supplements protect me from COVID-19”. That’s not a question I can answer with confidence. The few studies we have are small and preliminary. Plus, there is too much we still do not know about COVID-19.

However, there are studies about how diet and supplements affect the immune system. I can answer the question, “Can Supplements Strengthen My Immune System”, with confidence. That will be the focus of this article.

However, before covering that, let me take an objective look at what our “New Normal” will be like and how we can prepare for it.

Preparing For The New Normal

ProfessorAs a scientist I am appalled by the divisive and hyper-partisan arguments about how we should be handling the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a time when our country should be united against a common enemy. Instead I see myths and lies propagated on both sides of this important issue.

The press only magnifies the problem by repeating the myths without fact checking. Whether they are on the left or the right, the media only repeats myths that fit their narrative. As a result, people like you are confused and scared.

Let me try to give you a more objective and scientific view of what the “New Normal” will look like, and how we can prepare for it.

Let’s start with one of the biggest arguments over the past few weeks – when should we reopen our country. This argument is based on the myth that if we wait long enough, the virus will be gone, and life can return to normal.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality viruses don’t work that way. They continue to circulate through the population at low levels. Whenever we emerge from our homes and resume our daily lives, the virus will be lurking. There will be flare-ups. There will be hot spots. There will be deaths. And the press will report every one.

So, the question should not be when we emerge. It should be how we emerge. We should emerge cautiously. We should continue to take appropriate precautions. These precautions will become our “New Normal” until we have an effective vaccine. By now, you probably have the CDC precautions memorized, but let me repeat them here:

  • If you are sick, stay home until you recover. If your symptoms worsen, contact your doctor right away.
  • If you are exposed, get tested right away and self-quarantine for 14 days if you test positive.
  • When you go out, wear a face mask and practice social distancing. When you get home, wash your hands in soap and water for 20”.
  • For now, we will need to avoid the customary handshake (and if you are from the South like me, the customary hug).
  • If you are very old or very sick, you should stay home as much as possible. If you have a loved one in this category, you should do everything in your power to protect them from exposure.
  • The guideline that is hardest to project into the future is the one on crowd size. It is hard to predict what the CDC will recommend about crowd size as part of our “New Normal” a few months from now. However, because this virus is extremely contagious, it may be risky to attend any gatherings where there are large, tightly packed crowds for the foreseeable future. This could include some of our favorite things – like movies, live theater, night clubs, and sporting events.Myth Versus Facts

Finally, there is another big myth, namely that the virus will simply disappear once we have a vaccine. Vaccines reduce your risk of exposure because fewer people are carriers of the virus. However, coronaviruses never disappear. They continue to circulate in the population for decades.

Even after we have a vaccine, people will still get sick from COVID-19. People will still die from COVID-19. The difference is that we will no longer hear about COVID-19 cases and deaths on the nightly news. Those cases and deaths will just become part of the statistics that the CDC collects on flu-like illnesses each year – and everyone ignores.

Now that I have discussed what the “New Normal” will look like and summarized the CDC guidelines for reducing your exposure to COVID-19 as the lockdown eases, let me add another guideline of my own:

  • Keep your immune system as strong as possible.

Why Is Keeping Your Immune System Strong Important?

strong immune systemIt is no secret that the media likes to focus on bad news. It is the bad news that draws people in and keeps them coming back for more.

Pandemics are no different. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about the Spanish flu, SARS, MERS, or COVID-19. We focus on cases and deaths – the bad news. We ignore the good news – there are millions of people who were infected and had no symptoms.

However, if you have been listening closely to what the experts have been saying rather than relying on the media for your information, the good news is obvious.

  • 80-85% of people who have tested positive for COVID-19 have mild or moderate symptoms. Their symptoms are no worse than they experience with the seasonal flu.
  • Preliminary antibody tests suggest that the number of people infected with COVID-19 who experience no symptoms may be 10 to 40 times higher than reported cases.
  • The experts say that the difference is a strong immune system. They tell us that it is people with weakened immune systems that suffer and die from COVID-19.

So, how do you keep your immune system strong? Let’s start by looking at the role of supplementation.

Can Supplements Strengthen My Immune System?

MultivitaminsThose of you who follow me know that I consider supplementation as just one aspect of a holistic approach to health. However, I am starting with supplements because the question I am often asked these days is: “Can supplements protect me from COVID-19”.

As I said at the beginning of this article, that is not a question I can answer with confidence. Instead, the question you should be asking is, “Can Supplements Strengthen My Immune System?”

As I mentioned above, the experts are telling us that it is people with weakened immune systems who suffer and die from COVID-19. That means it is important to keep our immune system as strong as possible.

How do we do that? Here is what an international group of experts said in a recent review (PC Calder et al, Nutrients, 12, 1181-1200, 2020).

1) “A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system.”

2) “Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections, and an increase in disease burden.”

They then made the following recommendations:

1) Supplementation with the above micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids is a safe, effective, and low-cost strategy to help support optimal immune function.

    • They recommended 100% of the RDA for vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate and minerals zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper in addition to the consumption of a well-balanced diet.
    • They recommended 250 mg/day of EPA + DHA.

2) Supplementation above the RDA for vitamins C and D is warranted.

    • They recommend 200 mg/day of vitamin C for healthy individuals and 1-2 g/day for individuals who are sick.
    • They recommend 2000 IU/day (50 ug/day) for vitamin D.

3) Public health officials are encouraged to include nutritional strategies in their recommendations to improve public health.

Their recommendations could be met by a multivitamin that provides all the micronutrients they recommend, an omega-3 supplement, and extra vitamins C and D.

What Else Should I Do To Strengthen My Immune System?

healthy foodsAs I said above, supplementation is only one part of a holistic approach to a strong immune system. Here are the other components of a holistic approach:

1) It starts with a healthy diet.

    • Eat foods from all 5 food groups.
    • Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. They provide antioxidants and phytonutrients that are important for our immune system.
    • Eat plenty of high fiber foods. Include whole grains and beans in addition to fruits and vegetables. That’s because the friendly gut bacteria that strengthen our immune system need a variety of fibers from different food sources to feed on.
    • Eat oily fish on a regular basis.
    • Avoid sodas, sugary foods, and highly processed foods.
    • Avoid high fat diets

2) Get adequate sleep. For most of us, that means 7-8 hours of sleep a night.

3) Maintain a healthy weight.

4) Get adequate exercise. Aim for a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise each week.

5) Manage stress and anxiety in healthy ways. Yes, that means if you let the news about COVID-19 cause anxiety, you are weakening your immune system. You may want to turn off the news and try prayer, meditation, yoga, or whatever relieves stress for you.

The Bottom Line

In this article, I summarized the “New Normal” we face as we emerge from lockdown and how to navigate the new normal as safely as possible. If I were to summarize this article in a few short sentences, this is what I would say:

Until we have an effective vaccine the “New Normal” is a world in which a dangerous virus is lurking in the community, waiting to strike the unprepared.

Forget all the angry rhetoric about when we should emerge from lockdown. The important question is not when we emerge. It is how we emerge.

We don’t need to stay huddled in our homes, fearful to leave, unless we are very old or very sick.

We do need to take appropriate precautions when we leave home based on the recommendations of the CDC. None of us are invincible as far as this virus is concerned. More importantly, if we bring the virus home, we may kill the very people we love the most. We need to follow the guidelines.

We should also make sure that our immune system is as strong as possible through a holistic combination of diet, supplementation, adequate sleep, exercise, weight management, and stress reduction.

For more information on CDC COVID-19 Guidelines, click here.

For more details about preparing for the new normal and diet & supplementation recommendations, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Does Fiber Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?

Start Young And Finish Strong

Vegan FoodsThe idea that dietary fiber reduces the risk of breast cancer has been around for a long time. But it is controversial. It has been difficult to prove.

Part of the difficulty arises from what scientists call confounding variables. What do I mean by confounding variables? Let me explain.

A high fiber diet is usually a primarily plant-based diet. Plant foods contain much more than just fiber. They are full of antioxidants and phytonutrients. A primarily plant-based diet is, by definition, low in refined grains. It is usually low in sugar and saturated fat as well.

People who eat primarily plant-based diets are often health conscious. They tend to exercise more, weigh less, and smoke less than the general public.

Each of these things are confounding variables. They could reduce the risk of breast cancer on their own. That confounds (makes it more difficult to interpret) the data. Was the reduction in breast cancer risk due to the high fiber diet or to these factors that go along with a high fiber diet?

It is possible to correct for these confounding variables statistically, but that requires a very large study (a large population group) for the correction to be accurate. Large studies are expensive. Thus, you tend to end up with lots of small studies. And once they have been corrected for confounding variables, small studies give conflicting results. Some show a benefit of fiber. Some do not.

That is why this study (MS Farvid et al, Cancer, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32816) is important. It is a meta-analysis of 20 clinical studies with almost 2 million women.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe meta-analysis combined data from 20 clinical studies with 1,994,910 women. Fiber intake was calculated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at the beginning of the study for all except one study that used 24-hour dietary records administered at the beginning of the study.

  • Study duration ranged from 2 to 20 years. Nine of the studies (1.37 million women) lasted for 10 years or more.
  • Four studies reported results for premenopausal breast cancer, fifteen studies reported results for postmenopausal breast cancer, and one study reported results for both.

Does Fiber Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?

breast cancerAfter correcting for confounding variables, the results of the study were as follows:

  • When comparing the highest intake with the lowest intake, total fiber consumption was associated with an 8% lower risk of breast cancer.
  • The effect was stronger for premenopausal breast cancer (18%) than for postmenopausal breast cancer (9%).
  • The effect was greater with soluble fiber (10% decreased risk) than for insoluble fiber (7% decreased risk).
    • Note: All plant foods contain a mixture of soluble fiber and insoluble fiber. However, the common foods richest in soluble fiber are fruits, oatmeal, nuts, beans, peas, and lentils.

The authors concluded, “A random-effects meta-analysis of prospective observational studies demonstrated that high total fiber consumption was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. This finding was consistent for soluble fiber as well as for women with premenopausal and postmenopausal cancer.”

Start Young And Finish Strong

Mother & Daughter Eating ApplesAn 8% risk reduction doesn’t seem like very much, but the 18% risk reduction in premenopausal breast cancer caught my eye. With a little digging I found a study (MS Farvid et al, Pediatrics 137, March 2016: e20151226) that focused on the effect of fiber intake in young women on their subsequent risk developing both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer. This was, in fact, one of the studies included in the meta-analysis I described above.

This study followed 90,534 women (mean age 36 years) for 20 years. The women competed a food frequency questionnaire at enrollment and every four years thereafter. They also completed a questionnaire about their diet during their teenage years.

When comparing the highest versus the lowest fiber intake:

  • High fiber intake reduced total breast cancer risk by 19%.
    • Postmenopausal breast cancer risk was reduced by 13%.
    • Premenopausal breast cancer risk was reduced by 23%.

Interestingly, only 34% of women who consumed high fiber diets during their teenage years continued to consume high fiber diets as young adults. However, high fiber diets in the teenage years were important. When they looked at teenage diets:

  • High fiber intake reduced total breast cancer risk by 16%.
    • Postmenopausal breast cancer risk was reduced by 15%.
    • Premenopausal breast cancer risk was reduced by 25%.

Other important observations from this study were:

  • There was a 13% decrease in breast cancer risk for every 10 gram increase in fiber intake.
    • 10 grams of fiber is equivalent to one apple plus two slices of 100% whole wheat toast or half a cup of cooked kidney beans plus half a cup of cooked cauliflower or squash.
  • Both soluble fiber (14% decreased risk) and insoluble fiber (20% decreased risk) were effective.
    • In terms of foods, the most significant effects were seen with fruits and vegetables.

The authors concluded, “Our findings support the hypothesis that higher fiber intakes reduce breast cancer risk and suggest that intake during adolescence and early adulthood may be particularly important.”

What Does This Mean For You?

Questioning WomanAs I said before, an 8% decrease in breast cancer risk may not sound like much. You might be tempted to say, “Why bother? Why should I give up my favorite processed and convenience foods and switch to a more whole food, plant-based diet?”

Here are some thoughts to consider:

1) As I mentioned above, there are side benefits to a plant-based diet.

    • Plant based diets have a lower caloric density, so you are less likely to be overweight.
    • Your intake of antioxidants and phytonutrients is increased.
    • Plant foods feed beneficial gut bacteria.
    • Your diet is likely to be lower in sugar, highly processed foods, and saturated fat.

All these factors decrease your risk of developing breast cancer, but they were statistically factored out in calculating the 8% reduction in risk. In other words, the 8% reduction in risk was based on fiber intake only. When you consider all the beneficial effects that accompany a high fiber diet, your actual reduction in risk is likely to be substantially more than 8%.

2) When you consume a high fiber diet, your risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer is decreased by 18%. That is twice the risk reduction seen for postmenopausal breast cancer. This is consistent with several other studies showing the premenopausal breast cancer is more influenced by diet than postmenopausal breast cancer. There are a couple of likely explanations for this.

    • By the time they reach menopause women are more likely to be overweight and some of those fat calls accumulate in breast tissue. Those fat cells continue to produce estrogen after menopause. Even worse, that estrogen is produced right next to the breast cells, where it can do the maximum damage.
    • Mutations accumulate in breast tissue as we age, and some of those mutations increase the risk of breast cancer.

3) When you start consuming a healthy, high fiber diet early in life your risk reduction is much greater (a 13-15% decreased risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer and a 23-25% decreased risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer). Now, we are talking about numbers that should get your attention!

Plus, these numbers are based on fiber intake only. Once again, when you consider all the other benefits of a high fiber diet, your real risk reduction is likely to be much greater.

In closing I should mention that none of the studies were done with fiber supplements. A fiber supplement may help you be more regular, but there is no evidence that a fiber supplement will reduce your risk of breast cancer.

The Bottom Line

Two recent studies have looked at the effect of fiber intake on the risk of developing breast cancer.

The first study showed that:

  • High fiber diets decreased the overall risk of breast cancer by 8% and the risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 18%.
  • As I describe in the article above, these reductions in risk were based on fiber intake only. If you consider all the side benefits of a high fiber diet, the actual risk reduction is likely to be much greater.

The second study looked at fiber intake during adolescence and early adulthood. It found that when high fiber diets were started early in life:

  • High fiber diets decreased the overall risk of breast cancer by 13-15% and the risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 23-25%.
  • Once again, if you consider all the side benefits of a high fiber diet, the actual risk reduction is likely to be much greater.

The authors of both studies concluded that high fiber diets reduce the risk of developing breast cancer. The risk reduction is greater for premenopausal breast cancer than for postmenopausal breast cancer. Finally, the risk reduction is greatest when high fiber diets are started early in life.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Does Vitamin D Affect Muscle Strength?

Why Is Vitamin D Research So Controversial?

vitamin dMost people lose muscle strength as they age, something called sarcopenia. This is not a trivial matter. Loss of muscle mass:

  • Leads to loss of mobility. It can also make it difficult to do simple things like lifting your grandchild or carrying a bag of groceries.
  • Increases your risk of falling. This often leads to serious fracture which increases your of dying prematurely. In fact, bone fractures increase your risk of dying by 3-fold or more. Even in those who recover their mobility and quality of life may never be the same.
  • Lowers your metabolic rate. This increases your risk of obesity and all the diseases that are associated with obesity.

Loss of muscle strength as we age is preventable. There are several things we can do to preserve muscle strength as we age, but in today’s article I will focus on the effect of vitamin D on muscle strength.

What if something as simple as preventing vitamin D deficiency could improve muscle strength as we age? That idea has been around for a decade or more. But, for reasons I will detail below, it has proven controversial. Let me start by sharing the latest study on vitamin D and muscle strength (N Aspell et al, Clinical Investigations in Ageing, volume 2019:14, pages 1751-1761).

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study came from 4157 adults who were enrolled in the English Longitudinal Study On Aging. Participants in this study were all over the age of 60 and were still living in their own homes. The general characteristics of the study population were:

  • Their average age was 69.8 with 45% male and 55% female.
  • While 76% of the participants rated their health as “good” or above
    • 73% were overweight or obese.
    • 54% had a longstanding disease that limited mobility.
    • 29% were taking multiple medications.

Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels were determined as a measure of vitamin D status.

  • 22% of the participants were vitamin D deficient (<30 nmol/L 25-hydroxy vitamin D).
  • 34% of the participants were vitamin D insufficient (between 30 and 50 nmol/L 25-hydroxy vitamin D).
  • 46% of the participants had adequate vitamin D status (>50 nmol/L 25-hydroxy vitamin D).

Muscle strength was assessed by a handgrip strength test with the dominant hand. Muscle performance was assessed with something called the short physical performance battery (SPPB), consisting of a walking speed test, a repeated chair raise test, and a balance test.

Does Vitamin D Affect Muscle Strength?

When the data on handgrip strength were analyzed:

  • Only 22% of the participants who had adequate vitamin D status had low handgrip strength.
  • 40% of participants who were vitamin D deficient had low handgrip strength. That’s almost a 2-fold difference.
  • Handgrip strength increased linearly with vitamin D status.
    • The relationship between vitamin D status and handgrip strength was highly significant (p<001).
    • The beneficial effect of vitamin D status on handgrip strength plateaued at around 55-69 nmol/L 25-hydroxy vitamin D. In other words, you need adequate vitamin D status to support muscle strength, but higher levels provide no additional benefit.

When the data on muscle performance (the SPPB test) were analyzed:

  • Only 8% of the participants who had adequate vitamin D status scored low on this test.
  • 25% of participants who were vitamin D deficient scored low on this test. That’s a 3-fold difference.
  • Muscle performance also increased linearly with vitamin D status.
    • The relationship between vitamin D status and muscle performance was also highly significant (p<001).
    • The beneficial effect of vitamin D status on muscle performance also plateaued at around 55-69 nmol/L 25-hydroxy vitamin D.

The authors concluded: “Vitamin D deficiency was associated with impaired muscle strength and performance in a large study of community-dwelling older people. It is generally accepted that vitamin D deficiency should be reversed to prevent bone disease. This strategy may also protect skeletal muscle function in aging.”

Why Is Vitamin D Research So Controversial?

ArgumentYou can be forgiven if you are saying to yourself: “I’ve heard this sort of thing before. I see a blog or headline claiming that vitamin D has a certain benefit, but it’s usually followed by later headlines saying those claims are false. Why can’t the experts agree? Is all vitamin D research bogus?”

The relationship between vitamin D status and muscle strength is no different.

  • Most, but not all, studies looking at the association between vitamin D status and muscle strength find that vitamin D status affects muscle strength.
  • However, many randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials looking at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle strength have come up empty.

A meta-analysis (L Rejnmark, Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease, 2: 25-37, 2011) of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation and muscle strength provides insight as to why so many of them come up empty.

The meta-analysis combined data from 16 clinical trials. The conclusions were similar to what other meta-analyses have found:

  • Seven of the studies showed a benefit of vitamin D supplementation on muscle strength. Nine did not.
  • When the data from all 16 studies were combined, there was only a slight beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle strength.

However, it was in the discussion that the reason for these discrepancies became apparent. There were three major deficiencies in study design that were responsible for the discrepancies.

1) There was a huge difference in study design.

    • The subjects were of different ages, genders, and ethnicities.
    • The dose of vitamin D supplementation varied.
    • Different measures of muscle strength and performance were used.

Until the scientific and medical community agree on a standardized study design it will be difficult to obtain consistent results.

While this deficiency explains the variation in outcomes from study to study, there are two other deficiencies in Garbage In Garbage Outstudy design that explain why many of the studies failed to find an effect of vitamin D on muscle strength. I call this “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. Simply put, if the study has design flaws, it may be incapable of detecting a positive effect of vitamin D on muscle strength.

2) Many of the studies did not measure vitamin D status of the participants at the beginning of the study.

    • The results of the study described above show that additional vitamin D will be of little benefit for anyone who starts the study with an adequate vitamin D status.
    • In the study above 46% of the participants had adequate vitamin D status. This is typical for the elderly community. When almost 50% of the participants in a study have adequate vitamin D status at the beginning of a study it becomes almost impossible to demonstrate a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on any outcome.

It is essential that future studies of vitamin D supplementation start with participants who have low vitamin D status. Otherwise, you are almost guaranteeing a negative outcome.

3) Most of the studies ignored the fact that vitamin D status is only one of three factors that are essential for muscle strength.

    • In the case of muscle strength, especially in the elderly, the three essentials are vitamin D, protein, and exercise. All three are needed to maintain or increase muscle strength. Simply put, if one is missing, the other two will have little or no effect on muscle strength. Unfortunately, you cannot assume that exercise and protein intake are adequate in older Americans:
      • Many older adults don’t get enough exercise because of physical limitations.

Unfortunately, many clinical studies on the effect of vitamin D supplementation and muscle strength fail to include exercise and adequate protein intake in the study. Such clinical trials are doomed to failure.

Now you know why vitamin D research is so controversial. Until the scientific and medical community get their act together and perform better designed experiments, vitamin D research will continue to be controversial and confusing.

What Does This Mean For You?

Old Man Lifting WeightsLoss of muscle mass as we age is not a trivial matter. As described above, it:

  • Leads to loss of mobility.
  • Increases your risk of falling. This often leads to serious fracture which increase your risk of disability and death.
  • Lowers your metabolic rate, which increases your risk of obesity and obesity-related diseases.

So, what can you do prevent loss of muscle mass as you age? The answer is simple:

1) Aim for 25-30 grams of high-quality protein in each meal.

    • That protein can come from meat, fish, eggs, or legumes.
    • That doesn’t mean you need to consume an 8-ounce steak or a half chicken. 3-4 ounces is plenty.
    • However, it does mean you can’t subsist on green salads and leafy greens alone. They are healthy, but you need to include a good protein source if you are going to meet your protein needs.

2) Aim for 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week.

    • At least half of that exercise should be resistance exercise (lifting weights, for example).
    • If you have physical limitations, consult your doctor and a physical therapist or personal trainer to design resistance exercises you can do.
    • Aim for a variety of resistance exercises. You will only strengthen the muscles you exercise.

3) Aim for an adequate vitamin D status.

    • Start with a multivitamin containing at least 800 IU of vitamin D3.
    • Because there is large variation in the efficiency with which we convert vitamin D to 25-hydroxy vitamin D, you should get your serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D tested on a yearly basis. Your health professional can tell you if you need to take larger amounts of vitamin D3.
    • This study suggests that a serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 55-69 nmol/L is optimal, and higher levels provide no additional benefit. That means there is no need to take mega-doses of vitamin D3 unless directed by your health professional.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of vitamin D status on muscle strength and performance in a healthy population with an average age of 69.

When they looked at handgrip strength:

  • Only 22% of the participants with an adequate vitamin D status had low handgrip strength.
  • 40% of participants who were vitamin D deficient had low handgrip strength. That’s almost a 2-fold difference.
  • Handgrip strength increased linearly with vitamin D status.

When they looked at muscle performance:

  • Only 8% of the participants with an adequate vitamin D status scored low on this test.
  • 25% of participants who were vitamin D deficient scored low on this test. That’s a 3-fold difference.
  • Muscle performance also increased linearly with vitamin D status.

The authors concluded: “Vitamin D deficiency was associated with impaired muscle strength and performance in a large study of community-dwelling older people. It is generally accepted that vitamin D deficiency should be reversed to prevent bone disease. This strategy may also protect skeletal muscle function in aging.”

If we look at the research more broadly, there are three factors that are essential for maintaining muscle mass as we age: exercise, protein, and vitamin D. Therefore, my recommendations are to:

1)  Aim for 25-30 grams of high-quality protein in each meal.

2) Aim for 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week. At least half of that exercise should be resistance exercise.

3) Aim for an adequate vitamin D status (>50 nmol/L of serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D). A good place to start is with a multivitamin providing at least 800 IU of vitamin D3.

For more details on my recommendations and a discussion of why studies on vitamin D supplementation are often confusing, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

Relief From Carpal Tunnel Pain Without Surgery

Natural Relief For Trigger Finger

carpal tunnel syndromeIn 1997 I had wrist pain that was so incredibly severe that I couldn’t take my left hand from flat on a table and bring my thumb up to two o’clock.  I couldn’t pick up a pen, never mind write with it, and the pain was like someone was cutting my wrists with a hot knife.  It closed down my massage therapy business and was forcing me to think what I could do to support myself for the rest of my life!

I was told I had carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and that I needed surgery, but I knew that scar tissue was going to fill the space, so that’s not something I was willing to do. Also, I knew that cutting the bridge to the carpal tunnel would weaken the thumb muscle, so another reason I didn’t want surgery.

It took a LOT of thinking, but I finally figured out how to solve the problem by treating muscles from my neck to my thumb, each of which was putting a strain/pressure onto the median nerve.  The median nerve is the nerve that causes the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (numbness, tingling, pain).

And it worked!  I was completely out of pain and back to work again!  I was thrilled!!!

I ended up doing a test program with 8 people who each had been diagnosed with CTS and it worked for all of them too.  Now I needed to figure out how to bring it to more people.

Ultimately that entire process was put into a video system where you can learn how to treat every muscle.

What Causes Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?

This newsletter is going to focus on just the muscles of the lower arm since they are the primary cause of wrist pain and trigger finger.

Each of the circles in the figure on the left is the location of a spasm that is causing the referred pain in the area shown in the same color.

Notice that most times the spasm is a distance from the area of pain, and that many of the spasms affect pain in the wrist.

This is a small sampling of the spasms that cause wrist pain and trigger finger.

The reason you feel pain at a location that is different from the area of spasm is pretty simple to explain:

If you pull your hair at the end it will hurt where it inserts at your scalp.  But you don’t need to massage your scalp, you don’t need pain pills, and you definitely don’t need brain surgery to stop the pain.

You just need to let go of your hair!

Relief From Carpal Tunnel Pain Without Surgery

This same principle applies with muscles. The pain will refer to the insertion point in the wrist or hand.

The solution is to until the knot in the muscle by applying direct pressure onto the spasm and holding it for about 30 seconds.

For example, if the knot is in the extensor muscles in your arm, you can apply pressure on your extensor muscles by following the picture and pressing deeply into the muscle fibers.

It will hurt, and you’ll probably feel it refer all the way to your wrist and hand.

Hold the pressure for at least 30 seconds, longer if you want, and then move your fingers 1-2” in either direction.  You’ll keep feeling tender points. Each of them is a spasm that is causing pain in your wrist.

Then turn your arm over and use your fingers to press into the muscles on the underside of your forearm.

Relief For Trigger Finger

These same muscles can cause a condition called Trigger Finger. This is when your finger either gets locked down (curled) or won’t close into a fist.

If your finger stays bent and won’t open up, you need to treat the underside of your forearm.

If your finger won’t bend, you need to treat the top of your forearm as shown above.

Apply pressure to every tender point and hold it for at least 30 seconds before moving to the next point.

The Julstro Method

This is the Julstro System that I created after I had resolved my own battle with carpal tunnel syndrome and debilitating wrist pain.

The blue tool, I call it the TotalTX tool, is perfect for working out each of the trigger points from your chest to your thumb.

If you have the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (numb fingers &/or wrist pain), it’s worthwhile to treat the muscles before you consider surgery.

Coming Next Month

A lot of people have written in about foot pain and being concerned because with the nice weather approaching in the north, they want to get out running again.

Next month I’ll be talking about Plantar Fasciitis, which is arch pain that is actually being caused by the lower legs.

Please let me know if you have something you’d like to add to the schedule for another month, I’ll be happy to help you!

Send an email to info@julstromethod.com and use the subject line “Newsletter Questions.”

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

Omega 3 Supplementation And Heart Disease Risk

How Can You Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Disease?

fish and fish oilI understand your confusion. One month the headlines say that omega 3 supplementation reduces the risk of heart disease. The next month headlines claim that omega 3 supplements are worthless. What is the truth about omega 3 supplementation and heart disease risk?

Let me start by sharing the two of the most recent studies on the topic. They are both very large, well designed studies. However, the reason I selected these two studies is that they approached the relationship between omega 3 supplementation and heart disease risk in very different ways but came to the same conclusion.

The first study (Y Hu et al, Journal of the American Heart Association, Volume 8, Issue 19, 1 October 2019) was a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled clinical studies looking at the relationship between omega 3 supplementation and heart disease risk.

The second study (Z-H Li et al, British Medical Journal, BMJ2020;368:m456) looked at the association between habitual omega 3 supplementation and heart disease risk.

Each of these studies had strengths and weaknesses, but they complemented each other. The weaknesses of one study were the strengths of the other study.

How Were The Studies Done?

Clinical StudyStudy #1: The 13 studies included in the meta-analysis had a total of 127,477 participants (mean age 64, 60% male, mostly overweight) who were given either an omega-3 supplement or a placebo.

  • 40% of the participants had diabetes.
  • 72% of the participants were on cholesterol lowering drugs and a variety of other medications.
  • Participants were followed for between 3 and 7.4 years (average follow-up period was 5 years).
  • The dose of omega 3s ranged between 376 and 4,000 mg/day.

The major strengths of this study were:

  • All 13 studies included in the meta-analysis were randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials.
  • The meta-analysis had a very large number of participants (nearly 130,000), so it was possible to accurately measure even small effects of omega 3 supplementation on heart disease risk.

The major weaknesses of this study were:

  • Most of the participants were already on multiple drugs that provided many of the same benefits as omega 3s, so it was impossible to assess the full effect of omega 3 supplementation on heart disease risk.
  • The duration of the clinical trials included in this meta-analysis was short compared to the decades required for heart disease to develop.
  • Most of the participants already had heart disease or were at high risk of developing heart disease. The people in these studies were not representative of the general population.

Study #2: The data for this study were obtained from the UK Biobank study which enrolled 427,678 participants (mean age 56, 45% male) from 22 medical centers across England, Scotland, and Wales. None of the participants had been diagnosed with heart disease or cancer at the time of enrollment.

At enrollment the participants filled out a detailed online questionnaire concerning their lifestyle, diet, diseases, medications, and supplement use. Among the questions was whether they habitually used fish oil supplements (Yes or No).

  • The participants were enrolled between 2006 and 2010 and followed for an average of 9 years.
  • 31% of the participants were already taking omega 3 supplements on a regular basis at the time they enrolled in the study. This was the omega 3 supplementation group. The remaining 69% was the control group.
  • Only 10% of the participants were taking statin drugs or aspirin, probably because none of them had been diagnosed with heart disease.
  • Around 10% of the participants had high blood pressure and were taking blood pressure medications.
  • Most of the participants were slightly overweight but only 4% had diabetes.

The main strengths of this study were:

  • Very few of the participants were on medications. That means that medications did not interfere with the effect of omega 3 supplementation.
  • The participants were already using omega 3 supplements at the time of enrollment and were followed for an additional 9 years. That means that the duration of omega 3 supplement use was much longer than in the first study.
  • The participants were healthy and free of heart disease at the beginning of the study. That means that the results of this study focused more on prevention than on treatment. It also means the results are more applicable to the general population.

The main weakness of this study was:

  • It was an association study, which cannot prove cause and effect. In contrast, the first study was based on randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials, which can prove cause and effect.

In short, the weaknesses of the first study were strengths of the second study and vice-versa.

Omega 3 Supplementation And Heart Disease Risk

strong heartStudy #1: The results from the meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials were that omega 3 supplementation:

  • Reduced heart attacks by 12%.
  • Reduced overall heart disease risk by 7%.
  • Reduced deaths from heart disease by 8%.
  • Because of the large number of participants included in the meta-analysis, all these reductions were highly significant.
  • The risk reduction was linearly related to the dose of omega-3s, but the study did not allow estimation of an optimal omega-3 dose.

The authors concluded: “Marine [fish oil] omega-3 supplementation lowers risk for heart attack, overall heart disease risk, and heart disease death…Risk reductions appear to be linearly related to marine omega-3 dose.”

Study #2: This study showed that regular use of omega-3 supplements:

  • Reduced deaths from all causes by 13%.
  • Reduced deaths from heart attacks by 20%.
  • Reduced deaths from all types of heart disease by 16%.
  • Because of the large number of participants, all these reductions were highly significant.
  • This study did not collect data on omega-3 dose, so the study did not allow estimation of an optimal omega-3 dose.

The authors concluded: “Habitual use of fish oil seems to be associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality and heart disease mortality…,supporting their use for the prevention of mortality from all causes and heart disease. Future studies are needed to examine the extent to which the dose of fish oil supplements influences the ability to achieve a clinically meaningful effect.”

While these studies did not provide information on the optimal omega 3 dose, a previous study concluded that an omega-3 intake of 835 mg/day or higher is needed to achieve clinically meaningful reductions in heart disease risk.

How Can You Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Disease?

Heart Healthy DietThese two studies support the value of omega 3 supplementation for reducing heart disease risk. However, while risk reductions were highly significant, the magnitude of risk reduction was relatively small. That means we should think of omega-3 supplementation as part of a holistic approach to reducing our health disease risk. It is just one piece of the puzzle.

With that in mind, here is what the American Heart Association recommends for reducing your risk of heart disease:

  • If you smoke, stop.
  • Choose good nutrition.
    • Choose a diet that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, poultry, fish, legumes, nontropical vegetable oils, and nuts.
    • Choose a diet that limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meats.
  • Reduce high blood cholesterol and triglycerides.
    • Reduce your intake of saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol and get moving.
    • If diet and physical activity don’t get those numbers under control, then medication may be the next step.
  • Lower High Blood Pressure.
  • Be physically active every day.Heart Healthy Exercise
    • Aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity per week.
  • Aim for a healthy weight.
  • Manage diabetes.
  • Reduce stress.
  • Limit alcohol.

Add in omega-3 supplementation to these recommendations and you have a winning combination.

The Bottom Line

Two major studies have recently been published on the relationship between omega 3 supplementation and heart disease. I felt it was important to evaluate these studies together because:

  • They are both very large, well designed studies.
  • They approached the relationship between omega 3 supplementation and heart disease risk in very different ways but came to the same conclusion.
  • They complemented each other. The weaknesses of one study were the strengths of the other study.

These studies showed that omega 3 supplementation:

  • Reduced heart attacks by 12-20%.
  • Reduced overall heart disease risk by 7%.
  • Reduced deaths from heart disease by 8-16%.
  • Reduced deaths from all causes by 13%

While these studies did not provide information on the optimal omega 3 dose, a previous study concluded that an omega-3 intake of 835 mg/day or higher is needed to achieve clinically meaningful reductions in heart disease risk.

For more details and the American Heart Association recommendations on what else you can do to reduce your risk of heart disease, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

The Effect Of Vitamin D On Childhood Development

Is Vitamin D Important During Pregnancy?

vitamin dIf you are parents, you want the best for your child. It can be nerve wracking when your child doesn’t meet the expected developmental milestones. When I saw a recent study titled “Association of maternal vitamin D status in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children” ( AL Darling et al, British Journal of Nutrition, 117: 1682-1692, 2017), I knew you would want to hear about it.

But first a bit of background: Based on blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels (considered the most accurate marker of vitamin D status):

  • 8-11% of pregnant women in the US are deficient in vitamin D (<30 nmol/L).
  • ~25% of pregnant women have inadequate vitamin D status (30-49 nmol/L).
  • ~65% of pregnant women have adequate vitamin D status (50-125 nmol/L).
  • ~ 1% of pregnant women have high vitamin D levels (>125 nmol/L).

In short, that means around 1/3 of pregnant women in the US have inadequate or deficient levels of vitamin D. The affect of inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy is not just an academic question.

It is a concern because inadequate vitamin D levels during pregnancy has been associated with gestational diabetes (diabetes during pregnancy), low birthweight babies, and a condition called pre-eclampsia (pre-eclampsia is characterized by the development of high blood pressure during pregnancy and can lead to serious, even fatal, complications for mother and baby).

The Cochrane Collaboration (considered the gold standard for evidence-based medicine) has recently reviewed the literature and has reported) that vitamin D during pregnancy “probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and the risk of having a low birthweight baby compared to placebo or no intervention.”

In short, this means the evidence is pretty good that inadequate vitamin D increases the risk of significant complications during pregnancy and that supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of those complications.

However, what about the effect of inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy on the development of the newborn child? Here the evidence is less clear. This study was designed to answer that question.

How Was The Study Designed?

clinical studyThis study followed neurodevelopmental milestones of 7065 children born to mothers in the Avon region of southwest England between April 1, 1991 and December 31, 1992. Maternal 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels were measured during pregnancy. The distribution of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in this population was very similar to that observed for pregnant mothers in the United States.

The children were followed from 6 months to 9 years of age and the following neurodevelopmental milestones were measured:

  • Gross-motor skills, fine-motor skills, social development, and communication skills were measured at 6, 18, 30, and 42 months.
  • Behavioral development (socialization, hyperactivity, emotional development, and conduct) was measured at 7 years.
  • IQ was measured at 8 years.
  • Reading skill (words/minute, accuracy, and comprehension) was measured at 9 years.

What Is The Effect Of Vitamin D On Childhood Development?

Child raising handThe study compared children of women who had inadequate vitamin D status (<50 nmol/L) during pregnancy to children of women who had adequate vitamin D status (≥50 nmol/L) during pregnancy. Here is what the study found:

The children of mothers with inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy had:

  • Delayed gross-motor skills at 18 and 30 months.
  • Delayed fine-motor skills at 30 and 42 months.
  • Delayed social development at 42 months.

However, when they looked at later years, there was no significant effect of maternal vitamin D status on:

  • Behavioral development at 7 years.
  • IQ at 8 years.
  • Reading skills at 9 years.

This is encouraging because it suggests that the effect of inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy does not have a permanent effect on childhood development. By the time they are 7 or older their nutrition and intellectual stimulation during childhood appears to outweigh the effect of their mother’s nutrition on their development.

In interpreting this information, we need to keep in mind that this study was performed in England, not in a third world country. In particular:

  • England, like the United States, has supplemental food programs for disadvantaged children.
  • England has an excellent educational system. So, we can assume these children also received intellectual stimulation as soon as they reached school age.

Is Vitamin D Important During Pregnancy?

pregnant women taking vitaminIf we focus on a healthy pregnancy, there is good evidence that inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy increases the risk of serious complications and that supplementation with vitamin D can reduce these complications. We also know that vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy can affect bone development in the newborn.

Thus, adequate vitamin D is clearly needed for a healthy pregnancy.

However, if we just consider the effect of maternal vitamin D on childhood development, it would be tempting to downplay the importance of vitamin D during pregnancy. This study focused on vitamin D, but studies focusing on other nutritional deficiencies usually give similar results.

In most of these studies, the effects of inadequate nutrition during pregnancy on childhood developmental milestones appear to be transient. Developmental delays are seen during the first few years of life but disappear as the children get older.

This is incredibly good news. It means that mild nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy do not have to handicap a child for life. If the children are given adequate nutrition and intellectual stimulation as they grow, the poor start they received in life can be erased.

It is also a caution. We already know that poor nutrition during childhood can affect a child’s behavior and intellectual development. If that child also received poor nutrition in the womb, their chances of normal childhood development may be doubly impacted.

In short, if adequate vitamin D during pregnancy improves early developmental milestones in children, that can be viewed as an added benefit.

The only question is how much vitamin D is needed. Fortunately, the present study cast some light on that question.

The study asked whether blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D ≥75 nmol/L were more beneficial than blood levels ≥50 nmol/L. The answer was a clear no. That means an adequate vitamin D status during pregnancy is sufficient to support normal developmental milestones in children.

The current recommendation (DV) of vitamin D3 for pregnant women is 15 mcg (600 IU). Thus, my recommendations are:

  • If you are pregnant, be sure that your prenatal supplement provides at least 600 IU of vitamin D3.
  • If you are a woman of childbearing age, be sure that your multivitamin provides at least 600 IU of vitamin D3.
  • Slightly more is OK but avoid mega doses unless prescribed by a health professional who is monitoring your 25-hydroxy vitamin D status.
  • Because we all utilize vitamin D with different efficiencies, I would recommend asking for a 25-hydroxy vitamin D test and working with your health professional to keep your levels in the adequate range.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of mild vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy on childhood developmental milestones. The study found that children born to vitamin D-deficient mothers had:

  • Delayed gross-motor skills at 18 and 30 months.
  • Delayed fine-motor skills at 30 and 42 months.
  • Delayed social development at 42 months.

This is concerning. However, when they looked at later years, there was no significant effect of maternal vitamin D status on:

  • Behavioral development at 7 years.
  • IQ at 8 years.
  • Reading skills at 9 years.

The is encouraging. The reasons for this are discussed in the article above.

If we summarize this and previous studies, the bottom line is:

  • Adequate vitamin D is clearly needed for a healthy pregnancy.
  • If adequate vitamin D during pregnancy improves early developmental milestones in children, that can be viewed as an added benefit.

For more details and my recommendations on how much vitamin D you need, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Diet And Cancer Risk

What Can You Do To Reduce Your Risk Of Cancer?

Magic WandIt seems like everyone has a magic pill, essential oil, food, or diet that prevents cancer. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that all the claims can’t be true. No wonder you are confused. You want to know:

  • Which of these claims are true?
  • What can you do to reduce your risk of cancer?

These aren’t trivial questions.

  • Cancer is the second leading cause of death in this country, and some experts predict it will surpass heart disease as the leading cause of death in the near future.
  • While cancer treatments have become much more effective in the past few decades, these treatment successes are often associated with severe side-effects, enormous expense, or both.

That is why I was intrigued by a recent study (FF Zhang et al, JNCI Cancer Spectrum (2019) 3(2): pkz034) on diet and cancer that came from the prestigious Friedman School of Nutrition and Public Policy at Tufts University. This study asked two important questions:

  • How many newly diagnosed cancer cases could have been prevented by changes in the American diet? This is something the authors referred to as the “preventable cancer burden associated with poor diet”.
  • Which foods increased or decreased the risk of cancer? This, of course, is the most useful information for you and me.

Diet And Cancer Risk

Diet And CancerThis study estimated that 80,110 new cancer cases among US adults 20 and older could be primarily attributed to poor diet. While poor diet contributes to many more cancers, the authors of this study felt 80,110 represented the number of cancer cases that were clearly preventable by some simple dietary changes.

While all cancers were affected by diet to some degree, the cancers most affected by poor diet were:

  • Colon cancer (65% of cases)
  • Mouth and throat cancer (18% of cases)
  • Endometrial cancer (4.0% of cases)
  • Breast cancer (3.8% of cases)

When the diet was broken down into individual food groups:

  • Low intake of whole grains was associated with the largest number of preventable cancer cases (35% of cases). This was followed by.
  • Low intake of dairy foods (22% of cases).
  • High intake of processed meats (18% of cases).
  • Low intake of vegetables (16% of cases).
  • Low intake of fruits (10% of cases).
  • High intake of red meat (7.1% of cases).
  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages (4.0% of cases).

Of the diet-associated cancer cases, the scientists who lead the study estimated that 84% of them represented a direct effect of diet on cancer risk. The dietary factors most likely to directly increase the risk of cancer were:

  • Low intake of whole grains.
  • Low intake of dairy foods.
  • High intake of processed meats.

The scientists estimated that 16% of diet-associated cancer cases were “mediated by obesity”. In layman’s terms, this means that diet increased the risk of obesity and obesity increased the risk of cancer. The dietary factors most likely to increase the risk of obesity-mediated cancers were:

  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages.
  • Low intake of fruits.

The authors concluded: “More than 80,000 new cancer cases [per year] are estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet among US adults…Our findings underscore the need for reducing cancer burden in the United States by improving the intake of key food groups and nutrients of Americans.”

What Does This Mean For You?

Questioning ManThese findings aren’t novel. Many previous studies have come to the same conclusions. However, many people find these recommendations to be confusing. Should they increase their intake of certain foods? Should they follow some sort of magic diet?

Perhaps we need to get away from the magic food concept. We need to understand that every time we increase one food in our diet, we exclude other foods. We need to step back and look at the overall diet.

Let me break down the recommendations from this study into three categories: foods we should eliminate from our diet, foods we should include in our diet, and foods we should balance in our diet.

Foods we should eliminate from our diet:

  • Sugar Sweetened Beverages. They provide no nutritional benefit, and the sugar in most beverages rushes into our bloodstream and overwhelms our body’s ability to utilize it in a healthy way. This leads to obesity, diabetes, and a host of other health issues.
    • Public enemy number one is sodas. However, this category also includes fruit juices, sweetened teas and energy drinks, and sugary processed foods.
    • This category also includes diet sodas. For reasons we don’t completely understand, diet sodas appear to be just as likely to lead to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease as sugar sweetened sodas. I have discussed the proposed explanations of this phenomenon in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.
    • Sugar, however, is not the enemy. Sugar found naturally in fruits and other whole foods enters the bloodstream slowly and is metabolized in healthy ways by the body. I have discussed this in another issue  of “Health Tips From the Professor”. This is what I mean by restoring balance in our diet. Decreasing the sugar intake from sugar sweetened beverages and increasing sugar intake from fruits is associated with a decreased risk of obesity and obesity-related cancers.
  • Processed Meats. The evidence is overwhelming at this point that processed meats directly increase the risk of cancer.
    • If you have trouble completely eliminating processed meats from your diet, my advice is to minimize them and consume them only in the context of an overall healthy diet. Personally, I still consume bacon occasionally as flavoring for a healthy green salad.

Whole GrainsFoods we should include in our diet. I put these in a separate category because Dr. Strangelove and his colleagues have been telling us to eliminate them from our diet, and many Americans are following those recommendations:

  • Whole grains. We can think of whole grains as the underserving victim of the low-carb craze. The low-carb craze is on the mark when it comes to eliminating added sugars and refined grains from the diet. However, eliminating whole grains from the diet may be doing more harm than good. In fact, this and other studies suggest that whole grains are the most effective foods for reducing cancer risk. Why is that?
    • If we assume whole grains are just a good source of fiber and a few vitamins and minerals, it is hard to grasp their importance. We could easily get those nutrients elsewhere.
    • However, we are beginning to realize that whole grains play a unique role in supporting certain species of gut bacteria that are very beneficial to our health. In short, whole grains may be essential for a healthy gut.
  • Dairy Foods. This is another food that has been treated as a villain by Dr. Strangelove and his many colleagues. However, for reasons we don’t completely understand, dairy foods appear to decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer.

Foods we should balance in our diet.

  • Red Meat. Diets high in red meat are consistently associated with a slight increase in cancer risk. The World Health Organization lists red meat as a probable carcinogen, but that has proven to be controversial.
    • Much of the research has centered on why red meat causes cancer. Several mechanisms have been proposed, but none of them have been proven.
    • In contrast, very little consideration has been given to what red meat is displacing from the diet. Diets high in red meat are often low in whole grains, fruits and/or vegetables.
    • Perhaps instead of eliminating red meat from our diets we should be talking about balancing red meat in our diets by consuming less red meat and more whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

What Can You Do To Reduce Cancer Risk?

American Cancer SocietyYou may have been thinking that 80,110 cases/year represents a small percentage of new cancer cases. That’s because diet is only one component of a holistic cancer prevention strategy. Here is what the American Cancer Society recommends for reducing cancer risk:

  • Avoid tobacco.
  • Limit sun exposure.
  • Achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
  • Eat a healthy diet, with an emphasis on plant foods (Their recommendations are in line with this study).
  • Be physically active.
  • Limit alcohol use.
  • Get vaccinated against HPV.
  • Get regular medical checkups.

Doing any of these things will reduce your cancer risk. But the more of these you can incorporate into your lifestyle, the lower your risk.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at diet and cancer risk. The authors reported that 80,110 new cancer cases among US adults 20 and older could be primarily attributed to poor diet.

When the diet was broken down into individual food groups:

  • Low intake of whole grains was associated with the largest number of preventable cancer cases. This was followed in descending order by.
  • Low intake of dairy foods.
  • High intake of processed meats.
  • Low intake of vegetables.
  • Low intake of fruits.
  • High intake of red meat.
  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages.

The authors concluded: “More than 80,000 new cancer cases [per year] are estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet among US adults…Our findings underscore the need for reducing cancer burden in the United States by improving the intake of key food groups and nutrients of Americans.”

For more details, read the article above. For example, I discuss which foods we should eliminate, which foods we should eat more of, and which foods we should balance in our diet. To add a more holistic perspective, I also discuss the American Cancer Society’s recommendations for reducing cancer risk.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!