Dr. Steve Chaney

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Testosterone?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

protein foodsLow carb diets are all the rage. Everywhere you turn you see articles proclaiming how healthy they are.

When you remove carbohydrates from the diet, you need to replace them with something. So, many of these diets are high in protein. And many people are choosing the high protein versions of low carb diets. For example:

  • High protein, low carb diets have become popular for weight loss.
  • And in our society, high protein diets are considered a good thing. We associate protein consumption with strength, energy, and virility. So, many athletes also include high protein, low carb diets as part of their training regimen.

Are high protein, low carb diets the best choice? Perhaps not, if the latest study is correct. This study (J Whittaker and M Harris, Nutrition And Health, 1-12, March 2022) claims that high protein, low carb diets decrease testosterone levels.

So, you are probably wondering, “Is this claim accurate?” To answer this question, I will evaluate the study and put it into perspective for you.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was a meta-analysis of 27 studies with a total of 309 participants looking at the effect of low carb diets on cortisol and testosterone levels. The participants were young (average age = 27.3), healthy, non-obese (BMI = 24.8), active males.

The selection criteria for studies included in the meta-analysis were:

  • Measurements of resting and post-exercise cortisol and testosterone levels. For simplicity, I will focus only on the testosterone results for this discussion.
  • Young, healthy male participants to minimize variation in steroid hormone metabolism due to age, sex, or disease.
  • Comparison of a low carb and high carb diets. The low carb and high carb diets averaged 18% and 58% carbohydrate, respectively.
  • Elimination of studies containing confounding variables that might affect steroid hormone metabolism such as:
    • Weight change of more than 6 pounds
    • Use of hormones, phytoestrogens, or medications.

In analyzing the data, they also compared:

  • Duration of <3 weeks or longer duration because it takes about 3 weeks for the body to fully adapt to ketone body utilization.
  • Moderate protein (average intake = 23.1% of calories) versus high protein (average intake = 48.8% of calories) intake. [Note: For comparison, the average protein intake for adults in this country is ~16%, with some experts recommending 17-21% to prevent weight loss as we age.]

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Testosterone?

Question MarkThis study looked at the effect of low carb diets on both resting and post-exercise testosterone levels.

  • Moderate protein, low carb diets had no consistent effect on either resting or post-exercise testosterone levels.
  • However, high protein, low carb diets reduced both resting and post-exercise testosterone levels.
    • The effect on resting testosterone was highly significant. High-protein, low carb diets caused a 37% decrease in resting testosterone levels.
    • The effect on post-exercise testosterone was smaller, but still significant.

In the words of the authors, “High-protein, low carb diets greatly decreased resting and post-exercise total testosterone…Individuals consuming such diets may need to be cautious about adverse endocrine effects.”

Is There A Good Metabolic Rationale For These Results?

ProfessorAs a biochemist, I always like to look at the metabolic rationale for the results. And there is a good metabolic rationale for the effect of high protein diets on testosterone levels:

  • When protein is metabolized ammonia is released, and excess ammonia is toxic.
  • To combat ammonia toxicity the body has a metabolic pathway called the urea cycle. It removes ammonia from the bloodstream and converts it to urea, which is excreted in the urine.
  • The ability of the urea cycle to remove ammonia from the bloodstream is limited. High protein intakes can overwhelm the ability of the urea cycle to remove ammonia. This typically occurs when protein intake exceeds 35% of calories.
    • In situations like this, the body produces cortisol, and cortisol upregulates the urea cycle so it can handle the excess ammonia.
    • For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, cortisol and testosterone are regulated oppositely. Whenever cortisol goes up, testosterone goes down.

To be clear, I am not saying this is what is happening. I am merely saying this is a plausible mechanism for explaining the fall in testosterone levels on a high protein diet, and many popular low carb diets are also high protein diets.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

questionsLast week I expressed skepticism about a recent study that had excellent experimental design but did not have a plausible metabolic rationale.

This week’s study is the opposite. It has an excellent metabolic rationale, but the study is weak. Specifically, several of the individual studies included in this meta-analysis are weak.

The authors considered this as a hypothesis-generating study. The authors went on to say this study shows where we should focus our attention in future studies, namely on the possible health consequences of high protein, low carb diets.

I agree. I am not ready to tell you unequivocally that high protein, low carb diets will lower your testosterone levels. However, if you are consuming a high protein, low carb diet for either weight loss or because you are a body builder or weightlifter, this study is a potential red flag. It is not a definitive study, but the results are metabolically plausible. They might just be true.

You should also keep in mind that all the “benefits” of high protein, low carb diets are based on short-term studies. There are no long-term studies on the benefits and risks of high protein, low carb diets. There is also no historical precedent for life-long adherence to a high protein, low carb diet.

  • We are omnivores. Our ancestors ate whatever nature provided. There were times when our paleolithic ancestors ate high protein, low carb meals, but it is unlikely any of them had the luxury of eating that way for a lifetime. That is a 21st century luxury.
  • If you plan to consume a high protein, low carb diet for an extended period of time, you are part of an uncontrolled experiment with an uncertain outcome.

In case you were wondering whether this applies to any high protein (>35% of calories from protein), diet which exceeds the ability of the urea cyclic to remove a toxic byproduct of protein metabolism, the answer is “We don’t know”. However, the typical American diet is around 55% carbohydrate and 20-35% fat. It would be extremely difficult to exceed 35% protein without significantly reducing carbohydrate intake. 

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of high protein, low carb diets on testosterone levels. It found:

  • Moderate protein, low carb diets had no consistent effect on either resting or post-exercise testosterone levels.
  • However, high protein, low carb diets reduced both resting and post-exercise testosterone levels.
    • The effect on resting testosterone was highly significant. High-protein, low carb diets caused a 37% decrease in resting testosterone levels.
    • The effect on post-exercise testosterone was smaller, but still significant.

In the words of the authors, “High-protein, low carb diets greatly decreased resting and post-exercise total testosterone…Individuals consuming such diets may need to be cautious about adverse endocrine effects.”

I am not ready to tell you unequivocally that high protein, low carb diets will lower your testosterone levels.

However, if you are consuming a high protein, low carb diet for either weight loss or because you are a body builder or weightlifter, this study is a potential red flag. It is not a definitive study, but the results are metabolically plausible. They might just be true.

You should also keep in mind that all the “benefits” of high protein, low carb diets are based on short-term studies. There are no long-term studies on the benefits and risks of high protein, low carb diets. There is also no historical precedent for life-long adherence to a high protein, low carb diet.

If you plan to consume a high protein, low carb diet for an extended period of time, you are part of an uncontrolled experiment with an uncertain outcome.

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 Red Meat Cause Frailty In Older Women?

by

Which Proteins Are Best?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Fatty SteakThe ads from the meat lobby say, “Red meat does a body good”. Are the ads true?

If we consider the health consequences of regularly eating red meat, the answer appears to be a clear, “No”. Multiple studies have shown a link between red meat consumption and:

  • Coronary heart disease.
  • Stroke
  • Type 2 diabetes.
  • Colon cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer.

And, if we consider the environmental consequences of red meat production, the answer also appears to be, “No”. I have discussed this in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

But what about muscle mass and strength? Red meat is a rich source of protein, and we associate meat consumption with an increase in muscle mass. Surely, red meat consumption must help us build muscle mass and strength when we are young and preserve muscle mass and strength as we age.

This is why the recent headlines claiming that red meat consumption increases the risk of frailty in older women were so confusing. I, like you, found those headlines to be counterintuitive. So, I have investigated the study (EA Struijk et al, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 13: 210-219, 2022) behind the headlines. Here is what I found.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study utilized data acquired from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS). The NHS began in 1976 with 121,700 female nurses aged 30 to 55. This study followed 85,871 nurses in the NHS once they reached age 60 for an average of 14 years.

Dietary intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire that was administered to all participants in the study every four years between 1980 and 2010. The long-term intake of red meat and other protein sources was based on a cumulative average of all available diet questionnaires for each participant.

The participants also filled out a Medical Outcomes Short Report every four years between 1992 and 2014. Data from this survey was used to calculate something called the FRAIL scale, which includes the following frailty criteria:

  • Fatigue
  • Low muscle strength.
  • Reduced aerobic capacity.
  • Having ≥5 of the following chronic diseases:
    • Cancer
    • High blood pressure
    • Type 2 diabetes
    • Angina
    • Myocardial infarction (heart attack)
    • Congestive heart failure
    • Asthma
    • COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
    • Arthritis
    • Parkinson’s disease
    • Kidney disease
    • Depression
  • Greater than ≥5% weight loss in two consecutive assessments.

Frailty was defined as having met 3 or more criteria in the FRAIL scale. The study looked at the effect of habitual consumption of red meat or other protein sources on the development of frailty during the 14-year follow-up period.

Does Red Meat Cause Frailty In Older Women?

The investigators separated the participants into 5 quintiles based on total red meat consumption, unprocessed red meat construction, or processed red meat consumption. The range of intakes was as follows.

Total red meat: 0.4 servings per day to 1.8 servings per day.

Unprocessed red meat: 0.3 servings per day to 1.3 servings per day.

Processed red meat: 0.04 servings per day to 0.6 servings per day.

Clearly none of the women in this study were consuming either vegan or keto diets. As might be expected from a cross-section of the American public, there was a fairly narrow range of daily meat consumption.

Here are the results of the study:

  • Each serving per day of total red meat increased frailty by 13%.
  • Each serving per day of unprocessed red meat increased frailty by 8%.
  • Each serving per day of processed red meat increased frailty by 26%.
  • When each component of the frailty index was examined individually, all of them were positively associated with red meat consumption except for weight loss.

This was perhaps the most unexpected finding of the study. Not only did red meat consumption increased the risk of chronic diseases in these women, which would be expected from many previous studies. But red meat consumption also made these women more tired, weaker, and shorter of breath.

The authors concluded, “Habitual consumption of any type of red meat was associated with a higher risk of frailty.”

Which Proteins Are Best?

Red Meat Vs White MeatThe investigators then asked if replacing one serving/day of red meat with other protein sources was associated with a significantly lower risk of frailty. Here is what they found:

  • Replacing one serving per day of unprocessed red meat with a serving of:
    • Fish reduced frailty risk by 22%.
    • Nuts reduced frailty risk by 14%.
  • Replacing one serving per day of processed red meat with a serving of:
    • Fish reduced frailty risk by 33%
    • Nuts reduced frailty risk by 26%
    • Low-fat dairy reduced frailty risk by 16%
    • Legumes reduced frailty risk by 13%.

The authors concluded, “Replacing red meat with another source of protein including fish, nuts, legumes, and low-fat dairy may be encouraged to reduce the risk of developing frailty syndrome. These findings are in line with dietary guidelines promoting diets that emphasize plant-based sources of protein.” [I would note that fish and low-fat dairy are hardly plant-based protein sources.]

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanI am not yet ready to jump on the “eating red meat causes frailty” bandwagon. This is a very large, well-designed study, but it is a single study. It needs to be replicated by future studies.

And, as a biochemist, I am skeptical about any study that does not offer a clear metabolic rationale for the results. As I said earlier, increased protein intake is usually associated with an increase in muscle mass when we are young and a preservation of muscle mass as we age. There is no obvious metabolic explanation for why an increase in red meat consumption in older women would cause a decrease in muscle mass and other symptoms of frailty.

On the other hand, there are plenty of well documented reasons for decreasing red meat intake. Consumption of red meat is bad for our health and bad for the health of the planet as I have discussed in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. And substituting other protein sources, especially plant proteins, is better for our health and the health of our planet.

Finally, we also need to consider the possibility that this study is correct and that future studies will confirm these findings. Stranger things have happened.

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Increased protein intake and resistance exercise can help slow this process. While I am not ready to say that red meat causes decreased muscle mass, I do think this study should make us think about which protein sources we use to prevent sarcopenia. At the very least we should not use age-related muscle loss as an excuse to increase our red meat intake. That might just be counterproductive.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of red meat consumption on frailty in older women. It came to the unexpected conclusion that:

  • Each serving per day of total red meat increased frailty by 13%.
  • Each serving per day of unprocessed red meat increased frailty by 8%.
  • Each serving per day of processed red meat increased frailty by 26%.
  • The increase in frailty could be reduced by replacing one serving/day of red meat with a serving of fish, nuts, low-fat dairy, or legumes.

I am not yet ready to jump on the “eating red meat causes frailty” bandwagon. This is a very large, well-designed study, but it is a single study. It needs to be replicated by future studies. And, as a biochemist, I am skeptical about any study that does not offer a clear metabolic rationale for the results.

On the other hand, there are plenty of well documented reasons for decreasing red meat intake. Consumption of red meat is bad for our health and for the health of the planet.

Finally, we also need to consider the possibility that this study is correct and that future studies will confirm these findings. Stranger things have happened.

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Increased protein intake and resistance exercise can help slow this process. This study should make us think about which protein sources we use to prevent sarcopenia. At the very least we should not use age-related muscle loss as an excuse to increase our red meat intake. That might just be counterproductive.

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 Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

by

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

soyWhat is the truth about soy and breast cancer? If you are a woman, particularly a woman with breast cancer, it is an important question.

Some experts say soy should be avoided at all costs. They say that soy will increase your risk of breast cancer. Other experts say soy is perfectly safe and may even reduce your risk of breast cancer. Who is right?

If you are a breast cancer survivor, the question of whether soy increases or decreases your risk of disease recurrence is even more crucial. You have already endured surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. You never want to go through that again.

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

soy confusionSoy isoflavones decrease estrogen production, strengthen the immune system, inhibit cell proliferation, and reduce the production of reactive oxygen species. These are all effects that might reduce breast cancer risk.

On the other hand, soy isoflavones also bind to estrogen receptors and exhibit weak estrogenic activity. This effect has the potential to increase breast cancer risk.

Cell culture and animal studies have only confused the issue. Soy isoflavones stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells in a petri dish. Soy isoflavones also stimulate breast cancer growth in a special strain of mice lacking an immune system. However, in studies in both mice and rats with a functioning immune system, soy isoflavones decrease breast cancer risk.

The confusion has been amplified by claims and counterclaims on the internet. There are bloggers who are more interested in the spectacular than they are in accuracy (Today we call this fake news). They have taken the very weak evidence that soy isoflavones could possibly increase breast cancer risk and have blown it all out of proportion.

Their blogs claim that soy definitely increase breast cancer risk and should be avoided at all costs. Their claims have been picked up by other web sites and blogs. Eventually, the claims have been repeated so many times that people started to believe them. A “myth” was created. I call it a myth because it was never based on convincing scientific evidence.

In the meantime, scientists looked at the cell culture and animal studies and took a more responsible approach. They said “If this is true, it is an important public health issue. We need to do clinical trials in humans to test this hypothesis.”

What Have Previous Clinical Studies Shown?

breast cancerThe question of whether soy consumption increased the risk of developing breast cancer was settled a long time ago. Some studies have shown no effect of soy consumption on breast cancer risk. Others have reported that soy consumption decreased breast cancer risk. A meta-analysis of 18 previous clinical studies found that soy slightly decreased the risk of developing breast cancer (J Natl Cancer Inst, 98: 459-471, 2006). None of those studies found any evidence that soy increased the risk of breast cancer.

What about recurrence of breast cancer in women who are breast cancer survivors? Between 2006 and 2013 there have been five major clinical studies looking at the effects of soy consumption on breast cancer recurrence in both Chinese and American populations. Once again, the studies have shown either no effect of soy on breast cancer recurrence or a protective effect. None of them have shown any detrimental effects of soy consumption for breast cancer survivors.

A meta-analysis of all 5 studies was published in 2013 (Chi et al, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev., 14: 2407-2412, 2013). This study combined the data from 11,206 breast cancer survivors in the US and China. Those with the highest soy consumption had a 23% decrease in recurrence and a 15% decrease in mortality from breast cancer.

What Did The Latest Study Show?

Clinical StudyIn previous clinical studies the protective effect of soy has been greater in Asian populations than in North American populations. This could have been because Asians consume more soy. However, it could be due to other population differences as well. To better evaluate the effect of soy consumption on breast cancer survivors in the North America, a group of investigators correlated soy consumption with all-cause mortality in breast cancer survivors in the US and Canada (Zhang et al, Cancer, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30615, March 2017).

The data were collected from The Breast Cancer Family Registry, an international research infrastructure establish in 1995. The women enrolled in this registry either have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer or have a family history of breast cancer.

This study included 6235 breast cancer survivors from the registry who lived in the San Francisco Bay area and the province of Ontario in Canada. The women represented an ethnically diverse population and had a median age of 51.8 at enrollment. Soy consumption was assessed either at the time of enrollment or immediately following breast cancer diagnosis. The women were followed for 9.4 years, during which time 1224 of them died.

The results were as follows:

  • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
    • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
    • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.
  • The authors concluded “In this large, ethnically diverse cohort of women with breast cancer, higher dietary intake of [soy] was associated with reduced total mortality.”

In an accompanying editorial, Omer Kucuk, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, noted that the United States is the number 1 soy producer in the world and is in a great position to initiate changes in health policy by encouraging soy intake.  He said “We now have evidence that soy foods not only prevent breast cancer but also benefit women who have had breast cancer. Therefore, we can recommend women to consume soy foods because of soy’s many health benefits.”

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

Myth Versus FactsEvery clinical study has its limitations. If there were only one or two studies, the question of whether soy increases breast cancer risk might still be in doubt. However, multiple clinical studies have come to the same conclusion. Either soy has no effect on breast cancer risk and breast cancer recurrence, or it has a protective effect.

Not a single clinical study has found any evidence that soy increases breast cancer risk. It is clear that consumption of soy foods is safe, and may be beneficial, for women with breast cancer. The myth that soy increases breast cancer risk needs to be put to rest.

On the other hand, we should not think of soy as a miracle food. Breast cancer risk is also decreased by a diet that:

  • Contains lots of fruits and vegetables.
  • Is low in processed grains & sweets and high in whole grains.
  • Is low in saturated & trans fats and high in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats.
  • Is low in red & processed meats and high in beans, fish & chicken.

Furthermore, diet is just one component of a holistic approach for reducing the risk of breast cancer. In addition to a healthy diet, the American Cancer Society recommends that you:

  • Control your weight
  • Be physically active
  • Limit alcohol
  • Don’t smoke
  • Limit hormone replacement therapy unless absolutely necessary.
  • Reduce stress

The Bottom Line

1) It is time to put the myth that soy increases breast cancer risk to rest. This myth is based on cell culture and animal studies, and those studies were inconclusive.

2) Multiple clinical studies have shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer risk, or that it reduces the risk.

3) Multiple clinical studies have also shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer recurrence in women who are breast cancer survivors, or that it reduces recurrence.

4) The latest clinical study is fully consistent with previous studies. It reports:

    • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
    • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
    • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.

5) No clinical studies have provided any evidence to support the claim that soy increases either breast cancer risk or breast cancer recurrence.

6) On the other hand, we should not think of soy as a miracle food. Breast cancer risk is also decreased by a diet that:

    • Contains lots of fruits and vegetables.
    • Is low in processed grains & sweets and high in whole grains.
    • Is low in saturated & trans fats and high in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats.
    • Is low in red & processed meats and high in beans, fish & chicken

7) Finally, diet is just one component of a holistic approach for reducing the risk of breast cancer. In addition to a healthy diet, the American Cancer Society recommends that you:

    • Control your weight
    • Be physically active
    • Limit alcohol
    • Don’t smoke
    • Limit hormone replacement therapy unless absolutely necessary.
    • Reduce stress

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.

Preventing Knee Pain

by

A Treatment To Relieve Strain On Your Knee

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

It is the Merry Month of May!

Knee PainMay was the start of the beautiful weather when I lived up in New York. April showers began to bring May flowers. Of course, here in Florida we have flowers all year, so it’s our friends to the north that are enjoying a glorious array of color during this month. For us May is the beginning of the hot weather.

The Snowbirds are leaving Florida and heading back up north. Safe journey. I’ll miss you!  It’s funny having friends that are gone 6 months of the year.

But it also means that life is beginning to slow down for us.  With most of the snowbirds gone, driving is easier, the stores are less crowded, and we can park at the beach.  The weather is still beautiful so we can still go outside to ride a bike, jog, or play the sports we enjoy. This leads me to talk about preventing knee pain.

Preventing Knee Pain

The weather is beautiful all across the country, which brings more people out to enjoy the sports they love.  Whether you like running or cycling, or any sport that puts a strain on your knee, you’re going to really appreciate this month’s newsletter.  We’re going to be talking about one of the muscles that put a strain on your knee joint.

The muscle we’ll be discussing today is the Rectus Femoris, one of the four quadricep muscles.  This is the only “quad” that originates on your pelvis, the other three all originate on your thigh bone.  This is why this one muscle is what I call “the keystone of the body.”

As you notice in the graphic, as I said it originates on the tip of your pelvis, it then goes down the middle/outisde of your thigh and crosses over your kneecap. The muscle then inserts into the front of your shin bone.  When you are sitting and you want to stand up, the rectus femoris, along with the other three quadriceps, shorten in order to straighten your leg.

 

The problem is, there is an entire pelvic situation that happens when you are sitting for an extended period of time, which makes your pelvis rotate down in the front. This causes the rectus femoris to be too long to do the job of straightening your leg.  The body rectifies that problem by tying a “knot” (spasm) in the middle of the muscle, shortening it so it can straighten your leg.

Then another problem happens because you want to bend your knee to sit down or go up stairs. This causes a strain to be placed on your kneecap as you try to bend you knee. Your body then pulls down again on your pelvis so you can bend your knee, and you get into a negative cycle of bones being strained and the muscle knotting up.

The bottom line is your kneecap is pulled up, and you have pain whenever you try to bend your knee.

It’s more complicated than all of that, but too much for a newsletter.  If you’re curious, you can get either Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living or The Pain-Free Athlete and read all about each of the muscles that are involved in this situation.

A Treatment To Relieve Strain On Your Knee

Using a dowel, or a 12”x1” length of PVC pipe, start at the top of your leg and slide, don’t roll, from the top of your leg to just above your kneecap.

 

 

After you go over your rectus femoris, and the other quadriceps, then go to the top of any one of the knots.  Press down and stay still for 15 seconds.

 

 

You can also use the ulnar bone of your forearm, as shown in the picture to the right.

 

Just press and slide, and then do the same thing and press into each knot to help it release.

 

 

Releasing the tension in your quadricep muscles will take the strain off your knee joint.  An added benefit of this treatment is it is one of the primary muscles I teach to release low back pain, groin pain, sciatica, and hip pain!

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

www.FlexibleAthlete.com

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 Perils Of Iodine Deficiency For Women

by

Where Can You Get The Iodine You Need?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

SaltIt shouldn’t be happening. The introduction of iodized salt in the 1920s virtually eliminated iodine deficiency in this country. However, in just the past twenty years the incidence of iodine deficiency has increased 3-8-fold in women of childbearing age. Recent studies have estimated that today 30-40% of women of childbearing age are iodine deficient.

How did that happen?

  • We have been told to cut back on sodium. Many Americans have responded by throwing away the (iodized) salt shaker. Unfortunately, we still get a lot of salt from processed foods, and that salt is usually non-iodized.
  • When we do add salt to our foods it is usually the “healthier” designer salts. First it was sea salt. Now it is trendy versions like Pink Himalayan Salt. While sea salt might have some iodine naturally, the trendier versions are non-iodized.

The consequences of iodine deficiency, especially among women of childbearing age, are alarming. In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I reported that iodine is essential for bone and neural development during fetal development and infancy.

This study (JL Mills et al, Human Reproduction, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex379, 2018) reports that iodine deficiency also reduces a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study recruited 501 couples (ages 18-40) from 16 counties in Michigan and Texas. The women had all discontinued conception within the previous two months with the intention of becoming pregnant and were followed for an additional 12 months. Women with known thyroid disease were excluded from the study.

Urine samples were collected from each woman at the beginning of the study to determine iodine and creatine levels. The women used fertility monitors to time intercourse relative to ovulation (Basically, that means they optimized their chances of becoming pregnant). They then used digital home pregnancy monitors on the day of expected menstruation to identify pregnancies.

Finally, 90% of the women took either a multivitamin or a prenatal vitamin during the study (The significance of this will be discussed later).

The Perils Of Iodine Deficiency For Women

healthy pregnancyThe results of the study were:

  • 44.3% of the women in the study were iodine deficient (defined as iodine-creatine ratios of <100 mcg/g). This was further broken down to:
    • 21.8% were mildly iodine deficient (50-99 mcg/g).
    • 20.8% were moderately iodine deficient (20-49 mcg/g).
    • 1.7% were severely iodine deficient (<20 mcg/g).
  • That is a total of 22.5% who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency.
  • Women who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency had a 46% decrease in the chance of becoming pregnant over each menstrual cycle compared to the iodine sufficient group.

A simple way of reporting those data would be to say that their chances of becoming pregnant were reduced by 46%, but that would not convey the whole picture. Most of the women did become pregnant during the 12-month study. However, it took the women with moderate to severe iodine deficiency twice as long to become pregnant. Iodine deficiency did not prevent pregnancy from occurring, but it delayed it.

The authors concluded: “In summary, our data show that groups of women with iodine concentrations in the moderate to severe deficient range experience a significantly longer time to pregnancy…The US and European countries where iodine deficiency is common should evaluate the need for programs to increase iodine intake for women of childbearing age, particularly those trying to become pregnant.”

And the increased difficulty in becoming pregnant is just the tip of the iceberg. As I mentioned above, the consequences of iodine deficiency among women of childbearing age, can be devastating.

Iodine is essential for bone and neural development during fetal development and infancy. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The National Institutes Of Health, and the World Health Organization have all declared that mild iodine deficiency during pregnancy can prevent normal cognitive development and reduce IQ levels in children.

Because the consequences of iodine deficiency during pregnancy are so detrimental, if iodine deficiency also reduced the chances of a woman becoming pregnant, it could be considered a good thing. It could be part of Nature’s Plan. Unfortunately, this study suggests that iodine deficiency only delays pregnancy. It doesn’t prevent it.

Where Can You Get The Iodine You Need?

SeaweedSince iodine is so essential for a healthy pregnancy, the important question becomes: “Where can you get the iodine you need?”

  • You could start by using old-fashioned iodized salt rather than designer salts in your salt shaker. However, I am reluctant to recommend anything that would increase sodium intake. We get far too much from processed foods already.
  • Seafood (or seaweed, if you are a vegetarian) are the best food sources of iodine. However, our oceans are so contaminated I would recommend consuming those foods only occasionally.
  • You will often see bread and dairy mentioned as good food sources because iodine was used in the preparation of those foods. However, iodine has largely been replaced by other agents, so those foods should no longer be considered good sources. For example:
    • Iodine in commercial breads has traditionally come from the use of iodate as a dough conditioner. Today iodate has largely been replaced with bromide in commercial bread making. Not only does this trend decrease the amount of iodine available in our diet, but bromide also interferes with iodine utilization in our bodies
    • Iodine in milk has traditionally come from the use of iodine-containing disinfectants to clean milk cans and teats. However, they have largely been replaced with other disinfectants
  • Fruits and vegetables are a variable source of iodine, depending on where they were grown. That is because iodine levels in the soils vary tremendously from region to region.
  • That leaves multivitamins and prenatal vitamins as your best source. However, you do need to read labels. You should look for supplements that provide 150 mcg of iodine. Unfortunately, only 50% of prenatal supplements in the United States even contain iodine. Remember, 90% of the women in this study took either a multivitamin or prenatal supplement and 44.3% of them were iodine deficient.

The Bottom Line

The introduction of iodized salt in the 1920s virtually eliminated iodine deficiency in this country. Now, almost 100 years later, iodine deficiency is back. Recent studies estimate that 30-40% of women of childbearing age are iodine deficient. This is concerning. Previous studies have shown iodine deficiency affects mental development during fetal development and infancy. A recent study suggests that iodine deficiency may also make it more difficult for women to become pregnant. Specifically, the study reported:

  • 44.3% of the women in the study were iodine deficient. This was further broken down to:
    • 21.8% were mildly iodine deficient.
    • 20.8% were moderately iodine deficient.
    • 1.7% were severely iodine deficient.
  • That is a total of 22.5% with moderate to severe iodine deficiency.
  • Women who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency had a 46% decrease in their chance of becoming pregnant over each menstrual cycle compared to the iodine sufficient group.

A simple way of reporting those data would be to say that their chances of becoming pregnant were reduced by 46%, but that would not convey the whole picture. Most of the women did become pregnant during the 12-month study. However, it took the women with moderate to severe iodine deficiency twice as long to become pregnant. Iodine deficiency did not prevent pregnancy from occurring, but it delayed it.

For more details about why iodine deficiency has reemerged in this country and where we can get the iodine we 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.

Omega-3s And Congestive Heart Failure

by

We Have Been Asking The Wrong Questions 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Confusion Clinical StudiesToday’s Health Tip is a follow-up to the article I published last month on omega-3s and heart disease risk. In that article I pointed out the reasons why studies of the effect of omega-3s and heart disease risk have been so confusing.

One of the reasons is that many of the studies have been asking the wrong questions.

  • They were asking whether omega-3s reduced the risk of heart disease for everyone. Instead, they should have been asking who benefited from omega-3 supplementation.
  • They were asking whether omega-3s reduced the risk of all forms of heart disease combined. Instead, they should have been asking whether omega-3s reduced the risk of specific kinds of heart disease.

I also discussed a large clinical trial, the VITAL study, that was designed to answer those two questions.

The study I will describe today (L Djoussé et al, JACC Heart Failure, 10: 227-234, 2022) mined the data from the VITAL study to evaluate the effect of omega-3 supplementation on congestive heart failure, a form of heart disease that was not discussed in the VITAL study.

Everything You Need To Know About Congestive Heart Failure

Congestive Heart FailureCongestive heart failure is a killer. The term congestive heart failure simply means that your heart no longer pumps blood well. The initial symptoms are relatively non-specific and include things like.

  • Shortness of breath.
  • Fatigue and weakness.
  • Reduced ability to exercise.
  • Rapid or irregular heartbeat.
  • Persistent cough or wheezing.

However, as it progresses, the symptoms get much worse. Fluid builds up in your tissues.

  • Fluid buildup in your legs, ankles, and feet can make it difficult to walk.
  • Fluid buildup in your lungs makes it difficult to breathe. In advanced stages it can feel like you are drowning in a room full of air.

According to the CDC:

  • 4 million Americans have congestive heart failure (CHF).
    • It leads to ~380,000 deaths/year.
  • 83% of patients diagnosed with CHF will be hospitalized at least once.
    • 67% will be hospitalized two or more times.
  • CHF costs >$30 billion per year in health care costs and lost wages.

The risk of congestive heart failure is not spread evenly across the American population. Black Americans and Americans with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk.

According to the Framingham Heart Study:

  • Type 2 diabetes increases the risk of CHF 2-fold in men and 5-fold in women. The reasons are not entirely clear. However:
    • High blood sugar is thought to either damage cells in heart muscle, weakening it, or damage small blood vessels within the heart, making it more difficult for the heart to pump blood.
    • Some diabetes drugs that lower blood sugar also appear to increase the risk of congestive heart failure.

According to the CDC:

  • Black Americans are 2-fold more likely to develop CHF than White Americans. Again, the reasons are not clear. However:
    • Some experts feel it could be due to the higher incidence of untreated high blood pressure in Black Americans.

In summary:

  • Congestive heart failure is a serious disease. Its symptoms affect your quality of life, and it can lead to hospitalizations and death.
  • Black Americans and Americans with type 2 diabetes are at higher risk of developing congestive heart failure.

How Was The Study Done?

The VITAL study, from which these data were extracted, was a placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to measure the effects of 1,000 mg omega-3 supplementation on the risk of developing heart disease. It enrolled 25,871 Americans aged 55 years or older and followed them for an average of 5.3 years.

The participants enrolled in the VITAL study represented a cross-section of the American population. Most were at low risk of heart disease, but there were subsets of the study group who were at higher risk of heart disease. A strength of the VITAL study was that it was designed so the high-risk subgroups could be evaluated separately.

The current study utilized data from the VITAL study to look at the effect of omega-3 supplementation on hospitalizations due to congestive heart failure. It also evaluated the effect of type 2 diabetes and race on the risk of hospitalizations.

Omega-3s And Congestive Heart Failure

Omega-3s And Heart DiseaseWhen the investigators looked at the whole population, most of whom were at low-risk of congestive heart failure, they did not see any effect of omega-3 supplementation on the risk of hospitalizations due to congestive heart failure.

However, when they looked at high risk groups, the story was much different.

In patients with type-2 diabetes:

  • Omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of the initial hospitalization for congestive heart failure by 31%
  • Omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of multiple hospitalizations due to congestive heart failure by 47%.

The effect of omega-3 supplementation on hospitalizations was greatest for the Black participants in the study.

In the words of the authors, “Our data show beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations in participants with type 2 diabetes but not in those without type 2 diabetes, and such benefit appeared to be stronger in Black participants with type 2 diabetes.”

We Are Asking The Wrong Questions

ScientistAs I said above, there is so much confusion about the effect of omega-3s on heart disease because we scientists have been asking the wrong questions:

  • We have been asking whether omega-3s reduce the risk of heart disease for everyone. Instead, we should have been asking who benefits from omega-3 supplementation.
  • We have been asking whether omega-3s reduced the risk of all forms of heart disease combined. Instead, we should have been asking whether omega-3s reduced the risk of specific kinds of heart disease.

In my “Health Tip” last month I discussed a large clinical study, the VITAL study, that was specifically designed to answer the right questions. Like so many other studies it found that omega-3 supplementation did not significantly reduce the risk of all kinds of heart disease for everyone.

However, what it did find was more important than what it did not find:

  • When they looked at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in high-risk groups, they found that major cardiovascular events were reduced by:
    • 26% in African Americans.
    • 26% in patients with type 2 diabetes.
    • 17% in patients with a family history of heart disease.
    • 19% in patients with two or more risk factors of heart disease.
  • When they looked at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in people with low omega-3 intake, they found that omega-3 supplementation reduced major cardiovascular events by:
    • 19% in patients with low fish intake.
  • When they looked at the effect of omega-3s on the risk of different forms of heart disease, they found that omega-3 supplementation reduced:
    • Heart attacks by 28% in the general population and by 70% for African Americans.
    • Deaths from heart attacks by 50%.
    • Deaths from coronary heart disease (primarily heart attacks and ischemic strokes (strokes caused by blood clots)) by 24%.

In other words, when they asked the wrong questions, they got the wrong answer. If they had just looked at the effect of omega-3 supplementation on all forms of heart disease for everyone (like most other omega-3 studies), they would have concluded that omega-3s are worthless.

However, when they asked the right questions, they found that omega-3s were very beneficial for high-risk populations and for certain types of heart disease.

The current study utilized the same data to analyze the effect of omega-3 supplementation on hospitalizations due to congestive heart failure. And the results were similar.

If they had asked the wrong question, “Does omega-3 supplementation reduce congestive heart failure hospitalizations for everyone?”, they would have concluded that omega-3 supplementation was worthless.

However, instead they asked, “Does omega-3 supplementation reduce congestive heart failure hospitalizations for certain high-risk groups” and were able to show that omega-3 supplementation significantly reduced congestive heart failure hospitalizations for people with type 2 diabetes and for Blacks.

We need to change the paradigm for clinical studies of supplements. The old paradigm asks the wrong questions. If we really want to know the role of supplementation for our health, we need to start asking the right questions.

The Bottom Line

There is perhaps nothing more confusing to the average person than the “truth” about omega-3 supplementation and heart disease risk. Much of the confusion is because we have been asking the wrong questions:

  • We have been asking whether omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of heart disease for everyone. Instead, we should have been asking who benefits from omega-3 supplementation.
  • We have been asking whether omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of all forms of heart disease combined. Instead, we should have been asking whether omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of specific kinds of heart disease.

A recent study on the effect of omega-3 supplementation on hospitalizations due to heart disease is a perfect example.

If they had asked the wrong question, “Does omega-3 supplementation reduce congestive heart failure hospitalizations for everyone?”, they would have concluded that omega-3 supplementation was worthless.

However, instead they asked, “Does omega-3 supplementation reduce congestive heart failure hospitalizations for certain high-risk groups” and were able to show that omega-3 supplementation significantly reduced congestive heart failure hospitalizations for people with type 2 diabetes and for Blacks.

We need to change the paradigm for clinical studies of supplements. The old paradigm asks the wrong questions. If we really want to know the role of supplementation for our health, we need to start asking the right questions.

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.

Eating For A Healthy Planet

by

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Earth DayEarth Day has come and gone. You have recommitted to saving the planet. You plan to recycle, conserve energy, and turn in your gas guzzler for an energy efficient car. But what about your diet? Is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Factory FarmWhen they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
    • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
    • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
    • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
    • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
    • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

healthy vs Unhealthy ChoicesWhen they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
    • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.
    • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2.

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.] 

    • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eating For A Healthier Planet

Planetary DietIn the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

confusionIf you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

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.

Relief From Neck Pain

by

What Causes Pain In Your Neck?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

spring flowersHappy Spring!  My friends and family up north told me that it was a looooog winter, so I’m sure all you “Snow Birds” are thrilled to have Spring here at last.

Here in Florida, the flowers are blooming, and we’re still enjoying beautiful weather in the 70’s and low 80’s. And, of course, we are ignoring the thought of the summer coming soon.

Please Help Me

I’ve learned that for TEDx to invite me to do another talk, I need to have my current talk, “The Pain Question No One Is Asking”, shared with many people, plus I need to have comments so I can respond.  If you haven’t watched it yet, you will learn a lot about pain and how to treat it. Plus, you can help me by commenting on it and sharing it with your friends.

Maybe you have already watched it, if so, thank you.  Would you mind watching it again and adding a comment?

In either case, you can either go to YouTube and put in “Julie Donnelly, pain” or if you’re reading this newsletter online, you can go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSrxURd8ZJk&t=133s.

Thanks a lot!

What Causes Neck Pain?

This month I’ve had so many people come in with neck pain and headaches, that I decided I need to share what causes neck pain and a treatment with you. There are a lot of different treatments for the neck, some you can do, and others that you need me to do for you.

Neck pain and headaches are widespread because there are so many things we do every day that cause these two kinds of pain.  A big problem is our cell phones, and we can’t get rid of them, so we just need to know how to constantly be aware of it and treat ourselves frequently.

It’s amazing how fragile our necks are, and how vulnerable they are to injury, yet for most of us we go through life with nothing more than a headache every now and then.

Levator Scapulae MuscleIf you have had a car accident you may have suffered from whiplash, which causes horrific headaches, because the bones of your neck have been forced out of alignment.  In many cases neck pain is either caused, or complicated, by tension in a muscle called Levator Scapulae.

As you see on the graphic to your left, the muscle originates on the first four cervical vertebrae, and inserts into your shoulder blade (the scapula).

When it contracts you lift your shoulder, making the nickname for this muscle be “the shrug muscle.”

Your brain goes into your spinal cord, and then your spinal cord passes through the center of the vertebrae all the way to the bottom of your spine.

However, when the muscle is in spasm (tied in a knot) it is pulling down on the cervical vertebrae at the very base of your skull.  This pulls the bones to the side and down and pushes the bone into your spinal cord on the opposite side.

Frequently a client will come in with neck pain, or headache pain on one side, but I find the muscle tension on the opposite side.

Spasms in the levator scapulae muscle will also tilt your head to the side, and it can cause pain to your shoulder and down the upper/center part of your back.

Relief From Neck Pain

There are several effective ways to treat your neck and shoulders, the following are just two of them.  I have written books that teach many more self-treatments in case you want to learn more.

Relaxing Levator Scapulae MusclePut a ball, preferably the Perfect Ball, on the very top of your shoulder.

Bend at your hips and put the ball on the corner of a wall, pressing the top of your shoulder into the ball. Then move up and down so the ball is rolling across the top of your shoulder, from the front toward the back of your shoulder.

 

The goal is to lengthen the Levator Scapulae muscle, so it takes the strain off your cervical vertebrae. The Perfect Ball is ideal for this task because it is solid in the center and soft on the outside, preventing bruising to your bone.

 

 

Treating Levator Scapulae Muscle 2

 

A second way of treating your shoulder muscle is to press your thumb into the “well” at the front of your shoulder, just above your collar bone.

 

 

 

 

 

Treating Levator Scapulae Muscle

 

And press your fingertips into the back of your shoulder, as shown in the picture to the left.

 

Deeply press your thumb into your fingers, tightly squeezing the thick piece of muscle that is between your thumb and fingers.

 

 

Stretching Levator Scapulae Muscle

 

Then slowly drop your head in the opposite direction so you can stretch the muscle fibers.

 

You Can Help Yourself Relieve Pain Quickly

I’ve been helping people release pain since 1989, and back in the beginning I realized that the only way people stay out of pain is to either come to see me almost every day (not a great option!) or learn how to continue their therapy at home. That’s why I wrote my books, to help you help yourself on a regular basis.

pain free living book

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living has over 200 pictures, colorful charts to show you where you feel pain and where to treat to relieve it, and detailed explanations that explain how to treat painful muscles from your head to your feet.

Clear and easy to follow, people have told me they call it “their bible for finding solutions to pain.”

 

 

 The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution has been written specifically to address the muscles that cause low back pain, sciatica, sacroiliac joint pain, and even knee pain.

Pictures and graphics, and detailed text will explain how to do each step.

 

 If you have either carpal tunnel syndrome or trigger finger, you’ll want to get the Julstro System For Hand/Wrist Pain And Numbness.

A specialized tool was developed to enable you to get the proper strength and focus on the spasms that cause both these problems.  The TotalTX tool also can be used for problems from your shoulders to your lower legs, and it’s all in the “how to” book included with the Julstro System.

Plus, with each one of these products you will receive a gift of a Julstro Perfect Ball (a $9.00 value) so you’ll have the tool to reach difficult spots, and to do all of the treatments taught in the books.

Wishing you well,

Julie

The Omega-3 Pendulum

by

Who Benefits Most From Omega-3s? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Pendulum
Pendulum

If you were around in the 60’s, you might remember the song “England Swings Like a Pendulum Do”. It was a cute song, but it had nothing to do with pendulums. This week I am talking about something that really does resemble a pendulum – the question of whether omega-3s reduce heart disease risk.

There is perhaps nothing more confusing to the average person than the “truth” about omega-3s and heart disease risk. The headlines and expert opinion on the topic swing wildly between “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s have no effect on heart disease risk” and back again. To me these swings resemble the swings of a pendulum – hence the title of this article.

Part of the reason for the wild swings is that journalists and most “experts” tend to rely on the latest study and ignore previous studies. Another contributing factor is that most journalists and experts read only the main conclusions in the article abstract. They don’t read and analyze the whole study.

So, in today’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I plan to:

  • Analyze 3 major studies that have influenced our understanding of the relationship between omega-3 intake and heart disease risk. I will tell you what the experts missed about these studies and why they missed it.
  • Summarize what you should know about omega-3 intake and your risk of heart disease.

Why Is The Role Of Omega-3s In Preventing Heart Disease So Confusing?

SecretsIn answering that question, let me start with what I call “Secrets Only Scientists Know”.

#1: Each study is designed to disprove previous studies. That is a strength of the scientific method. But it guarantees there will be studies on both sides of every issue.

Responsible scientists look at all high-quality studies and base their opinions on the weight of evidence. Journalists and less-responsible “experts” tend to “cherry pick” the studies that match their opinions.

#2: Every study has its flaws. Even high-quality studies have unintended flaws. And I have some expertise in identifying unintended flaws.

I published over 100 papers that went through the peer review process. And I was involved in the peer review of manuscripts submitted by other scientists. In the discussion below I will use my experience in reviewing scientific studies to identify unintended flaws in 3 major studies on omega-3s and heart disease risk.

Next, let me share the questions I ask when reviewing studies on omega-3s and heart disease. I am just sharing the questions here. Later I will share examples of how these questions allowed me to identify unintended flaws in the studies I review below.

#1: How did they define heart disease? The headlines you read usually refer to the effect of omega-3s on “heart disease”. However, heart disease is a generic term. In layman’s terms, it encompasses angina, heart attacks, stroke due to blood clots, stroke due brain bleeds, congestive heart failure, impaired circulation, and much more.

Omega-3s have vastly different effects on different forms of heart disease, so it is important to know which form(s) of heart disease the study examined. And if the study included all forms of heart disease, it is important to know whether they also looked at the forms of heart disease where omega-3s have been shown to have the largest impact.

#2: What was the risk level of the patients in the study? If the patients in the study are at imminent risk of a heart attack or major cardiovascular event, it is much easier to show an effect than if they are at low risk.

For example, it is easy to show that statins reduce the risk of a second heart attack in someone who has just suffered a heart attack. These are high-risk patients. However, if you look at patients with high cholesterol but no other risk factors for heart disease, it is almost impossible to show a benefit of statins. These are low-risk patients.

If it is difficult to show that statins benefit low-risk patients, why should we expect to be able to show that omega-3s benefit low-risk patients?

[Note: I am not saying that statins do not benefit low-risk patients. I am just saying it is very difficult to prove they do in clinical studies.]

#3: How much omega-3s are the patients getting in their diet? The public reads the headlines. When the headlines say that omega-3s are good for their hearts, they tend to take omega-3 supplements. When the headlines say omega-3s are worthless, they cut back on omega-3 supplements. So, there is also a pendulum effect for omega-3 intake.

Omega-3s are fats. So, omega-3s accumulate in our cell membranes. The technical term for the amount of omega-3s in our cellular membranes is something called “Omega-3 Index”. Previous studies have shown that:

    • An omega-3 index of 4% or less is associated with high risk of heart disease, and…
    • An omega-3 index of 8% or more is associated with a low risk of heart disease.

When the omega-3 index approaches 8%, adding more omega-3 is unlikely to provide much additional benefit. Yet many studies either don’t measure or ignore the omega-3 index of patients they are enrolling in the study.

#4: How many and what drugs were the patients taking? Many heart disease patients are taking drugs that lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, reduce inflammation, and reduce the risk of blood clot formation. These drugs do the same things that omega-3s do. This decreases the likelihood that you can see any benefit from increasing omega-3s intake.

The Omega-3 Pendulum

With all this in mind let’s examine three major double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that looked at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk and came to different conclusions. Here is a summary of the studies.

GISSI Study ASCEND Study VITAL Study
11,000 participants 15,480 participants 25,871 participants
Followed for 3.5 years Followed for 7.4 years Followed for 5.3 years
Europe USA USA
Published in 1999 Published in 2018 Published in 2019
Dose = 1 gm/day Dose = 1 gm/day Dose = 1 gm/day
20% ↓ in heart disease deaths No effect on fatal or non-fatal heart attack or stroke Significant ↓ in some forms of heart disease
45% ↓ in fatal heart attack or stroke – as effective as statins Significant ↓ in heart disease risk for some patients

heart attacksAt first glance the study designs look similar, so why did these studies give such different results. This is where the unintended flaws come into play. Let’s look at each study in more detail.

The GISSI Study:

  • The patients enrolled in this study all had suffered a heart attack in the previous 3 months. They were at very high risk of suffering a second heart attack within the next couple of years.
  • Omega-3 intake was not measured in this study. But it was uncommon for Europeans to supplement with omega-3s in the 90’s. And European studies on omega-3 intake during that period generally found that omega-3 intake was low.
  • Patients enrolled in this study were generally taking only 2 heart disease drugs, a beta-blocker and a blood pressure drug.

The ASCEND Study:

  • The patients enrolled in this study had diabetes without any evidence of heart disease. Only 17% of the flawspatients enrolled in the study were at high risk of heart disease. 83% were at low risk. Remember, it is difficult to show a benefit of any intervention in low-risk patients.
  • The average omega-3 index of patients enrolled in this study was 7.1%. That means omega-3 levels were near optimal at the beginning of the study. Adding additional omega-3s was unlikely to show much benefit.
  • Most of the patients in this study were on 3-5 heart drugs and 1-2 diabetes drugs which duplicated the effects of omega-3s.

That means this study was asking a very different question. It was asking whether omega-3s provided any additional benefit for patients who were already taking multiple drugs that duplicated the effects of omega-3s.

However, you would have never known that from the headlines. The headlines simply said this study showed omega-3s were ineffective at preventing heart disease.

Simply put, this study was doomed to fail. However, despite its many flaws the authors reported that omega-3s did reduce one form of heart disease, namely vascular deaths (primarily due to heart attack and stroke). Somehow this observation never made it into the headlines.

The VITAL Study:

  • This study enrolled a cross-section of the American population aged 55 or older (average age = 67). As you might suspect for a cross-section of the American population, most of the participants in this study were at low risk for heart disease. This limited the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation in the whole population.

However, there were subsets of the group who were at high risk of heart disease (more about that below).

  • This study excluded omega-3 supplement users The average omega-3 index of patients enrolled in this study was 2.7% at the beginning of the study and increased substantially during the study. This enhanced the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation.
  • Participants in this study were only using statins and blood pressure medications. People using more medications were excluded from the study. This also enhanced the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation.

The authors reported that “Supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids did not result in a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events…” This is what lazy journalists and many experts reported about the study.

good newsHowever, the authors designed the study so they could also:

  • Look at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in high-risk groups. They found that major cardiovascular events were reduced by:
    • 26% in African Americans.
    • 26% in patients with diabetes.
    • 17% in patients with a family history of heart disease.
    • 19% in patients with two or more risk factors of heart disease.
  • Look at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in people with low omega-3 intake. They found that omega-3 supplementation reduced major cardiovascular events by:
    • 19% in patients with low fish intake.
  • Look at the effect of omega-3s on the risk of different forms of heart disease. They found that omega-3 supplementation reduced:
    • Heart attacks by 28% in the general population and by 70% for African Americans.
    • Deaths from heart attacks by 50%.
    • Deaths from coronary heart disease (primarily heart attacks and ischemic strokes (strokes caused by blood clots)) by 24%.

In summary, if you take every study at face value it seems like the pendulum is constantly swinging from “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s are worthless” and back again. There appears to be no explanation for the difference in results from one study to the next.

However, if you remember that even good studies have unintended flaws and ask the four questions I proposed Question Markabove, it all makes sense.

  • How is heart disease defined? Studies looking at heart attack and/or ischemic stroke are much more likely to show a benefit of omega-3s than studies that include all forms of heart disease.
  • Are the patients at low-risk or high-risk for heart disease? Studies in high-risk populations are much more likely to show a benefit than studies in low-risk populations.
  • What is the omega-3 intake of participants in the study? Studies in populations with low omega-3 intake are more likely to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation than studies in populations with high omega-3 intake.
  • How many heart drugs are the patients taking? Studies in people taking no more than one or two heart drugs are more likely to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation than studies in people taking 3-5 heart drugs.

When you view omega-3 clinical studies through the lens of these 4 questions, the noise disappears. It is easy to see why these studies came to different conclusions.

Who Benefits Most From Omega-3s?

omega 3s and heart diseaseThe answers to this question are clear:

  • People at high risk of heart disease are most likely to benefit from omega-3 supplementation.
  • People with low omega-3 intake are most likely to benefit from omega-3 supplementation.
  • Omega-3 supplementation appears to have the biggest effect on heart attack and ischemic stroke (stroke due to blood clots). Its effect on other forms of heart disease is less clear.
  • Omega-3 supplementation appears to be most effective at preventing heart disease if you are taking no more than 1 or 2 heart drugs. It may provide little additional benefit if you are taking multiple heart drugs. However, you might want to have a conversation with your doctor about whether omega-3 supplementation might allow you to reduce or eliminate some of those drugs.

What about the general population? Is omega-3 supplementation useful for patients who are at low to moderate risk of heart disease?

  • If we compare omega-3 studies with statin studies, the answer would be yes. Remember that statins cannot be shown to reduce heart attacks in low-risk populations. However, because they are clearly effective in high-risk patients, the medical community assumes they should be beneficial in low-risk populations. The same argument could be made for omega-3s.
  • We also need to recognize that our ability to recognize those who are at high risk of heart disease is imperfect. For too many Americans, the first indication that they have heart disease is sudden death!

When I was still teaching, I invited a cardiologist to speak to my class of first year medical students. He told the students, only partly in jest, that he felt statins were so beneficial they “should be added to the drinking water”.

I feel the same way about omega-3s:

  • Most Americans do not get enough omega-3s in our diet.
  • Our omega-3 index is usually much closer to 4% (high risk of heart disease) than 8% (low risk of heart disease).
  • Many of us may not realize that we are at high risk of heart disease until it is too late.
  • And omega-3s have other health benefits.

For all these reasons, omega-3 supplementation only makes sense.

The Bottom Line

There is perhaps nothing more confusing to the average person than the “truth” about omega-3s and heart disease risk. The headlines and expert opinion on the topic swing wildly between “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s have no effect on heart disease risk” and back again. To me these swings resemble the swings of a pendulum – hence the title of this article.

If you take every study at face value, there appears to be no explanation for the difference in results from one study to the next. However, if you recognize that even good studies have unintended flaws and ask four simple questions to expose these flaws, it all makes sense.

For the four questions you should ask when reviewing any omega-3 study and my recommendations for who benefits the most from omega-3 supplementation, 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.

Can Diet Add Years To Your Life?

by

Which Foods Have The Biggest Effect On Longevity? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Fountain Of YouthEveryone over 50 is searching for the elusive “Fountain Of Youth”.

  • We want to look younger.
  • We want to feel younger.
  • We want the energy we had in our 20s.
  • We want to be rid of the diseases of aging.

The list goes on!

But how do we do that? Pills and potions abound that claim to reverse the aging process. Most just reverse your wallet.

  • Should we train for marathons or bodybuilding contests?
  • Should we meditate or do yoga to relieve stress?
  • Should we get serious about losing weight?
  • Should we get more sleep?
  • Is there some miracle diet that can slow the aging process?

All the above probably slow the aging process, but the evidence is best for the effect of diet on aging. Several recent meta-analyses have looked at the effect of diet on the risk of premature deaths. In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I review a study (LT Fadnes et al, PLoS Medicine, February 8, 2022) that combines the best of these meta-analyses into a single database and provides a provocative insight into the effect of diet on longevity.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study combined data from recent meta-analyses looking at the impact of various food groups on the risk of premature deaths with the Global Burden of Disease Study which provides population-level estimates of life years lost due to dietary risk factors.

The authors then developed a new algorithm that allowed them to estimate how different diets affect sex- and age-specific life expectancy.

They divided the population into three different diet categories based on their intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, fish, eggs, dairy, refined grains, red meat, processed meat, white meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added plant oils. The diet categories were:

  • Typical Western Diet (TW). This diet was based on average consumption data from the United States and Europe. This was their baseline.
  • Optimal diet (OD). This diet is similar to a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet. However, it was not a purely vegan diet nor a purely semi-vegetarian diet. Instead, it represented the best diet people in this study were consuming.
  • Feasibility diet (FA). This diet recognizes that few people are willing to make the kind of changes required to attain an optimal diet. It is halfway between the Typical Western Diet and the Optimal Diet.

To help you understand these diets based on the foods the study participants were eating, here are the comparisons in terms of daily servings:

Food TW Diet FA Diet OD Diet
Whole grains 1.5 servings 4.3 servings 7 servings
Vegetables 3 servings 4 servings 5 servings
Fruits 2.5 servings 3.75 servings 5 servings
Nuts 0 serving* 0.5 serving* 1 serving*
Legumes 0 serving** 0.5 serving** 1 serving**
Fish 0.25 serving 0.5 serving 1 serving
Eggs 1 egg 0.75 egg 0.5 egg
Dairy 1.5 servings 1.25 servings 1 serving
Refined grains 3 servings 2 servings 1 serving
Red meat 1 serving 0.5 serving 0 serving
Processed meat 2 servings 1 serving 0 serving
White meat 0.75 serving 0.6 serving 0 serving
Sugar-sweetened beverages 17 oz 8.5 oz 0 oz
Added plant oils 2 tsp 2 tsp 2 tsp

*1 serving = 1 handful of nuts

**1 serving = 1 cup of beans, lentils, or peas

Using their algorithm, the authors asked what the effect on longevity would be if people changed from a typical western diet to one of the other diets at age 20, 60, or 80 and maintained the new diet for at least 10 years. The 10-year requirement is based on previous studies showing that it takes around 10 years for dietary changes to affect the major killer diseases like heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.

Finally, the authors improved the accuracy of their estimates of the effect of diet on longevity by taking into account the quality of each study included in their analysis. I will discuss the importance of this below.

Can Diet Add Years To Your Life?

The results were impressive.

The authors estimated that if people in the United States were to change from a typical western diet to an “optimal diet” and maintain it for at least 10 years,

…starting at age 20, men would live 13 years longer and women would live 10.7 years longer.

…starting at age 60, men would live 8.8 years longer and women would live 8 years longer.

…starting at age 80, both men and women would live 3.4 years longer.

But what if you weren’t a vegan purist? What if you only made half the changes you would need to make to optimize your diet? The news was still good.

The authors estimated that people in the United States were to change from a typical western diet to a “feasibility diet” and maintain it for at least 10 years,

…starting at age 20, men would live 7.3 years longer and women would live 6.2 years longer.

…starting at age 60, men would live 4.8 years longer and women would live 4.5 years longer.

…starting at age 80, both men and women would live ~2 years longer.

The authors concluded, “A sustained dietary change may give substantial health gains for people of all ages for both optimized and feasible [diet] changes. [These health gains] could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years. Gains are predicted to be larger the earlier the dietary changes are initiated in life.”

Which Foods Have The Biggest Effect On Longevity?

The algorithm the authors developed also allowed them to look at which foods have the biggest effect on longevity. The authors estimated when changing from a typical western diet to an optimal diet, the greatest gains in longevity were made by eating:

  • More legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and…
  • Less red and processed meat.

The authors concluded, “An increase in the intake of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and a reduction in the intake of red meat and processed meats, contributed most to these gains [in longevity].”

However, this conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution. We also need to recognize that an “optimal diet” was defined as the best diet people in this study were eating. In addition, the effect of different foods on longevity depends on:

  • The quality of the individual studies with that food, and…
  • The difference in consumption of that food in going from a western diet to an optimal diet.

For example:

  • Legumes, whole grains, nuts, red & processed meat made the list because the quality of data was high and the difference in consumption between the typical western diet and optimal diet was significant.
  • The quality of data for an effect of fruits and vegetables was also high. For example, one major study concluded that consuming 10 servings a day of fruits and vegetables a day reduces premature death by 31% compared to consumption of less than 1 serving a day. However, the difference in consumption of fruits and vegetables between the western and optimal diets in this study was small, so fruits and vegetables didn’t make the list.
  • Eggs and white meat didn’t make the list because the quality of data was low for those foods. Simply put,  that means that there was a large variation in effect of those foods on longevity between studies.
  • Other foods didn’t make the list because the quality of data was only moderate and/or the difference in intake was small.

So, the best way to interpret this these data is:

  • This study suggests that consuming more legumes, whole grains, and nuts and less red & processed meats has a significant beneficial effect on health and longevity.
  • Consuming more fruits and vegetables is likely to have a significant benefit on health and longevity, but you would need to consume more than people did in this study to achieve these benefits. In the words of the authors, “Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but, for these food groups, the intake in a typical Western diet is closer to the optimal intake than for the other food groups.”
  • Other foods may impact health and longevity, but the data in this study are not good enough to be confident of an effect.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study is the best of many studies showing the benefit of a more plant-based diet on health and longevity. It particularly encouraging because it shows:

  • You can achieve significant benefit by switching to a more plant-based diet late in life. You get the biggest “bang for your buck” if you switch at age 20. But even making the switch at age 60 or 80 was beneficial.
  • You don’t need to be a “vegan purist”. While the biggest benefits were seen for people who came close to achieving a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet, people who only made half those changes saw significant benefits.

As I said above, this is a very strong study. However, the underlying data come from association studies, which can have confounding variables that influence the results.holistic approach

For example, people who eat more plant-based diets tend to weigh less and exercise more. And both of those variables can influence longevity. Each study attempted to statistically correct for those variables, but they still might have a slight influence on the results.

However, I don’t see that as a problem because, in my view, a holistic approach is always best. As illustrated on the right, we should be seeking a lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, weight control, and exercise.

As for supplementation, both the vegan and semi-vegetarian diets tend to leave out whole food groups. Unless you are married to a dietitian, that means your diet is likely to be missing important nutrients.

The Bottom Line

A recent study asked whether changing from the typical western diet to a healthier, more plant-based diet could influence longevity. The results were very encouraging. The study showed that:

  • Changing to a healthier diet could add up to a decade to your lifespan.
  • The improvement in lifespan was greatest for those whose diets approached a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet, but a significant improvement in lifespan was seen for people who made only half those dietary improvements.
  • The improvement in lifespan was greatest for those who switched to a healthier diet in their 20’s, but significant improvements in lifespan were seen for people who didn’t change their diet until their 60’s or 80’s.

In terms of the foods that have the biggest effect on longevity.

  • This study suggests that consuming more legumes, whole grains, and nuts and less red & processed meats has a significant beneficial effect on health and longevity.
  • Consuming more fruits and vegetables is likely to have a significant benefit on health and longevity, but you would need to consume more than people did in this study to achieve those benefits.
  • Other foods may impact health and longevity, but the data in this study are not good enough to be confident of an effect.

The authors concluded, “A sustained dietary change may give substantial health gains for people of all ages for both optimized and feasible [diet] changes. [These health gains] could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years. Gains are predicted to be larger the earlier the dietary changes are initiated in life.

An increase in the intake of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and a reduction in the intake of red meat and processed meats, contributed most to these gains. Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but, for these food groups, the intake in a typical Western diet is closer to the optimal intake than for the other food groups.”

For more details about this study and what it means for you, 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.

Health Tips From The Professor