Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert
Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney
It is the Merry Month of May!
May 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.
It 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 New-Age Whole Food diets often ban salt from the diet. That increases the probability of becoming iodine deficient. For example, a recent study reported that women who followed the Paleo diet for two years became iodine deficient (S. Manousi et al, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72: 124-129, 2018).
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 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
The 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?
Since 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.
Today’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 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
When 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
As 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.
Earth 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?
When 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.
When 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
In 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?
If 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.
Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert
Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney
Happy 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?
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.
If 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.
Put 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.
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.
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.
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.
Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Livinghas 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 Solutionhas 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.
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.
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?
In 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
At 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 patients 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.
However, 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 above, 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?
The 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.
Everyone 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?
This 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 majorstudy 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.
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.
You may be one of the millions of Americans who celebrated St. Patrick’s Day a couple of weeks ago. If so, you may have sung the famous Irish folk song “The Wearing of the Green”. If you are Irish, that song has special meaning for you. However, when I hear that song, I think of “Eating of the Green.”
And when I think of eating green, I don’t mean that everything we eat should be green. I am thinking of whole fruits and vegetables in a variety of colors. We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our health. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated a lower risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, inflammatory diseases, and much more.
For today’s health tip, I am going to focus on heart health and an unexpected explanation for how fruits and vegetables reduce our risk of heart disease.
Why Is Eating Green Good For Your Heart?
We have assumed that whole fruits and vegetables lower our risk of heart disease because they are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. All of that is true. But could there be more?
Recent research has suggested that the nitrates found naturally in fruits and vegetables may also play a role in protecting our hearts. Here is what recent research shows:
The nitrates from fruits and vegetables are converted to nitrite by bacteria in our mouth and intestines.
Fruits and vegetables account for 80% of the nitrate in our diet. The rest comes from a variety of sources including the nitrate added as a preservative to processed meats.
Although all fruits and vegetables contain nitrates, the best sources are green leafy vegetables and beetroot. [Beet greens are delicious and also a good source of nitrate, but beetroot is the part of the beet we usually consume.]
Nitrite is absorbed from our intestine and converted to nitric oxide by a variety of enzymes in our tissues.
Both reactions require antioxidants like vitamin C, which are also found in fruits and vegetables.
Nitric oxide has several heart healthy benefits. For example:
It helps reduce inflammation in the lining of blood vessels. Inflammation stimulates atherosclerosis, blood clot formation, and is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
It relaxes the smooth muscle cells that surround our blood vessels. This makes the blood vessels more flexible and helps reduce blood pressure.
It prevents smooth muscle cells from proliferating, which prevents them from invading and constricting our arteries. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of atherosclerosis.
It prevents platelet aggregation. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke due to blood clots that block the flow of blood to our heart or brain.
It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.
This study made use of data from the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Program. That program enrolled 53,150 participants from Copenhagen and Aarhus between 1993 and 1997 and followed them for an average of 21 years. None of the participants had a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease at the beginning of the study.
Other characteristics of the participants at the time they were enrolled in the study were:
46% male
Average age = 56
BMI = 26 (>20% overweight)
Average systolic blood pressure = 140 mg Hg
Average diastolic blood pressure = 84 mg Hg
At the beginning of the study, participants filled out a 192-item food frequency questionnaire that assessed their average intake of various food and beverage items over the previous 12 months. The vegetable nitrate content of their diets was analyzed using a comprehensive database of the nitrate content of 178 vegetables. For those vegetables not consumed raw, the nitrate content was reduced by 50% to account for the nitrate loss during cooking.
Blood pressure was measured at the beginning of the study. Data on the incidence (first diagnosis) of heart disease during the study was obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry. Data were collected on diagnosis of the following heart health parameters:
Cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the circulatory system).
Ischemic heart disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the heart). The symptoms of ischemic heart disease range from angina to myocardial infarction (heart attack).
Ischemic stroke (lack of sufficient blood flow to the brain).
Hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in brain).
Heart failure.
Peripheral artery disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the extremities).
Is Nitrate From Vegetables Good For Your Heart?
Intake of nitrate from vegetables ranged from 18 mg/day (<1/3 serving of nitrate-rich vegetables per day) to 168 mg (almost 3 servings of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). The participants were grouped into quintiles based on their vegetable nitrate intake. When the group with the highest vegetable nitrate intake was compared to the group with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:
Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 2.58 mg Hg.
Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 1.38 mg Hg.
Risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.
Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.
Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.
Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.
Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.
Risk of hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) was not significantly reduced.
Two other observations were of interest:
Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion. However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.
Only about 21.9% of the improvement in heart health could be explained by the decrease in blood pressure. This is not surprising when you consider the other beneficial effects of nitric oxide described above.
The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Are Nitrates Good For You Or Bad For You?
You are probably thinking, “Wait a minute. I thought nitrates and nitrites were supposed to be bad for me. Which is it? Are nitrates good for me or bad for me?”
It turns out that nitrates and nitrites are kind of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They can be either good or bad. It depends on the food they are in and your overall diet.
Remember the beginning of this article when I said that the conversion of nitrates to nitric oxide depended on the presence of antioxidants? Vegetables are great sources of antioxidants. So, when we get our nitrate from vegetables, most of it is converted to nitric oxide. And, as I discussed above, nitric oxide is good for us.
However, when nitrates and nitrites are added to processed meats as a preservative, the story is much different. Processed meats have zero antioxidants. And the protein in the meats is broken down to amino acids in our intestine. The amino acids combine with nitrate to form nitrosamines, which are cancer-causing chemicals. Nitrosamines are bad for us.
Of course, we don’t eat individual foods by themselves. We eat them in the context of a meal. If you eat small amounts of nitrate-preserved processed meats in the context of a meal with antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, some of the nitrate will be converted to nitric oxide rather than nitrosamines. The processed meat won’t be as bad for you.
Eating Of The Green
Your mother was right. You should eat your fruits and vegetables!
The USDA recommends at least 3 servings of vegetables and 2 servings of fruit a day.
Based on this study, at least one of those servings should be nitrate-rich vegetables like green leafy vegetables and beets.
If you don’t like any of those, radishes, turnips, watercress, Bok choy, Chinese cabbage, kohlrabi, chicory leaf, onion, and fresh garlic are also excellent sources of nitrate.
The good news is that you may not need to eat green leafy vegetables and beets with every meal. If this study is correct, one serving per day may have heart health benefits. That means you can enjoy a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables as you try to meet the USDA recommendations.
Finally, if you don’t like any of those foods, you may be asking, “Can’t I just take a nitrate supplement?”
For blood pressure, there are dozens of clinical trials, and the answer seems to be yes – especially when the nitrate comes from vegetable sources and the supplement also contains an antioxidant like vitamin C.
For heart health benefits, the answer is likely to be yes, but clinical trials to confirm that would take decades. Double blind, placebo-controlled trials of that duration are not feasible, so we will never know for sure.
Moreover, you would not be getting all the other health benefits of a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables. Supplementation has its benefits, but it is not meant to replace a healthy diet.
The Bottom Line
We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our hearts. We have assumed that was because whole fruits and vegetables are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. But could there be more?
It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.
However, few studies have asked whether this reduction in blood pressure translates into improved cardiovascular outcomes. A recent study was designed to answer that question.
When the study compared people with the highest vegetable nitrate intake to people with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:
Blood pressure was significantly reduced.
The risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.
Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.
Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.
Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.
Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.
Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion.
However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.
The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Of course, you may have heard that nitrates and nitrites are bad for you. I discuss that in the article above.
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.
Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?
Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney
Supplementation for cancer patients is a controversial topic.
Dr. Strangelove and his friends promote a variety of herbal ingredients, vitamins, and minerals as a cure for various kinds of cancer.
Unscrupulous supplement companies hype their cancer “cures”.
Doctors often tell their patients to avoid all supplements while they are being treated for cancer.
Nutrition experts and some doctors tell us that a good diet and basic supplementation help normal cells recover from cancer treatment and improve patient outcomes.
Where is the truth? For this article I will break it down into three questions:
2) Does supplementation interfere with cancer treatment? I will provide a perspective and practical advice on this question based on my 40 years of cancer research.
3) Does supplementation prevent (reduce the risk of) cancer? I have covered this topic in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Just put cancer or breast cancer in the search box to find the relevant articles.
But before I answer these questions, I should cover my favorite topic as a Biochemist, “Metabolism 101”. Specifically, “Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation?”
Metabolism 101: Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation?
Let me start out by saying that there are two kinds of stress.
Psychological stress is our body’s response to a hectic day or a stressful work environment.
Metabolic stress is our body’s response to trauma or a major disease.
Dr. Strangelove and his buddies will tell you that psychological stress increases your nutritional needs. And they just happen to have the perfect blend of vitamins and minerals for you. However, this is a myth.
Psychological stress has relatively little effect on your nutritional needs. If you have a nutritional deficiency, supplementation can help you cope with psychological stress, but psychological stress doesn’t create nutritional deficiencies.
Metabolic stress, on the other hand, has a major effect on your nutritional needs.
Trauma and major diseases put you in a catabolic state. Catabolism literally means “breaking down”. You are breaking down your body tissues at an alarming rate. This affects every aspect of your health, including your immune system.
Trauma and major disease also increase your need for certain micronutrients. Plus, there are often loss of appetite and mobility issues that prevent you from getting the nutrients you need.
Research in the 60s and 70s showed that providing hospitalized patients with protein, energy in the form of healthy fats and carbohydrates, and micronutrients significantly shortened hospital stays and improved outcomes. Today, nutritional support is the standard of care for severely ill hospital patients.
Cancer is the poster child for metabolic stress.
It forces the body into a catabolic state to provide nutrients the cancer needs to grow.
That is why cancer patients often experience dramatic weight loss and weakness from muscle loss.
Catabolism also weakens the immune system, which is one of the most important tools in our fight against cancer.
To make matters worse:
Cancer treatment destroys normal cells as well as tumor cells. Because of this cancer patients sometimes die from the treatment, not the cancer.
Cancer treatment often causes nausea and/or suppresses appetite, which makes it even harder for cancer patients to get the nutrients they need from their diet.
Because of this, you would think that nutritional support would be the standard of care for cancer patients, but it isn’t. Because of fears that nutritional support might “feed cancer cells” or interfere with chemotherapy, there have been very few studies of supplementation in cancer patients. That is what makes this study so important.
How Was This Study Done?
This study took advantage of the fact that supplementation is prevalent among cancer patients even though their doctors may not have recommended it.
This study drew on data from the 2011-2012 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is a yearly survey that monitors the health and nutritional status of non-institutionalized adults in the US population.
NHANES participants were asked to respond to a medical condition questionnaire in their homes by a trained interviewer. In one portion of the interview, they were asked if they had ever been told they had cancer, arthritis, diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or hypertension. The participants were also asked if they had been hospitalized with one of those diseases.
The study consisted of 14 million people who answered ‘yes’ to the question, “Have you ever been told you had a cancer or malignancy?” The participants were selected to give an equal number of supplement users and non-users who were closely matched for age, sex, race, and other demographics.
All NHANES participants were asked to fill in two 24-hour dietary recalls separated by 3-10 days. The dietary recalls included supplement use but did not identify the kind of supplements used.
Finally, participants in the NHANES survey were asked to rate their physical and mental health on a scale from 1 (excellent health) to 5 (poor health). Participants were also asked to indicate on how many days in the past 30 days their physical or mental health was not good. A quality-of-life score was calculated from these data.
Does Supplementation Improve Outcomes For Cancer Patients?
The study found that for cancer patients:
Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
This is important because:
Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
The self-reported quality of life score was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.
This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.
This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.
A major strength of the study is the large sample size (> 14 million US adults).
A major limitation of this study is that the NHANES survey does not record which supplements people were using.
The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”
Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?
The reason that supplementation is not more widely recommended for cancer patients is two-fold.
1) There is a fear among many doctors that improved nutrition will feed the cancer cells and promote tumor growth.
This thinking is like the famous quote from a general during the Vietnamese war that, “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it [from the Viet Cong]”.
We need healthy normal cells to fight the cancer and for good quality of life while we are fighting the cancer. We need to protect these cells while we are destroying the cancer cells. We cannot afford to destroy the whole “village”.
For example, both cancer treatment and the catabolism associated with the cancer weaken the immune system, and a strong immune system is essential to successfully fight the cancer.
2) There is also a fear that supplementation will interfere with cancer treatment. This is a more legitimate fear and deserves a more in-depth analysis.
There are some instances where supplementation can clearly interfere with treatment. For example,
Radiation treatment relies on the production of free radicals. High-dose antioxidants have been shown to interfere with radiation treatment.
Some drugs act by suppressing folate levels in cells. High-dose B complex or folic acid supplements would clearly interfere with these drugs. However, high-dose folic acid supplementation is often used before and after drug treatment to “rescue” normal cells.
There are other cases where supplementation is likely to interfere with treatment.
A few drugs depend in part on free radical formation. High-dose antioxidants have the potential to interfere with these drugs.
Some herbal supplements activate enzymes involved in the metabolism of certain anti-cancer drugs. While these interactions are rare, they could interfere with the effectiveness of these drugs. [Note: This concern only applies to certain herbal supplements. It does not apply to vitamin-mineral supplements.]
Most other fears about supplement-drug interactions are theoretical. There are neither potential mechanisms nor evidence to support those fears.
However, there is a strategy for minimizing the potential for supplement-drug interactions based on the science of pharmacokinetics. Simply put:
Most cases of supplement-drug interactions can be avoided by assuring that high doses of anti-cancer drugs and nutrients that might interfere with those drugs are not present in the bloodstream at the same time.
Pharmocokinetic studies tell us that most anticancer drugs and nutrients are cleared from the bloodstream in 24-48 hours.
So, my standard recommendation is to avoid supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and wait to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment. This recommendation does not apply to radiation treatment since it is done on a daily basis.
However, there are a few drugs that are cleared from the bloodstream more slowly, so it is always best to check with your pharmacist or doctor before deciding on the appropriate window to avoid supplementation. The goal is always to protect normal cells without interfering with the drug’s ability to kill cancer cells.
Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements?
With the information I have shared above in mind, I am now ready to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this article, “Should cancer patients take supplements?” The answer is a qualified, “Yes”.
Let me start with the yes, and then talk about the qualifications.
This study makes clear that cancer is like every other major disease that can land you in the hospital. Nutritional support, including protein supplements, vitamins, and minerals, can reduce your risk of hospitalization, get you out of the hospital quicker, and improve your quality of life.
A strong immune system is important for fighting cancer, so immune-supporting supplements may also be important for cancer patients.
Note I did not say that supplementation can cure cancer. There is little evidence to support that claim.
The role of supplementation in preventing cancer is complex. I have covered this in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Let me summarize by saying that supplementation can play a role in preventing cancer when nutrient levels are suboptimal. However, the evidence that megadoses of nutrients can prevent cancer is scant.
The qualifications mostly revolve around taking supplements while undergoing cancer treatment. To summarize what I said above:
There are a few cases in which supplements clearly interfere with cancer treatment.
There are other cases in which supplements are likely to interfere with cancer treatment.
However, in most cases supplement-treatment interactions are only theoretical.
In most cases any interaction between supplements and anti-cancer drugs can be minimized by avoiding supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and waiting to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment.
However, there are exceptions to this rule, so it is always best to consult your pharmacist or doctor if in doubt.
The Bottom Line
A recent study looked at the effect of supplementation for patients with cancer. The study found that for cancer patients:
Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
This is important because:
Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
The self-reported quality of life was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.
This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.
This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.
The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”
For more details, a discussion on the effect of supplementation on cancer treatment, and a summary of what this study 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.
Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert
Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney
What Pillow Is Best For You?
The way you sleep is often a key to discovering the cause of headaches and more. If you wake up with neck pain, a headache, or you suffer from ringing in your ears, dizziness, or ear pain, there is a good possibility that it may be caused by the way you are sleeping.
Your pillow may be the culprit, but it’s easy to find the best pillow for you, it just takes a little “investigation.” And the best pillow for you depends on how you sleep.
The Best Pillow If You Sleep On Your Side
Your head, neck, and spine need to always stay in a nice straight line, just as it is when you are standing up, but that takes a little thought and understanding of the way you sleep. So, get comfy in your bed and then notice how your head is resting.
If you sleep on your side, your pillow needs to be just the right size, so your head doesn’t point down toward the mattress (your pillow is too soft) or up to the ceiling (your pillow is too thick). Either of these positions will make the muscles on the side of your neck stay in the contracted position for hours and pull your vertebrae in that direction, especially when you try to turn over to your other side
Your SCM Muscle May Cause Serious Problems
You also need to notice if you turn your head a bit, especially if you are turning into your pillow or turning your head up toward away from your pillow. In either of these two cases you will be causing your sternocleidomastoid (SCM for short) to be held shortened for hours.
Your SCM originates on your collarbone and inserts into the bone behind your ear, and when it contracts you turn your head to the opposite side. However, if the muscle is tight (for example, when you’ve held your head turned toward one side for an extended period of time) and then you bring your head back, so you are facing forward, the tight muscle will pull on the bone behind your ear and cause havoc.
The symptoms for a tight SCM are tinnitus (ringing in the ear), dizziness, loss of equilibrium, ear pain, headaches, pain in the eye and around the skull, pain at the top of the head, and even pain in the throat. Amazing! What’s even more amazing is that it’s rare that this muscle is considered when a medical professional is searching for the cause of your symptoms.
The Best Pillow If You Sleep On Your Back
If you sleep on your back, your head should be on the mattress (not propped up with a pillow) and you should have a tiny support (like a folded washcloth) under your neck, or you can have a wedge pillow that starts at your mid-back and gently raises your entire trunk and head up while still allowing your head and back to be in a straight line.
It’s always a challenge for people who toss and turn during the night, sometimes on their side and sometimes on their back. The best thing I’ve found for this situation is to have the pillow below shoulder level so when you turn on your side your shoulder will automatically slide to the edge of the pillow while still supporting your head properly, and when you turn onto your back, the pillow will start at shoulder level so your head and neck are supported, but your head is being pushed in a way that causes your chin to move down to your chest.
It’s tricky, but I can personally attest to the fact that it will work. I can always tell when I’ve had my head tilted (I toss and turn during the night) because I will wake with a headache. When that happens I’m grateful that I know how to self-treat the muscles of my neck and shoulders, so the headache is eliminated quickly. If you already have Treat Yourself to Pain Free Living you can self-treat all your neck and shoulder muscles to release the tension.
What If You Sleep On Your Stomach?
If you sleep on your stomach, this is the one position that is so bad that it behooves you to force yourself to change your position. Your head is turned to the side and held still for hours, putting a severe strain on all your cervical and upper thoracic vertebrae. Not only will this cause headaches, tinnitus, and a list of other pains, but it can cause problems down your entire spine. It can also impinge on the nerves that pass through the vertebrae on their way to your organs.
If you do sleep that way, let me know and I’ll give you some suggestions that work to change your habit of sleeping. It takes time and energy, but the results are worth the effort.
In every case, the way you sleep may cause neck pain that won’t go away until the pillow situation is resolved.
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.
May 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 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.
