Dr. Steve Chaney, Author at Health Tips From The Professor

Eating Of The Green

March 29, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Is Eating Green Good For Your Heart?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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.

However, few studies have asked whether this reduction in blood pressure translates into improved cardiovascular outcomes. This study (CP Bondonno et al, European Journal of Epidemiology, 36: 813-825, 2021) was designed to answer that question.

How Was This Study Done?

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.

Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements?

March 22, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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:

1) Does supplementation improve outcomes for cancer patients? That is the topic of the study (AL Shaver et al, Cancers, 13: 6276, 2021) I will review today.

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.

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.

What Pillow Is Best For You?

March 15, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Wake Up Each Morning Pain Free

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.

Does Olive Oil Help You Live Longer?

March 8, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Which Fat Is Healthiest?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you believe the headlines, olive oil is a superfood. It is often described as the star of the Mediterranean diet. It is referred to as the healthiest of dietary fats. Is this true, or is it hype?

Olive oil’s resume is impressive:

It is rich in monounsaturated fatty acids, which…

- Are less susceptible to oxidation than polyunsaturated oils.

- Make our arteries more flexible, which lowers blood pressure.

- Lower LDL-cholesterol levels, which reduces the risk of heart disease.

Extra-virgin olive oil contains phytonutrients and tocopherols (various forms of vitamin E), which…

- Have anti-inflammatory properties.

- Improve insulin sensitivity and blood sugar control.

Olive oil consumption is also associated with healthier gut bacteria, but it is not clear whether this is due to olive oil or to the fact that a Mediterranean diet is also richer in fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Several recent studies have shown that olive oil consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart disease. However, these studies were conducted in Mediterranean countries where the average intake of olive oil (3 tablespoons/day) is much greater than in the United States (0.3 tablespoons/day).

The current study (M Guasch-Ferré et al, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 79: 101-112, 2022) was designed to test whether:

The amount of olive oil Americans consume decreases the risk of heart disease.

Whether olive oil consumption had benefits beyond a reduction in heart disease risk.

How Was This Study Done?

This study combined data from 60,582 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study). The participants:

Were free of heart disease and diabetes at the start of the study.

Were 56 at the start of the study with an average BMI of 25.6 (Individuals with BMIs in the 25-30 range are considered overweight, so they were at the lowest end of the overweight range).

The Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professional Follow-Up Study are both association studies, meaning they looked at the association between olive oil consumption and health outcomes. They cannot directly prove cause and effect. However, they are very strong association studies because:

Every 2 years, participants filled out a questionnaire that updated information on their body weight, smoking status, physical activity, medications, multivitamin use, and physician-diagnosed diseases.

Every 4 years, participants filled out a comprehensive food frequency questionnaire.

In other words, this study did not just rely on the participant’s lifestyle, dietary intake, and health at the beginning of the study, as so many association studies do. It tracked how each of these variables changed over time.

The participants were followed for an average of 28 years and their average olive oil intake over those 28 years was correlated with all-cause mortality and mortality due to specific diseases.

Deaths were identified from state vital statistics, the National Death index, reports by next of kin, or reports by postal authorities.

Causes of death were determined by physician review of medical records, medical reports, autopsy reports, or death certificates.

Does Olive Oil Help You Live Longer?

During the 28 years of this study:

Olive oil consumption in the United States increased from an average of ~1/3 teaspoon/day to ~1/3 tablespoon/day.

Margarine consumption decreased from 12 g/day to ~4 g/day.

The consumption of all other fats and oils remained about the same.

As I mentioned above, olive oil consumption was averaged over the life of the study for each individual. When the investigators compared people consuming the highest amount of olive oil (>0.5 tablespoon/day) with people consuming the least olive oil (0 to 1 teaspoon/day):

Mortality from all causes was decreased by 35% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

However, the group consuming the most olive oil also was more physically active, had a healthier diet, and consumed more fruits and vegetables than the group who consumed the least olive oil.

After correcting for all those factors, mortality from all causes was decreased by 19% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

The authors concluded, “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total…mortality… Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil…to improve overall health and longevity.” (I will fill in the blanks in this statement once I have covered other aspects of this study)

The authors also said, “Of note, our study showed that benefits of olive oil can be observed even when consumed in lower amounts than in Mediterranean countries.”

Are There Other Benefits From Olive Oil Consumption?

The study didn’t stop there. The investigators also looked at the effect of olive oil consumption on the major killer diseases in the United States and other developed countries. When they compared the effect of olive oil consumption on cause-specific mortality, they found that the group who consumed the most olive oil reduced their risk of dying from:

Cardiovascular disease by 19%.

Cancer by 17%

Respiratory disease by 18%.

Neurodegenerative disease (cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease) by 29%.

- The reduction in neurodegenerative disease was much greater for women (34% decrease) than for men (19% decrease).

With this information I can fill in one of the blanks in the author’s conclusions: “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality… Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil…to improve overall health and longevity.”

Which Fats Are Healthiest?

The sample size was large enough and the dietary information complete enough for the investigators to also estimate the effect of substituting olive oil for other dietary fats and oils.

They found that every ¾ tablespoon of olive oil substituted for an equivalent amount of:

Margarine decreased total mortality by 13%.

Butter decreased total mortality by 14%.

Mayonnaise deceased total mortality by 19%

Dairy fat decreased total mortality by 13%.

- The same beneficial effects of substituting olive oil for other fats were seen for cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative disease).

- There was a linear dose-response. This means that substituting twice as much olive oil for other dietary fats doubled the beneficial effects on total and cause-specific mortality.

However, substituting olive oil for polyunsaturated vegetable oils had no effect on total and cause-specific mortality.

Now I can fill in the remaining blanks in the author’s conclusion: “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. Replacing other types of fat, such as margarine, butter, mayonnaise, and dairy fat, with olive oil was also associated with a lower risk of mortality. Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity.”

What Does This Study Mean For Us?

As I said above, this is an association study, and association studies do not prove cause and effect. However:

1) This is a very strong association study because:

- It is a very large study (92,383 participants).

- It followed the participants over a long time (28 years).

- It utilized a very precise dietary analysis.

- Most importantly, it tracked the participant’s lifestyle, dietary intake, and health at regular intervals throughout the study. Most association studies only measure these variables at the beginning of the study. They have no idea how they change over time.

2) This study is consistent with several previous studies showing that olive oil consumption decreases the risk of dying from heart disease.

3) This study draws on its large population size and precise dietary analysis to strengthen and extend the previous studies. For example:

- The study showed that increased olive oil consumption also reduced total mortality and mortality due to cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative disease.

- The study measured the effect of substituting olive oil for other common dietary fats.

- The study showed that increased olive oil consumption in the context of the American diet was beneficial.

I should point out that the headlines you have seen about this study may be misleading.

While the headlines may have depicted olive oil as a superfood, this study did not find evidence that olive oil was more beneficial than other unsaturated vegetable oils. Again, this is consistent with many previous studies showing that substituting vegetable oils for other dietary fats reduces the risk of multiple diseases.

The headlines focused on the benefits of increasing olive oil consumption. However, they neglected the data showing that increasing olive oil (and other vegetable oils) was even more beneficial (35% reduction in total mortality) in the context of a healthy diet – one with increased intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and long-chain omega-3s and decreased intake of red & processed meats, sodium, and trans fats.

So, my recommendation is to follow a whole food, primarily plant-based diet and substitute extra-virgin olive oil and cold pressed vegetable oils for some of the animal fats in your diet.

Some vegan enthusiasts recommend a very low-fat whole food plant-based diet. They point to studies showing that such diets can actually reverse atherosclerosis. However:

Those studies are very small.

The overall diet used in those studies is a very healthy plant-based diet.

The studies did not include a control group following the same diet with olive oil or other vegetable oils added to it, so there is no comparison of a healthy vegan diet with and without vegetable oils.

If you have read my book, “Slaying the Food Myths”, you know that my recommendations encompass a variety of whole food, primarily plant-based diets ranging all the way from very-low fat vegan diets to Mediterranean and DASH diets. Choose the one that best fits your food preferences and the one you will be most able to stick with long term. You will be healthier, and you may live longer.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of olive oil consumption on the risk dying from all causes and from heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative diseases. When the study compared people consuming the highest amount of olive oil (>0.5 tablespoon/day) with people consuming the least olive oil (0 to 1 teaspoon/day):

Mortality from all causes was decreased by 19% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

They also found that the group who consumed the most olive oil reduced their risk of dying from:

Cardiovascular disease by 19%.

Cancer by 17%

Respiratory disease by 18%.

Neurodegenerative disease (cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease) by 29%.

They also found that every ¾ tablespoon of olive oil substituted for an equivalent amount of:

Margarine decreased total mortality by 13%.

Butter decreased total mortality by 14%.

Mayonnaise deceased total mortality by 19%

Dairy fat decreased total mortality by 13%.

However, substituting olive oil for polyunsaturated vegetable oils had no effect on total and cause-specific mortality.

The authors concluded, “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. Replacing other types of fat, such as margarine, butter, mayonnaise, and dairy fat, with olive oil was also associated with a lower risk of mortality. Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity.”

For more details 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.

How Did Our Bodies Get So Contaminated?

March 1, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Would You Like Phthalates With Your Burgers?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Every once in a while, a scientific study grabs the headlines and causes a paradigm shift in our thinking. One such study, published in 2016, showed that babies’ umbilical cords contained over 200 toxic chemicals.

That study created instant headlines. It grabbed our attention. People were asking, “How did our bodies get so contaminated?”

Sure, there were clues. There were many studies showing that individual toxic chemicals in our environment were making their way into our bodies. But no one anticipated the full scope of the problem. Nobody anticipated that our bodies had become toxic waste dumps.

And the very thought that newborn babies were starting their lives with so many toxic chemicals in their bodies was frightening. No one knows what the long-term health consequences will be.

What Are Phthalates And Why Should You Care?

Phthalates are a class of compounds that are widely used in the manufacture of household products we use every day. For example, in shampoos and hair gels they increase spreadability, enhance absorption, and help make fragrances last longer. In hairsprays they make the hair softer and more flexible. And from shampoos, hair gels, and hairsprays they can be absorbed into our bodies through our scalp.

They are also used as “plasticizers” to make certain plastics more flexible and more durable. This is an issue because phthalates are added to some food packaging and materials used to handle and process food. And from there they can migrate into the food. This is especially true for fast foods and highly processed foods.

So, most of us are exposed to phthalates. We accumulate them in our bodies. The question is, “How harmful are these chemicals? Should we be concerned?” As with many other chemicals in our environment, the answer isn’t clear.

Phthalates belong to a class of chemicals called “hormone disruptors”. In animal studies phthalates disrupt the reproductive system, especially in males. They can cause developmental problems in the offspring. And they appear to increase the risk of some cancers.

In humans there is emerging evidence that phthalate exposure during pregnancy may impair a child’s brain development and increase their risk for learning, behavioral, and attention disorders.

At the other end of the spectrum, a recent study found a link between increased phthalate exposure and premature death in older Americans. The authors of that study estimated that phthalate exposure may lead to roughly 100,000 premature deaths each year, resulting in an economic burden of between $40 and $47 billion per year.

Would You Like Phthalates With Your Burger?

That question brings me to the study (L Edwards et al, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, October 27, 2021) I want to discuss today. This was a preliminary study, so the authors focused on only a few fast foods from 6 fast food chains in the San Antonio area and a single source of phthalate contamination. They measured levels of 11 different phthalates in:

Hamburgers, chicken nuggets, and French fries from two hamburger chains.

Chicken burritos from two Tex-Mex chains.

Cheese pizzas from two pizza chains.

Plastic gloves from two hamburger chains and one Tex-Mex chain.

Each of the phthalates they tested has different properties and different risks. But for purposes of simplicity, I will only discuss total phthalate levels for this review.

Here is what the study found:

10 of the 11 phthalates they analyzed were found in the foods they tested.

86% of the foods they tested were contaminated with one or more phthalate.

Chicken burritos were the most contaminated food, followed by hamburgers, French fries, and chicken nuggets. Cheese pizza was the least contaminated food.

High levels of phthalates were found in the plastic gloves in all 3 locations tested, indicating that the plastic gloves used for handling the foods are one likely source of food contamination.

The authors concluded, “Our findings suggest that phthalates…are abundant in prepared meals available at popular fast-food restaurants. In addition, they are found in food handling gloves, which may be a source of food contamination. These data support prior observations that consumption of highly processed and prepared foods contribute to human exposure of phthalates. Many of these chemicals have been associated with adverse health outcomes or, based on in vitro data, have the potential to be harmful to human health. These results, if confirmed, may inform individual and regulatory reduction strategies.”

In summary, while the evidence is not yet definitive, it is strong enough for us to ask how we might reduce our exposure to phthalates.

How Did Our Bodies Get So Contaminated?

The sobering thought is that this study is just the tip of the iceberg. It looked at 11 chemicals found in 5 foods from 6 fast-food chains and identified one potential source of the chemical contamination of those foods. The problem is much larger.

Crops are sprayed with pesticides and herbicides. Contaminants can also come from polluted surface and ground water.

Hormones and chemicals are used to make animals grow faster, and some of these chemicals make their way into the meats.

Chemicals are added to processed and fast foods to prevent spoilage and give them the desired properties.

Processed and fast foods are produced in factories, often packaged in plastic, and shipped to distant locations where they will be handled by people wearing plastic gloves.

We are even starting to see meats and produce sold in grocery stores prewrapped in plastic.

And, of course, we are exposed to chemicals in our cosmetics, personal care products, and household products. We are even exposed to chemicals through outgassing of our household furnishings.

Once you start to think about all the ways we are exposed to chemicals in our daily lives, it is easy to understand how we can end up with over 200 chemicals in an infant’s umbilical cord blood. It’s easy to understand how our bodies got so contaminated.

Each chemical is present at very low levels. If you look at each chemical individually, you might be tempted to conclude the risk is too small to be concerned about. But when you have hundreds of these chemicals in your body, their effect is cumulative. The risk can become significant.

What Can We Do?

Phthalates are so pervasive in our environment that it would be impossible to completely eliminate our exposure to them. However, there are some ways we can minimize our exposure:

1) Buy organic whenever possible.

2) Eat as close to nature as possible. By that I mean:

- Buy your produce at your local farmer’s market whenever possible.

- Choose grocery stores that source locally and do not wrap meat and produce in plastic.

3) Avoid fast foods and highly processed foods. You already know they are unhealthy. If you needed one more reason to avoid them, this would be it.

4) Read the labels of personal care products and cosmetics and choose those without phthalates.

The Bottom Line

In humans there is emerging evidence that phthalate exposure during pregnancy may impair a child’s brain development and increase their risk for learning, behavioral, and attention disorders. At the other end of the spectrum, a recent study found a link between increased phthalate exposure and premature death in older Americans.

Some previous studies have suggested that processed and fast foods may be contaminated with phthalates. The study discussed in this article looked at 11 phthalates found in 5 foods from 6 fast-food chains and looked at the plastic gloves used to handle the food as one potential source of phthalate contamination. The study found:

86% of the foods they tested were contaminated with one or more phthalate.

Chicken burritos were the most contaminated food, followed by hamburgers, French fries, and chicken nuggets. Cheese pizza was the least contaminated food.

High levels of phthalates were found in the plastic gloves, indicating that the plastic gloves used for handling the foods are one likely source of food contamination.

The authors concluded, “Our findings suggest that phthalates…are abundant in prepared meals available at popular fast-food restaurants. In addition, they are found in food handling gloves, which may be a source of food contamination. These data support prior observations that consumption of highly processed and prepared foods contribute to human exposure of phthalates. These results, if confirmed, may inform individual and regulatory reduction strategies.”

I discuss how to minimize our exposure to phthalates in the article above.

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.

Is Margarine Healthier Than Butter?

February 22, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The Checkered History Of Margarine

Many of you may have seen the recent headlines proclaiming that a recent study has shown that margarine is healthier than butter.

Some of you may be saying, “I don’t believe it.”

Others may be saying, “Of course. Hasn’t that always been true.”

So, to clear up the confusion, let me share a brief history of margarine.

Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French chemist in response to a request from Napoleon III to create a poor man’s butter substitute. Napoleon’s intentions weren’t entirely altruistic. He also wanted a cheaper butter substitute for his armies.

Margarine initially encountered a strong headwind in this country. The dairy lobby influenced congress and state legislatures to pass numerous laws designed to increase the cost and reduce the desirability of margarine.

In the 1950s the ground started to shift. Scientists and the medical community started to recognize that saturated fats were a major contributor to heart disease. Suddenly, butter became a villain, something to avoid.

- But that was a problem. Butter was preferred spread for bread and toast. It was used for cooking. It was ubiquitous. You may even remember the popular “I like bread and butter” song. What was a person to do?

At that time margarine was made by partially hydrogenating vegetable oils (usually corn oil because it was the cheapest). The hydrogenation converted some of the unsaturated fats in vegetable oils to saturated fats so that margarine would not be in liquid form at room temperature. However, the total amount of saturated fat in margarine was less than in butter, and the ratio of polyunsaturated fat to saturated fats was much healthier. Margarine took on a new luster. It was now the healthier alternative to butter.

- Once margarine attained the “healthier” status, most of the anti-margarine laws were quickly abolished, and margarine quickly outpaced butter as the spread of choice.

In the 1980s the ground shifted again. A French study found the margarine increased the risk of heart disease more than butter. Further studies showed that the hydrogenation process created a novel type of fat called trans fats. By the 1990s it was widely accepted that trans fats increased the risk of heart disease even more than saturated fats.

- Margarine became the villain, and butter was considered the more natural, healthier spread. By 2000 sales of butter once more surpassed those of margarine.

In 2018 the ground shifted once again. After almost 20 years of deliberation, the FDA banned trans fats from the American food supply as of 2018. Margarine no longer contained trans fats.

Today’s study (C Weber et al, Public Health Nutrition, doi:10.1017/S1368980021004511) asks whether the reformulated, trans-fat-free margarines are once again a healthier alternative to butter.

Is Margarine Healthier Than Butter?

The study analyzed the fat composition of 53 margarine tub or squeeze products, 18 margarine stick products, 12 margarine-butter blend products and compared them with the fat composition of butter. The results are shown below:

There was no detectable trans fat in any of the margarine products. So, based on saturated fat content and the ratio of unsaturated fats to saturated fats, the margarine products were all healthier than butter. This is what the paper concluded.

	Mean % of Total Fat In:
	Margarine Tub or Tube	Margarine Sticks	Margarine- Butter Blends	Butter
SFA*	29%	38%	38%	60%
MUFA*	36%	34%	43%	26%
PUFA*	33%	29%	13%	4%
*SFA = Saturated fats, MUFA = Monounsaturated fats, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fats

But let’s look a bit deeper. First, we should look at the fat sources.

The saturated fat in the margarine products comes from either palm or coconut oil. There are claims that these plant saturated fats may be healthier than saturated fats from animal sources. But there are no long-term studies to back up those claims, So, I will simply consider them equivalent to any other saturated fat for this review.

Next, we should look at the labels.

The labels of most butter products are simple. Butter is sweet cream and salt. Unsalted butter is sweet cream and natural flavoring (usually lactic acid). This is the way that butter has been made for hundreds of years.

Margarine products are manufactured foods. They didn’t come from a cow. Their labels are significantly longer. And you should read the labels carefully.

- Some margarine products are made with natural ingredients.

- However, many margarine products contain preservatives and artificial flavors.

So, choosing between margarine products and butter is not as simple as looking at saturated fat content alone.

But what if you didn’t have to choose between margarine and butter? What if there were other options to consider?

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Once you decide to look beyond margarine and butter you will find lots of healthy options. For example:

If you have ever eaten at a fine Italian or Greek restaurant, you may have had your bread served with olive oil to dip it in. Of course, this may be a better option for lunch and dinner than for breakfast. (I don’t think jam would pair well with olive oil.)

Nut butters are an excellent choice any time of day. Peanut and almond butters are the most popular, but there are many other nut butters to choose from.

Avocado is another excellent choice.

This just scratches the surface. There are healthier options for almost every palate.

If you look at the fat composition of my top four suggestions, you can readily see why they are healthier choices than either margarine or butter. They are much lower in saturated fat and high in heart healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

	Mean % of Total Fat In:
	Olive Oil	Almond Butter	Peanut Butter	Avocado
SFA*	14%	9%	22%	16%
MUFA*	74%	64%	53%	71%
PUFA*	12%	27%	25%	13%
*SFA = Saturated fats, MUFA = Monounsaturated fats, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fats

But that is just part of the story:

Nut butters are also a good source of protein. And both nut butters and avocados provide nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber you don’t find in margarine or butter.

There are also labels to consider:

Avocados are whole foods and don’t require labels. There are no other ingredients. What you see is what you get.

Olive oil is a bit more complicated. It is often blended with cheaper oils to reduce the cost, and that doesn’t always show up on the label. My best advice is to get extra virgin olive oil from a brand you trust.

With nut butters, you should read the label. For example, the ingredient label for almond butter should list almonds as the sole ingredient. Peanut butter should just list peanuts. However, some brands add other oils, sugar, emulsifying agents, etc. These are the brands you should leave on the shelf.

Our “go-to” spread is almond butter. I like it with cinnamon sprinkled on top, although sliced bananas and cinnamon is another excellent choice.

As for butter, we still like it on baked sweet potatoes and corn on the cob. We freeze our butter and cut off a slice whenever we need it. A stick of butter lasts us many months.

The Bottom Line

Now that trans fats have been removed from margarine products a recent study revisited the question as to whether margarine or butter was the healthier choice. On the basis of their saturated fat content, the study concluded that margarine products were healthier than butter.

However, that is just part of the story. When you look at the labels:

The labels of most butter products are simple. Butter is sweet cream and salt. Unsalted butter is sweet cream and natural flavoring (usually lactic acid). This is the way that butter has been made for hundreds of years.

Margarine products are manufactured foods. They didn’t come from a cow. Their labels are significantly longer. And you should read the labels carefully.

So, choosing between margarine products and butter is not as simple as looking at saturated fat content alone. But what if you didn’t have to choose between margarine and butter? What if there were other options to consider?

Once you decide to look beyond margarine and butter you will find lots of healthy options. I discuss my top 4 choices above.

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.

Treatment For A Painful Thumb

February 15, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is It Arthritis Of The Thumb Joint?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Is It Arthritis of the Thumb Joint?

I was pondering what to write about in this month’s newsletter and then I had three clients come in, all suffering from the same problem. That made up my mind. The topic this month is thumb pain.

Several years ago, when I was still in New York, I had a regular client come in and tell me she had just been told she had arthritis in her thumb joint. I asked how she knew that, and she showed me her hand. Her thumb was bent all the way in toward her palm and when she tried to bring her hand flat, the joint was painful, preventing her thumb from moving.

She had been given medications for the arthritis, but when she checked it out on the internet, the potential side-effects scared her so much she decided to just suffer with the arthritis.

But it wasn’t arthritis at all. The pain she was experiencing was caused by a tight muscle. I taught her the self-treatment I’m going to show you, and the results were fantastic!

Why a Tight Muscle Causes the Symptoms of Arthritis of the Thumb Joint

We use our thumbs uncountable times every day. It is impossible to even consider how many times we have used our thumb muscles over the course of our lives, but we never think about the muscles that enable us to do that movement. Yet, think of what life would be like if you lost your ability to use your thumb.

Your thumb muscle, called Opponens Pollicis, originates on the ligament that forms the bridge to your carpal tunnel. (More about carpal tunnel syndrome in a future newsletter) It inserts into the joint that is at the base of your thumb. It forms the bulge at the base of your thumb, right where the thumb of the right hand, shown on the graphic on the left, is pressing into the left hand.

For example, do the movement shown above, pressing your right thumb into the thick muscle at the base of your thumb. Then move your left thumb in toward the palm of your hand. You’ll feel the muscle contract.

As the muscle is repetitively strained it shortens. The problem is, as it’s shortening it is pulling on the bridge to the carpal tunnel and moving your thumb in toward your palm. When it gets tight, if you try to bring your thumb out it will pull at the joint. It’s like pulling your hair and then your scalp hurts.

The good news is it’s simple to release the tension in the muscle fibers, it just takes a long time to get it to fully release.

Treatment For A Painful Thumb

It’s simple to treat your Opponens Pollicis muscle.

Place your opposite elbow directly onto the muscle. Wrap your fingers around your elbow to stabilize it so it won’t slide off the muscle.

Press deeply into the muscle and either stay still or move very slightly back and forth to lengthen the muscle fibers.

Or you can…

Place your bent middle finger directly into the muscle and wrap your hand around your hand to stabilize so your knuckle won’t keep sliding off the muscle.

Hold the pressure for about 30 seconds and then move ¼” along them muscle to a new spot.

I developed this technique when I had carpal tunnel syndrome. It took me hours of self-treatment to get the muscle to final relax and not be painful. That’s when you know you have finally released the tension and the strain is removed from the bridge to your carpal tunnel (flexor retinaculum).

Even if you don’t have the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome, doing this technique will make your hand feel so much better, more flexible, and light.

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living!

It’s the name of my book, and it says exactly what you will experience when you discover how to release tight muscles that cause joint pain.

People have told me this book is their first “go to” when they have aches and pains, and it has saved them hundreds of dollars in doctor visits and pain medications.

For only $49.00 you can treat muscles that cause everything from headaches to foot pain…a bargain at twice the price!

Order Now and start to feel more flexible and pain-free quickly.

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.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

February 8, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Which Diet Should You Choose?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Many of you started 2022 with goals of losing weight and/or improving your health. In many cases, that involved choosing a new diet. That was only a month ago, but it probably feels like an eternity.

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January.

Perhaps the diet isn’t working as well as advertised…

Perhaps the diet is too restrictive. You are finding it hard to stick with…

Perhaps you are always hungry or constantly fighting food cravings…

Perhaps you are starting to wonder whether there is a better diet than the one you chose in January…

Perhaps you are wondering whether the diet you chose is the wrong one for you…

If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories.

If you are still searching for your ideal diet, I will summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2022”. For the full report, click on this link.

How Was This Report Created?

US News & World Report recruited panel of 27 nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes, and heart disease to review the 40 most popular diets. The panel is not the same each year. Some experts are rotated off the panel, and others are added. The experts rate each diet in seven categories:

How easy it is to follow.

Its ability to produce short-term weight loss.

Its ability to produce long-term weight loss.

its nutritional completeness.

Its safety.

Its potential for preventing and managing diabetes.

Its potential for preventing and managing heart disease.

They converted the experts’ ratings to scores 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). They then used these scores to construct nine sets of Best Diets rankings:

Best Diets Overall combines panelists’ ratings in all seven categories. However, all categories were not equally weighted. Short-term and long-term weight loss were combined, with long-term ratings getting twice the weight. Why? A diet’s true test is whether it can be sustained for years. And safety was double counted because no diet should be dangerous.

Best Commercial Diets uses the same approach to rank 15 structured diet programs that require a participation fee or promote the use of branded food or nutritional products.

Best Weight-Loss Diets was generated by combining short-term and long-term weight-loss ratings, weighting both equally. Some dieters want to drop pounds fast, while others, looking years ahead, are aiming for slow and steady. Equal weighting accepts both goals as worthy.

Best Diabetes Diets is based on averaged diabetes ratings.

Best Heart-Healthy Diets uses averaged heart-health ratings.

Best Diets for Healthy Eating combines nutritional completeness and safety ratings, giving twice the weight to safety. A healthy diet should provide sufficient calories and not fall seriously short on important nutrients or entire food groups.

Easiest Diets to Follow represents panelists’ averaged judgments about each diet’s taste appeal, ease of initial adjustment, ability to keep dieters from feeling hungry and imposition of special requirements.

Best Plant-Based Diets uses the same approach as Best Diets Overall to rank 12 plans that emphasize minimally processed foods from plants.

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets is based on short-term weight-loss ratings.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

Are you ready? If this were an awards program I would be saying “Envelop please” and would open the envelop slowly to build suspense.

However, I am not going to do that. Here are the top 5 and bottom 5 diets in each category (If you would like to see where your favorite diet ranked, click on this link). [Note: I excluded commercial diets from this review.]

Best Diets Overall

The Top 5:

#1: Mediterranean Diet. The Mediterranean diet has been ranked #1 for 5 consecutive years.

#2: DASH Diet (This diet was designed to keep blood pressure under control, but you can also think of it as an Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.)

#3: Flexitarian Diet (A flexible semi-vegetarian diet).

#4: MIND Diet (This diet is a combination of Mediterranean and DASH but is specifically designed to reduce cognitive decline as we age.)

#5: The TLC Diet (This diet was designed by the NIH to promote heart health.)

The Bottom 5:

#36: Whole 30 Diet (A whole food, restrictive diet, designed for a 30-day jump start to weight loss. It was not designed for long-term use).

#37: Modified Keto Diet (A slightly less restrictive version of the Keto Diet).

#38: Keto Diet (A high protein, high fat, very low carb diet designed to achieve ketosis).

#39: Dukan Diet (High protein, low carb, low fat diet).

#40: GAPS Diet (A diet designed to improve gut health).

Best Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5:

#1: Flexitarian Diet

#2: Volumetrics Diet (A diet based on the caloric density of foods).

#3: Vegan Diet (A diet that only allows plant foods).

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet (A diet designed to establish lifelong healthy eating habits).

#5: Ornish Diet (A whole food, semi-vegetarian diet designed to promote heart health).

The Bottom 5:

#36: Fertility Diet (A diet designed to improve fertility, but the experts were skeptical that it would increase your chances of becoming pregnant)

#37: Whole 30 Diet

#38: Alkaline Diet (A diet designed to make your blood more alkaline, but the experts were skeptical about that claim)

#39: AIP Diet (A diet designed for people with autoimmune diseases)

#40: GAPS Diet

Best Diabetes Diets

The Top 5:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Vegan Diet

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5:

#36: Alkaline Diet

#37: Dukan Diet

#38: GAPS Diet

#39: Sirtfood Diet (a very low calorie, fad diet that emphasizes plant foods rich in sirtuins)

#40: Whole 30 Diet

Best Heart-Healthy Diets

The Top 5:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Ornish Diet

#3: DASH Diet

#4: Flexitarian Diet

#5: TLC Diet

#6: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5:

#36: Keto Diet

#37: AIP Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Dukan Diet

Best Diets for Healthy Eating

The Top 5:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: DASH Diet

#3: Flexitarian Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: TLC Diet

The Bottom 5:

#36: Raw Food Diet

#37: Atkins Diet

#38: Dukan Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Keto Diet

Easiest Diets to Follow

The Top 5:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Fertility Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5:

#36: Modified Keto Diet

#37: Keto Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: GAPS Diet

#40: Raw Foods Diet

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5 (Excluding Commercial Diets):

#1: Atkins Diet

#2: Biggest Loser Diet

#3: Keto Diet

#4: Raw Food Diet

#5: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5

#36: Dr. Weil’s Anti-Inflammatory Diet

#37: The Fertility Diet

#38: AIP Diet

#39: Alkaline Diet

#40: Gaps Diet

Which Diets Are Best For Rapid Weight Loss?

There are 3 take-home lessons from the rapid weight loss category:

1) If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do. The top 5 diets are very different. For example, the keto and vegan diets are polar opposites, yet they both are in the top 5 for rapid weight loss.

The Atkins and keto diets are meat heavy, low carb diets. They restrict fruits, some vegetables, grains, and most legumes.

The Biggest Loser diet relies on restrictive meal plan and exercise programs.

The restrictions of the raw food diet are obvious.

The vegan diet is a very low-fat diet that eliminates meat, dairy, eggs, and animal fats.

I did not include commercial diets that rated high on this list, but they are all restrictive in one way or another.

2) We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of your favorite foods.

If you lose weight on a vegan diet and add back some of your favorite foods, you might end up with a semi-vegetarian diet. This is a healthy diet that can help you maintain your weight loss.

If you lose weight on the Atkins or keto diets and add back some of your favorite foods, you end up with the typical American diet – one that is high in both fat and carbs. This is not a recipe for long-term success.

3) Don’t pay too much attention to the bottom 5 diets. None of them were designed with weight loss in mind.

Which Diet Should You Choose?

With rapid weight loss out of the way, let’s get back to the question, “Which Diet Should You Choose?” My recommendations are:

1) Choose a diet that fits your needs. That is one of the things I like best about the US News & World Report ratings. The diets are categorized. If your main concern is diabetes, choose one of the top diets in that category. If your main concern is heart health… You get the point.

2) Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss. If that is your goal, you will notice that primarily plant-based diets top these lists. Meat-based, low carb diets like Atkins and keto are near the bottom of the lists.

3) Choose diets that are easy to follow. The less-restrictive primarily plant-based diets top this list – diets like Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, and flexitarian.

4) Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences. For example, if you don’t like fish and olive oil, you will probably do much better with the DASH or flexitarian diet than with the Mediterranean diet.

5) In case you were wondering, intermittent fasting ranked 26-30 and the Paleo diet ranked 26-33 on most of the list – not the worst diets, but a long way from the best. If you have a favorite diet I didn’t mention, check the US News website to find where it is ranked.

6) Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

On the minus side, none of the diets include sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. These foods should go on your “No-No” list. Sweets should be occasional treats and only as part of a healthy meal. Meat, especially red meat, should become a garnish rather than a main course.

On the plus side, primarily plant-based diets offer a cornucopia of delicious plant foods you probably didn’t even know existed. Plus, for any of the top-rated plant-based diets, there are websites and books full of mouth-watering recipes. Be adventurous.

The Bottom Line

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January. If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

There are probably two questions at the top of your list.

#1: Which diets are best for rapid weight loss? Here are some general principles:

If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do.

We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of our favorite foods.

Long term weight loss is possible if you transition to a healthy diet after you have lost the weight.

#2: Which diet should you choose? Here the principles are:

Choose a diet that fits your needs.

Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss.

Choose diets that are easy to follow.

Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences.

Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

For more details on the diet that is best 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.

Who Benefits Most From Supplementation?

February 8, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Supplements Are Part of a Holistic Lifestyle

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The headlines about supplementation are so confusing. Are they useful, or are they a waste of money? Will they cure you, or will they kill you? I feel your pain.

I have covered these questions in depth in my book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, but let me give you a quick overview today. I call it: “Who Benefits Most From Supplementation?” I created the graphic on the left to illustrate why I feel responsible supplementation is an important part of a holistic lifestyle for most Americans. Let me give you specific examples for each of these categories.

Examples of Poor Diet

You have heard the saying that supplementation fills in the nutritional gaps in our diets, so what are the nutritional gaps? According to the USDA’s 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, many Americans are consuming too much fast and convenience foods. Consequently, we are getting inadequate amounts of calcium, magnesium, and vitamins A, D, E and C. Iron is considered a nutrient of concern for young children and pregnant women. In addition, folic acid, vitamin B6, and iodine are nutrients of concern for adolescent girls and pregnant women.

According to a recent study, regular use of a multivitamin is sufficient to eliminate all these deficiencies except for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D (J.B. Blumberg et al, Nutrients, 9(8): doi: 10.3390/nu9080849, 2017). A well-designed calcium, magnesium and vitamin D supplement may be needed to eliminate those deficiencies.

In addition, intake of omega-3 fatty acids from foods appears to be inadequate in this country. Recent studies have found that American’s blood levels of omega-3s are among the lowest in the world and only half of the recommended level for reducing the risk of heart disease (K.D. Stark et al, Progress In Lipid Research, 63: 132-152, 2016; S.V. Thuppal et al, Nutrients, 9, 930, 2017; M Thompson et al, Nutrients, 11: 177, 2019). Therefore, omega-3 supplementation is often a good idea.

In previous editions of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have talked about our “mighty microbiome”, the bacteria and other microorganisms in our intestine. These intestinal bacteria can affect our tendency to gain weight, our immune system, inflammatory diseases, chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart diseases, our mood—the list goes on and on. This is an emerging science. We are learning more every day, but for now it appears our best chances for creating a health-enhancing microbiome are to consume a primarily plant-based diet and take a probiotic supplement.

Finally, diets that eliminate whole food groups create nutritional deficiencies. For example, vegan diets increase the risk of deficiencies in vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, zinc and long chain omega-3 fatty acids. A recent study reported that the Paleo diet increased the risk of calcium, magnesium, iodine, thiamin, riboflavin, folate and vitamin D deficiency (A. Genomi et al, Nutrients, 8, 314, 2016). The Keto diet is even more restrictive and is likely to create additional deficiencies.

Examples of Increased Need

We have known for years that pregnancy and lactation increase nutritional requirements. In addition, seniors have increased needs for protein, calcium, vitamin D and vitamin B12. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have also shared recent studies showing that protein requirements are increased with exercise.

Common medications also increase our need for specific nutrients. For example, seizure medications can increase your need for vitamin D and calcium. Drugs to treat diabetes and acid reflux can increase your need for vitamin B12. Other drugs increase your need for vitamin B6, folic acid, and vitamin K. Excess alcohol consumption increases your need for thiamin, folic acid, and vitamin B6. These are just a few examples.

Vitamin D is a special case. Many people with apparently adequate intake of vitamin D have low blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. It is a good idea to have your blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels measured on an annual basis and supplement with vitamin D if they are low.

More worrisome is the fact that we live in an increasing polluted world and some of these pollutants may increase our needs for certain nutrients. For example, in a recent edition of “Health Tips From the Professor” I shared a study reporting that exposure to pesticides during pregnancy increases the risk of giving birth to children who will develop autism, and that supplementation with folic acid during pregnancy reduces the effect of pesticides on autism risk. I do wish to acknowledge that this is a developing area of research. This and similar studies require confirmation. It is, however, a reminder that there may be factors beyond our control that have the potential to increase our nutritional needs.

Examples of Genetics Influencing Nutritional Needs

The effect of genetic variation on nutritional needs is known as nutrigenomics. One of the best-known examples of nutrigenomics is genetic variation in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene. MTHFR gene mutations increase the risk of certain birth defects, such as neural tube defects. MTHFR mutations also slightly increase the requirement for folic acid. A combination of food fortification and supplementation with folic acid have substantially decreased the prevalence of neural tube defects in the US population. This is one of the great success stories of nutrigenomics. Parenthetically, there is no evidence that methylfolate is needed to decrease the risk of neural tube defects in women with MTHFR mutations.

Let me give you a couple of additional examples:

One of them has to do with vitamin E and heart disease (A.P. Levy et al, Diabetes Care, 27: 2767, 2004). Like a lot of other studies there was no significant effect of vitamin E on cardiovascular risk in the general population. But there is a genetic variation in the haptoglobin gene that influences cardiovascular risk. The haptoglobin 2-2 genotype increases oxidative damage to the arterial wall, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. When the authors of this study looked at the effect of vitamin E in people with this genotype, they found that it significantly decreased heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths.

This has been confirmed by a second study specifically designed to look at vitamin E supplementation in that population group (F. Micheletta et al, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, 24: 136, 2008). This is an example of a high-risk group benefiting from supplementation, but in this case the high risk is based on genetic variation.

Let’s look at soy and heart disease as a final example. There was a study called the ISOHEART study (W.L. Hall et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82: 1260-1268, 2005 (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/6/1260.abstract); W.L. Hall et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83: 592-600, 2006) that looked at a genetic variation in the estrogen receptor which increases inflammation and decreases levels of HDL. As you might expect, this genotype significantly increases cardiovascular risk.

Soy isoflavones significantly decrease inflammation and increase HDL levels in this population group. But they have no effect on inflammation or HDL levels in people with other genotypes affecting the estrogen reception. So, it turns out that soy has beneficial effects, but only in the population that’s at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease, and that increased risk is based on genetic variation.

These examples are just the “tip of the iceberg”. Nutrigenomics is an emerging science. New examples of genetic variations that affect the need for specific nutrients are being reported on a regular basis. We are not ready to start genotyping people yet. We don’t yet know enough to design a simple genetic test to predict our unique nutritional needs. That science is 10-20 years in the future, but this is something that’s coming down the road.

What the current studies tell us is that some people are high-risk because of their genetic makeup, and these are people for whom supplementation is going to make a significant difference. However, because genetic testing is not yet routine, most people are completely unaware that they might be at increased risk of disease or have increased nutritional requirements because of their genetic makeup.

Examples of Disease Influencing Nutritional Needs

Finally, let’s consider the effect of disease on our nutritional needs. If you look at the popular literature, much has been written about the effect of stress on our nutritional needs. In most case, the authors are referring to psychological stress. In fact, psychological stress has relatively minor effect on our nutritional needs.

Metabolic stress, on the other hand, has major effects on our nutritional needs. Metabolic stress occurs when our body is struggling to overcome disease, recover from surgery, or recover from trauma. When your body is under metabolic stress, it is important to make sure your nutritional status is optimal.

The effects of surgery and trauma on nutritional needs are well documented. In my book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, I discussed the effects of disease on nutritional needs in some detail. Let me give you a brief overview here. It is very difficult to show beneficial effects of supplementation in a healthy population (primary prevention). However, when you look at populations that already have a disease, or are at high risk for disease, (secondary prevention), the benefits of supplementation are often evident.

For example, studies suggest that vitamin E, B vitamins, and omega-3s each may reduce heart disease risk, but only in high-risk populations. Similarly, B vitamins (folic acid, B6 and B12) appear to reduce breast cancer risk in high risk populations.

Who Benefits Most From Supplementation?

With this information in mind, let’s return to the question: “Who benefits most from supplementation? Here is my perspective.

1) The need for supplementation is greatest when these circles overlap, as they do for most Americans.

2) The problem is that while most of us are aware that our diets are not what they should be, we are unaware of our increased needs and/or genetic predisposition. We are also often unaware that we are at high risk of disease. For too many Americans the first indication they have heart disease is sudden death, the first indication of high blood pressure is a stroke, or the first indication of cancer is a diagnosis of stage 3 or 4 cancer.

So, let’s step back and view the whole picture. The overlapping circles are drawn that way to make a point. A poor diet doesn’t necessarily mean you have to supplement. However, when a poor diet overlaps with increased need, genetic predisposition, disease, or metabolic stress, supplementation is likely to be beneficial. The more overlapping circles you have, the greater the likely benefit you will derive from supplementation.

That is why I feel supplementation should be included along with diet, exercise, and weight control as part of a holistic approach to better health.

The Bottom Line

In this article I provide a perspective on who benefits most from supplementation and why. There are four reasons to supplement.

Fill Nutritional gaps in our diet

2) Meet increased nutritional needs due to pregnancy, lactation, age, exercise, many common medications, and environmental pollutants.

3) Compensate for genetic variations that affect nutritional needs.

4) Overcome needs imposed by metabolic stress due to trauma, surgery, or disease.

With this information in mind, let’s return to the question: “Who benefits most from supplementation? Here is my perspective.

A poor diet alone doesn’t necessarily mean you have to supplement. However, when a poor diet overlaps with increased need, genetic predisposition, or metabolic stress, supplementation is likely to be beneficial. The more overlap you have, the greater the likely benefit you will derive from supplementation.

For more details, read the article above.

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

Does Time-Restricted Eating Have A Downside?

January 25, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating An Illusion?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Weight loss is difficult. If you are like most American adults, you have tried at least 5 or 6 diets by the time you are 50, and all of them have failed. Or maybe you have found a diet that works reasonably well at helping you lose weight, but it’s difficult to stick with. And you worry that it may not be healthy long-term.

But hope springs eternal, and there are always new diets to try. One of the newer diet fads is something called intermittent fasting. The most popular form of intermittent fasting (because it is the easiest to follow) is something called time-restricted eating.

The concept is simple. You don’t change what you are eating. Instead, you restrict the time during which you are eating those foods. Typically, you restrict your time of eating to 8 hours a day and abstain from all food the rest of the day. Hence, the term “time-restricted eating”.

I won’t go into the supposed benefits of time-restricted eating. You have probably heard those already from advocates of this form of eating. But you may be wondering if those benefits are true and whether time-restricted eating has any drawbacks.

Fortunately, a recent study (T Moro et al, Medicine and Science In Sports & Exercise, 53, 2577-2585, 2021) answers those questions. It put a group of athletes on either a control diet or a time-restricted diet for an entire year and looked at the relative benefits and drawbacks of both diets.

How Was This Study Done?

This study recruited 19 healthy, resistance-trained males (average age = 29, average weight = 185 pounds) for the study. All the subjects had at least 5 continuous years of resistance training, no steroid use, and no known medical conditions.

The subjects completed a 7-day food diary prior to the study, at the end of 2 months, and at the end of 12 months. The participants were instructed not to change their usual caloric intake or diet composition. In addition, each participant received a personalized diet protocol based on the analysis of their food diary at baseline.

The results from the first two months have previously been reported (T Moro et al, Journal of Translational Research, 14: 290, 2016). This report covers the subsequent 10 months.

During the first two months, the participants were contacted weekly by a dietitian to ensure adherence to the diet. During the interviews, the dietitian asked questions about meal timing and composition, appetite, and any difficulties in maintaining the diet protocol. When necessary, the dietitian gave advice to improve adherence to the diet. During the subsequent 10 months, the participants were contacted less frequently, and the interviews were shorter.

The participants were divided into two groups. The selection was random except that the two groups were matched with respect to caloric intake at baseline (~2,900 calories/day).

The ND (normal meal distribution) group ate their meals over a 12-hour period, with meals at ~8AM, 1 PM, and 8 PM. The distribution of calories for this group was 25%, 40%, and 35% over the three meals.

The TRE (time-restricted eating) group ate their meals over an 8-hour period, with meals at ~1PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM. The distribution of calories for this group was 40%, 25%, and 35% over the three meals.

The training regimen consisted of strength training specifically designed to increase muscle mass. A standardized 3-times per week training regimen was established during the first two months of supervised training. The participants continued the same training regimen on their own for the next 10 months. Workouts were performed between 4 and 6 PM to fall within the eating window for both groups.

Finally, tests for inflammatory markers, cholesterol & other blood lipids, blood sugar control, hormones, body composition, and strength were performed before the program started, at 2 months, and again at 12 months.

What Are The Benefits Of Time Restricted Eating?

When the investigators looked at health outcomes at the end of 12 months:

Inflammatory markers were significantly reduced in the TRE (time-restricted eating) group compared to the ND (normal meal distribution) group.

Blood sugar control was significantly improved in the TRE group compared to the ND group.

Lipid profiles were significantly improved in the TRE group compared to the ND group.

These results are consistent with the findings of earlier short-term studies on the benefits of time restricted eating.

The authors concluded. “Our results suggest that long-term time-restricted eating in combination with a resistance training program is feasible, safe, and effective in reducing inflammatory markers and risk factors.”

At this point you are probably thinking, “It sounds like everything I have heard about time-restricted eating is true. I can’t wait to get started.”

What Causes The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating?

Before you jump on the time restricted eating bandwagon, let’s look more closely and ask what caused these apparent health benefits.

When the investigators looked at changes in caloric intake over the 12-month period:

The TRE group spontaneously decreased their total caloric intake by 6.4% in spite of being told not to change their diet.

- The decrease in caloric intake was driven by a decrease in both carbohydrate and fat intake, while protein intake remained constant.

- Most of this change occurred between 2 and 12 months when they were no longer being closely supervised by dietitians.

In contrast, caloric intake and macronutrient intake did not change significantly for the ND group.

The reason for the decrease in caloric intake is not known.

If you follow social media or blogs about time-restricted eating, you have been given some scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo about how the 16 hours of fasting changes your metabolism and/or reduces your appetite. However, this is speculation. There is scant evidence for it.

A more likely explanation is that when you restrict the time you allow yourself to eat, you naturally eat less without thinking about it. You are simply less hungry when the second and third meals roll around. [This may explain why even these highly disciplined athletes required weekly coaching by dietitians to keep their caloric intake constant.]

And when the investigators looked at changes in body weight over the 12-month period:

The TRE group lost 3.4% of their body weight.

- Most of that weight loss was due to a decrease in fat mass, but there was also a loss of muscle mass.

In contrast the ND group increased their total body weight by 3.4%.

- In other words, at the end of 12 months the difference between the TRE and ND groups amounted to almost 7% of their body weight. This difference was highly significant.

- Most of the increase in body weight in the ND group was due to a 2.9% increase in muscle mass.

These results are also consistent with the findings of earlier studies of time-restricted eating.

The observed decrease in body weight and fat mass is important because whenever you decrease body weight and fat mass, you:

Reduce inflammatory markers.
Improve blood sugar control.
Improve lipid profiles.

In the words of the authors, “…it is plausible that the caloric reduction observed in the TRE group may have contributed to the reductions in body mass and additional health benefits…”

Of course, that still sounds pretty good. Who wouldn’t want to lose weight and get healthier? But are the weight reduction and health benefits unique to time-restricted eating? That is the claim of those who promote this diet.

But is it true? To answer that question, we need to take a broader view of popular diets. We need to ask, “Is something special about time-restricted eating, or would other restrictive diets give similar results?”

Are The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating An Illusion?

There are two diet truths that nobody is talking about:

1) Forget the metabolic mumbo-jumbo. The primary reason restrictive diets cause you to lose weight is that you unconsciously eat less while you are on these diets.

For time-restricted eating, you eat less because you have restricted the time when you can eat. With other restrictive diets, you have restricted the foods you can eat. The reason why that causes you to eat less is more subtle. I call it the “Bagels and Cream Cheese Effect”.

- When you go on a low-fat diet, it sounds great to say you can eat all the bagels you want. But without the cream cheese, bagels become boring, and you eat less.

- When you go on a low-carb diet, it sounds great to say you can eat all the cream cheese you want. But without the bagels, cream cheese becomes boring, and you eat less.

2) The proponents of fad diets make them look good by comparing them to the typical American diet. Anything is better than the American diet. However, when you make the comparisons based on the reduction in caloric intake or the amount of weight lost, the health benefits of popular diets are virtually identical. For example:

- When you compare the Atkins diet and other low carb diets with the typical American diet, inflammation is lower on the low carb diets. However, one recent study compared people on the Atkins diet with people who had lost an equal amount of weight on a balanced diet that included all food groups. Guess what? Inflammation is much higher on the Atkins diet when you compare it to a healthy diet that gives equal weight loss.

- This study reported that the time-restricted eating group ate less, lost more weight, and had better health parameters than the control group. However, previous studies that compared time-restricted eating with groups that reduced caloric intake to the same extent by simply counting calories have found the two groups had identical weight loss and improvement in health parameters.

In other words, there is nothing magical about time-restricted eating. Any diet that causes you to eat less will give identical results. There are only two questions left:

Can you stick with time-restricted eating long term?

Time-restricted eating is not everyone’s cup of tea. But this study suggests that if you can stick with it better than with other restrictive diets, you are likely to lose weight and reap some health benefits.

2) Should you stick with time-restricted eating long term?

To answer this question, you need to know whether there are any downsides to time-restricted eating.

Does Time-Restricted Eating Have A Downside?

Of course, most people would consider weight loss and an improvement in health parameters as a definite plus. It’s all good. Or is it? Does time-restricted eating have any downsides? This study identified two potential downsides:

1) Decreased anabolic hormones.

- Anabolic hormones (hormones that stimulate an increase in muscle mass) were decreased in the TRE group. Specifically:

- - Testosterone was decreased by 17% at the end of 12 months in the TRE group.

- - Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) was decreased by 14% in the TRE group.

- Both anabolic hormone levels were unchanged in the ND group.

2) Decreased muscle mass. Between months 2 and 12:

- Muscle mass was decreased by 2.3% in TRE group and increased by 2.9% in the ND group.

- The cross-sectional area of arm and thigh muscles was decreased by an average of 4.3% in the TRE group and increased by an average of 8.5% in the ND group.

In the words of the authors, “With our results, we confirmed that a long-term TRE protocol could impair the ability of maintaining muscle mass, possibly because of a reduction in caloric intake and a direct effect of fasting on the production of anabolic hormones.”

That is putting it mildly. The participants in this study were engaged in a rigorous 3-times/week strength training program specifically designed to increase muscle mass and were consuming over 100 grams of protein a day. So, a continuous increase in muscle mass and cross-sectional area would be expected. This was seen in the ND group but not in the TRE group, which actually lost muscle mass. The average “Joe” or “Jane” would likely lose even more muscle on this diet.

And continuous, long-term loss of muscle mass has significant health consequences including:

Decreased metabolic rate, which makes it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight.
Decreased insulin sensitivity, which increases the risk of diabetes.
Increased risk of osteoporosis.
Muscle weakness, which increases the risk of falling.

Dr. Paoli, the lead scientist on this study, was quoted as saying, “The main take home message is that there are pros and cons to prolonged time-restricted eating. Although time-restricted eating may produce some physiological advantages, it is not a miracle as often suggested in social media posts.”

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the pros and cons of following a time-restricted eating (TRE) diet compared to a diet with normal meal distribution (ND) for 12 months.

The TRE group had reduced inflammation, better blood sugar control, and better lipid profiles than the ND group.

However, the improved health parameters were not caused by some magical metabolic changes due to fasting.

The TRE group unconsciously reduced their caloric intake and lost weight compared to the ND group. And any time you lose weight, you get reduced inflammation, better blood sugar control, and better lipid profiles.

In the words of the authors, “…it is plausible that the caloric reduction observed in the TRE group may have contributed to the reductions in body mass and additional health benefits…”

And there is nothing unique about time-restricted eating.

Any restrictive diet is likely to give similar results. (For more details, read the article above.)

Finally, there were some significant downsides to time-restricted eating.

The TRE group had a reduction in anabolic hormones and lost muscle mass.

This is putting it mildly. The participants in this study were engaged in a rigorous 3-times/week strength training program specifically designed to increase muscle mass and were consuming over 100 grams of protein a day. They should have gained muscle mass. Instead, they lost it.

Continuous, long-term loss of muscle mass has significant health consequences including:

Decreased metabolic rate, which makes it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight.
Decreased insulin sensitivity, which increases the risk of diabetes.
Increased risk of osteoporosis.
Muscle weakness, which increases the risk of falling.

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.