Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert
Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney
Happy Spring! My friends and family up north told me that it was a looooog winter, so I’m sure all you “Snow Birds” are thrilled to have Spring here at last.
Here in Florida, the flowers are blooming, and we’re still enjoying beautiful weather in the 70’s and low 80’s. And, of course, we are ignoring the thought of the summer coming soon.
Please Help Me
I’ve learned that for TEDx to invite me to do another talk, I need to have my current talk, “The Pain Question No One Is Asking”, shared with many people, plus I need to have comments so I can respond. If you haven’t watched it yet, you will learn a lot about pain and how to treat it. Plus, you can help me by commenting on it and sharing it with your friends.
Maybe you have already watched it, if so, thank you. Would you mind watching it again and adding a comment?
This month I’ve had so many people come in with neck pain and headaches, that I decided I need to share what causes neck pain and a treatment with you. There are a lot of different treatments for the neck, some you can do, and others that you need me to do for you.
Neck pain and headaches are widespread because there are so many things we do every day that cause these two kinds of pain. A big problem is our cell phones, and we can’t get rid of them, so we just need to know how to constantly be aware of it and treat ourselves frequently.
It’s amazing how fragile our necks are, and how vulnerable they are to injury, yet for most of us we go through life with nothing more than a headache every now and then.
If you have had a car accident you may have suffered from whiplash, which causes horrific headaches, because the bones of your neck have been forced out of alignment. In many cases neck pain is either caused, or complicated, by tension in a muscle called Levator Scapulae.
As you see on the graphic to your left, the muscle originates on the first four cervical vertebrae, and inserts into your shoulder blade (the scapula).
When it contracts you lift your shoulder, making the nickname for this muscle be “the shrug muscle.”
Your brain goes into your spinal cord, and then your spinal cord passes through the center of the vertebrae all the way to the bottom of your spine.
However, when the muscle is in spasm (tied in a knot) it is pulling down on the cervical vertebrae at the very base of your skull. This pulls the bones to the side and down and pushes the bone into your spinal cord on the opposite side.
Frequently a client will come in with neck pain, or headache pain on one side, but I find the muscle tension on the opposite side.
Spasms in the levator scapulae muscle will also tilt your head to the side, and it can cause pain to your shoulder and down the upper/center part of your back.
Relief From Neck Pain
There are several effective ways to treat your neck and shoulders, the following are just two of them. I have written books that teach many more self-treatments in case you want to learn more.
Put a ball, preferably the Perfect Ball, on the very top of your shoulder.
Bend at your hips and put the ball on the corner of a wall, pressing the top of your shoulder into the ball. Then move up and down so the ball is rolling across the top of your shoulder, from the front toward the back of your shoulder.
The goal is to lengthen the Levator Scapulae muscle, so it takes the strain off your cervical vertebrae. The Perfect Ball is ideal for this task because it is solid in the center and soft on the outside, preventing bruising to your bone.
A second way of treating your shoulder muscle is to press your thumb into the “well” at the front of your shoulder, just above your collar bone.
And press your fingertips into the back of your shoulder, as shown in the picture to the left.
Deeply press your thumb into your fingers, tightly squeezing the thick piece of muscle that is between your thumb and fingers.
Then slowly drop your head in the opposite direction so you can stretch the muscle fibers.
You Can Help Yourself Relieve Pain Quickly
I’ve been helping people release pain since 1989, and back in the beginning I realized that the only way people stay out of pain is to either come to see me almost every day (not a great option!) or learn how to continue their therapy at home. That’s why I wrote my books, to help you help yourself on a regular basis.
Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Livinghas over 200 pictures, colorful charts to show you where you feel pain and where to treat to relieve it, and detailed explanations that explain how to treat painful muscles from your head to your feet.
Clear and easy to follow, people have told me they call it “their bible for finding solutions to pain.”
The 15 Minute Back Pain Solutionhas been written specifically to address the muscles that cause low back pain, sciatica, sacroiliac joint pain, and even knee pain.
Pictures and graphics, and detailed text will explain how to do each step.
A specialized tool was developed to enable you to get the proper strength and focus on the spasms that cause both these problems. The TotalTX tool also can be used for problems from your shoulders to your lower legs, and it’s all in the “how to” book included with the Julstro System.
Plus, with each one of these products you will receive a gift of a Julstro Perfect Ball (a $9.00 value) so you’ll have the tool to reach difficult spots, and to do all of the treatments taught in the books.
If you were around in the 60’s, you might remember the song “England Swings Like a Pendulum Do”. It was a cute song, but it had nothing to do with pendulums. This week I am talking about something that really does resemble a pendulum – the question of whether omega-3s reduce heart disease risk.
There is perhaps nothing more confusing to the average person than the “truth” about omega-3s and heart disease risk. The headlines and expert opinion on the topic swing wildly between “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s have no effect on heart disease risk” and back again. To me these swings resemble the swings of a pendulum – hence the title of this article.
Part of the reason for the wild swings is that journalists and most “experts” tend to rely on the latest study and ignore previous studies. Another contributing factor is that most journalists and experts read only the main conclusions in the article abstract. They don’t read and analyze the whole study.
So, in today’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I plan to:
Analyze 3 major studies that have influenced our understanding of the relationship between omega-3 intake and heart disease risk. I will tell you what the experts missed about these studies and why they missed it.
Summarize what you should know about omega-3 intake and your risk of heart disease.
Why Is The Role Of Omega-3s In Preventing Heart Disease So Confusing?
In answering that question, let me start with what I call “Secrets Only Scientists Know”.
#1: Each study is designed to disprove previous studies. That is a strength of the scientific method. But it guarantees there will be studies on both sides of every issue.
Responsible scientists look at all high-quality studies and base their opinions on the weight of evidence. Journalists and less-responsible “experts” tend to “cherry pick” the studies that match their opinions.
#2: Every study has its flaws. Even high-quality studies have unintended flaws. And I have some expertise in identifying unintended flaws.
I published over 100 papers that went through the peer review process. And I was involved in the peer review of manuscripts submitted by other scientists. In the discussion below I will use my experience in reviewing scientific studies to identify unintended flaws in 3 major studies on omega-3s and heart disease risk.
Next, let me share the questions I ask when reviewing studies on omega-3s and heart disease. I am just sharing the questions here. Later I will share examples of how these questions allowed me to identify unintended flaws in the studies I review below.
#1: How did they define heart disease? The headlines you read usually refer to the effect of omega-3s on “heart disease”. However, heart disease is a generic term. In layman’s terms, it encompasses angina, heart attacks, stroke due to blood clots, stroke due brain bleeds, congestive heart failure, impaired circulation, and much more.
Omega-3s have vastly different effects on different forms of heart disease, so it is important to know which form(s) of heart disease the study examined. And if the study included all forms of heart disease, it is important to know whether they also looked at the forms of heart disease where omega-3s have been shown to have the largest impact.
#2: What was the risk level of the patients in the study? If the patients in the study are at imminent risk of a heart attack or major cardiovascular event, it is much easier to show an effect than if they are at low risk.
For example, it is easy to show that statins reduce the risk of a second heart attack in someone who has just suffered a heart attack. These are high-risk patients. However, if you look at patients with high cholesterol but no other risk factors for heart disease, it is almost impossible to show a benefit of statins. These are low-risk patients.
If it is difficult to show that statins benefit low-risk patients, why should we expect to be able to show that omega-3s benefit low-risk patients?
[Note: I am not saying that statins do not benefit low-risk patients. I am just saying it is very difficult to prove they do in clinical studies.]
#3: How much omega-3s are the patients getting in their diet? The public reads the headlines. When the headlines say that omega-3s are good for their hearts, they tend to take omega-3 supplements. When the headlines say omega-3s are worthless, they cut back on omega-3 supplements. So, there is also a pendulum effect for omega-3 intake.
Omega-3s are fats. So, omega-3s accumulate in our cell membranes. The technical term for the amount of omega-3s in our cellular membranes is something called “Omega-3 Index”. Previous studies have shown that:
An omega-3 index of 4% or less is associated with high risk of heart disease, and…
An omega-3 index of 8% or more is associated with a low risk of heart disease.
When the omega-3 index approaches 8%, adding more omega-3 is unlikely to provide much additional benefit. Yet many studies either don’t measure or ignore the omega-3 index of patients they are enrolling in the study.
#4: How many and what drugs were the patients taking? Many heart disease patients are taking drugs that lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, reduce inflammation, and reduce the risk of blood clot formation. These drugs do the same things that omega-3s do. This decreases the likelihood that you can see any benefit from increasing omega-3s intake.
The Omega-3 Pendulum
With all this in mind let’s examine three major double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that looked at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk and came to different conclusions. Here is a summary of the studies.
GISSI Study
ASCEND Study
VITAL Study
11,000 participants
15,480 participants
25,871 participants
Followed for 3.5 years
Followed for 7.4 years
Followed for 5.3 years
Europe
USA
USA
Published in 1999
Published in 2018
Published in 2019
Dose = 1 gm/day
Dose = 1 gm/day
Dose = 1 gm/day
20% ↓ in heart disease deaths
No effect on fatal or non-fatal heart attack or stroke
Significant ↓ in some forms of heart disease
45% ↓ in fatal heart attack or stroke – as effective as statins
Significant ↓ in heart disease risk for some patients
At first glance the study designs look similar, so why did these studies give such different results. This is where the unintended flaws come into play. Let’s look at each study in more detail.
The GISSI Study:
The patients enrolled in this study all had suffered a heart attack in the previous 3 months. They were at very high risk of suffering a second heart attack within the next couple of years.
Omega-3 intake was not measured in this study. But it was uncommon for Europeans to supplement with omega-3s in the 90’s. And European studies on omega-3 intake during that period generally found that omega-3 intake was low.
Patients enrolled in this study were generally taking only 2 heart disease drugs, a beta-blocker and a blood pressure drug.
The ASCEND Study:
The patients enrolled in this study had diabetes without any evidence of heart disease. Only 17% of the patients enrolled in the study were at high risk of heart disease. 83% were at low risk. Remember, it is difficult to show a benefit of any intervention in low-risk patients.
The average omega-3 index of patients enrolled in this study was 7.1%. That means omega-3 levels were near optimal at the beginning of the study. Adding additional omega-3s was unlikely to show much benefit.
Most of the patients in this study were on 3-5 heart drugs and 1-2 diabetes drugs which duplicated the effects of omega-3s.
That means this study was asking a very different question. It was asking whether omega-3s provided any additional benefit for patients who were already taking multiple drugs that duplicated the effects of omega-3s.
However, you would have never known that from the headlines. The headlines simply said this study showed omega-3s were ineffective at preventing heart disease.
Simply put, this study was doomed to fail. However, despite its many flaws the authors reported that omega-3s did reduce one form of heart disease, namely vascular deaths (primarily due to heart attack and stroke). Somehow this observation never made it into the headlines.
The VITAL Study:
This study enrolled a cross-section of the American population aged 55 or older (average age = 67). As you might suspect for a cross-section of the American population, most of the participants in this study were at low risk for heart disease. This limited the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation in the whole population.
However, there were subsets of the group who were at high risk of heart disease (more about that below).
This study excluded omega-3 supplement users The average omega-3 index of patients enrolled in this study was 2.7% at the beginning of the study and increased substantially during the study. This enhanced the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation.
Participants in this study were only using statins and blood pressure medications. People using more medications were excluded from the study. This also enhanced the ability of the study to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation.
The authors reported that “Supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids did not result in a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events…” This is what lazy journalists and many experts reported about the study.
However, the authors designed the study so they could also:
Look at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in high-risk groups. They found that major cardiovascular events were reduced by:
26% in African Americans.
26% in patients with diabetes.
17% in patients with a family history of heart disease.
19% in patients with two or more risk factors of heart disease.
Look at the effect of omega-3s on heart disease risk in people with low omega-3 intake. They found that omega-3 supplementation reduced major cardiovascular events by:
19% in patients with low fish intake.
Look at the effect of omega-3s on the risk of different forms of heart disease. They found that omega-3 supplementation reduced:
Heart attacks by 28% in the general population and by 70% for African Americans.
Deaths from heart attacks by 50%.
Deaths from coronary heart disease (primarily heart attacks and ischemic strokes (strokes caused by blood clots)) by 24%.
In summary, if you take every study at face value it seems like the pendulum is constantly swinging from “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s are worthless” and back again. There appears to be no explanation for the difference in results from one study to the next.
However, if you remember that even good studies have unintended flaws and ask the four questions I proposed above, it all makes sense.
How is heart disease defined? Studies looking at heart attack and/or ischemic stroke are much more likely to show a benefit of omega-3s than studies that include all forms of heart disease.
Are the patients at low-risk or high-risk for heart disease? Studies in high-risk populations are much more likely to show a benefit than studies in low-risk populations.
What is the omega-3 intake of participants in the study? Studies in populations with low omega-3 intake are more likely to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation than studies in populations with high omega-3 intake.
How many heart drugs are the patients taking? Studies in people taking no more than one or two heart drugs are more likely to show a benefit of omega-3 supplementation than studies in people taking 3-5 heart drugs.
When you view omega-3 clinical studies through the lens of these 4 questions, the noise disappears. It is easy to see why these studies came to different conclusions.
Who Benefits Most From Omega-3s?
The answers to this question are clear:
People at high risk of heart disease are most likely to benefit from omega-3 supplementation.
People with low omega-3 intake are most likely to benefit from omega-3 supplementation.
Omega-3 supplementation appears to have the biggest effect on heart attack and ischemic stroke (stroke due to blood clots). Its effect on other forms of heart disease is less clear.
Omega-3 supplementation appears to be most effective at preventing heart disease if you are taking no more than 1 or 2 heart drugs. It may provide little additional benefit if you are taking multiple heart drugs. However, you might want to have a conversation with your doctor about whether omega-3 supplementation might allow you to reduce or eliminate some of those drugs.
What about the general population? Is omega-3 supplementation useful for patients who are at low to moderate risk of heart disease?
If we compare omega-3 studies with statin studies, the answer would be yes. Remember that statins cannot be shown to reduce heart attacks in low-risk populations. However, because they are clearly effective in high-risk patients, the medical community assumes they should be beneficial in low-risk populations. The same argument could be made for omega-3s.
We also need to recognize that our ability to recognize those who are at high risk of heart disease is imperfect. For too many Americans, the first indication that they have heart disease is sudden death!
When I was still teaching, I invited a cardiologist to speak to my class of first year medical students. He told the students, only partly in jest, that he felt statins were so beneficial they “should be added to the drinking water”.
I feel the same way about omega-3s:
Most Americans do not get enough omega-3s in our diet.
Our omega-3 index is usually much closer to 4% (high risk of heart disease) than 8% (low risk of heart disease).
Many of us may not realize that we are at high risk of heart disease until it is too late.
And omega-3s have other health benefits.
For all these reasons, omega-3 supplementation only makes sense.
The Bottom Line
There is perhaps nothing more confusing to the average person than the “truth” about omega-3s and heart disease risk. The headlines and expert opinion on the topic swing wildly between “omega-3s reduce heart disease risk” to “omega-3s have no effect on heart disease risk” and back again. To me these swings resemble the swings of a pendulum – hence the title of this article.
If you take every study at face value, there appears to be no explanation for the difference in results from one study to the next. However, if you recognize that even good studies have unintended flaws and ask four simple questions to expose these flaws, it all makes sense.
For the four questions you should ask when reviewing any omega-3 study and my recommendations for who benefits the most from omega-3 supplementation, read the article above.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Everyone over 50 is searching for the elusive “Fountain Of Youth”.
We want to look younger.
We want to feel younger.
We want the energy we had in our 20s.
We want to be rid of the diseases of aging.
The list goes on!
But how do we do that? Pills and potions abound that claim to reverse the aging process. Most just reverse your wallet.
Should we train for marathons or bodybuilding contests?
Should we meditate or do yoga to relieve stress?
Should we get serious about losing weight?
Should we get more sleep?
Is there some miracle diet that can slow the aging process?
All the above probably slow the aging process, but the evidence is best for the effect of diet on aging. Several recent meta-analyses have looked at the effect of diet on the risk of premature deaths. In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I review a study (LT Fadnes et al, PLoS Medicine, February 8, 2022) that combines the best of these meta-analyses into a single database and provides a provocative insight into the effect of diet on longevity.
How Was This Study Done?
This study combined data from recent meta-analyses looking at the impact of various food groups on the risk of premature deaths with the Global Burden of Disease Study which provides population-level estimates of life years lost due to dietary risk factors.
The authors then developed a new algorithm that allowed them to estimate how different diets affect sex- and age-specific life expectancy.
They divided the population into three different diet categories based on their intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, fish, eggs, dairy, refined grains, red meat, processed meat, white meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added plant oils. The diet categories were:
Typical Western Diet (TW). This diet was based on average consumption data from the United States and Europe. This was their baseline.
Optimal diet (OD). This diet is similar to a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet. However, it was not a purely vegan diet nor a purely semi-vegetarian diet. Instead, it represented the best diet people in this study were consuming.
Feasibility diet (FA). This diet recognizes that few people are willing to make the kind of changes required to attain an optimal diet. It is halfway between the Typical Western Diet and the Optimal Diet.
To help you understand these diets based on the foods the study participants were eating, here are the comparisons in terms of daily servings:
Food
TW Diet
FA Diet
OD Diet
Whole grains
1.5 servings
4.3 servings
7 servings
Vegetables
3 servings
4 servings
5 servings
Fruits
2.5 servings
3.75 servings
5 servings
Nuts
0 serving*
0.5 serving*
1 serving*
Legumes
0 serving**
0.5 serving**
1 serving**
Fish
0.25 serving
0.5 serving
1 serving
Eggs
1 egg
0.75 egg
0.5 egg
Dairy
1.5 servings
1.25 servings
1 serving
Refined grains
3 servings
2 servings
1 serving
Red meat
1 serving
0.5 serving
0 serving
Processed meat
2 servings
1 serving
0 serving
White meat
0.75 serving
0.6 serving
0 serving
Sugar-sweetened beverages
17 oz
8.5 oz
0 oz
Added plant oils
2 tsp
2 tsp
2 tsp
*1 serving = 1 handful of nuts
**1 serving = 1 cup of beans, lentils, or peas
Using their algorithm, the authors asked what the effect on longevity would be if people changed from a typical western diet to one of the other diets at age 20, 60, or 80 and maintained the new diet for at least 10 years. The 10-year requirement is based on previous studies showing that it takes around 10 years for dietary changes to affect the major killer diseases like heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.
Finally, the authors improved the accuracy of their estimates of the effect of diet on longevity by taking into account the quality of each study included in their analysis. I will discuss the importance of this below.
Can Diet Add Years To Your Life?
The results were impressive.
The authors estimated that if people in the United States were to change from a typical western diet to an “optimal diet” and maintain it for at least 10 years,
…starting at age 20, men would live 13 years longer and women would live 10.7 years longer.
…starting at age 60, men would live 8.8 years longer and women would live 8 years longer.
…starting at age 80, both men and women would live 3.4 years longer.
But what if you weren’t a vegan purist? What if you only made half the changes you would need to make to optimize your diet? The news was still good.
The authors estimated that people in the United States were to change from a typical western diet to a “feasibility diet” and maintain it for at least 10 years,
…starting at age 20, men would live 7.3 years longer and women would live 6.2 years longer.
…starting at age 60, men would live 4.8 years longer and women would live 4.5 years longer.
…starting at age 80, both men and women would live ~2 years longer.
The authors concluded, “A sustained dietary change may give substantial health gains for people of all ages for both optimized and feasible [diet] changes. [These health gains] could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years. Gains are predicted to be larger the earlier the dietary changes are initiated in life.”
Which Foods Have The Biggest Effect On Longevity?
The algorithm the authors developed also allowed them to look at which foods have the biggest effect on longevity. The authors estimated when changing from a typical western diet to an optimal diet, the greatest gains in longevity were made by eating:
More legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and…
Less red and processed meat.
The authors concluded, “An increase in the intake of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and a reduction in the intake of red meat and processed meats, contributed most to these gains [in longevity].”
However, this conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution. We also need to recognize that an “optimal diet” was defined as the best diet people in this study were eating. In addition, the effect of different foods on longevity depends on:
The quality of the individual studies with that food, and…
The difference in consumption of that food in going from a western diet to an optimal diet.
For example:
Legumes, whole grains, nuts, red & processed meat made the list because the quality of data was high and the difference in consumption between the typical western diet and optimal diet was significant.
The quality of data for an effect of fruits and vegetables was also high. For example, one majorstudy concluded that consuming 10 servings a day of fruits and vegetables a day reduces premature death by 31% compared to consumption of less than 1 serving a day. However, the difference in consumption of fruits and vegetables between the western and optimal diets in this study was small, so fruits and vegetables didn’t make the list.
Eggs and white meat didn’t make the list because the quality of data was low for those foods. Simply put, that means that there was a large variation in effect of those foods on longevity between studies.
Other foods didn’t make the list because the quality of data was only moderate and/or the difference in intake was small.
So, the best way to interpret this these data is:
This study suggests that consuming more legumes, whole grains, and nuts and less red & processed meats has a significant beneficial effect on health and longevity.
Consuming more fruits and vegetables is likely to have a significant benefit on health and longevity, but you would need to consume more than people did in this study to achieve these benefits. In the words of the authors, “Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but, for these food groups, the intake in a typical Western diet is closer to the optimal intake than for the other food groups.”
Other foods may impact health and longevity, but the data in this study are not good enough to be confident of an effect.
What Does This Study Mean For You?
This study is the best of many studies showing the benefit of a more plant-based diet on health and longevity. It particularly encouraging because it shows:
You can achieve significant benefit by switching to a more plant-based diet late in life. You get the biggest “bang for your buck” if you switch at age 20. But even making the switch at age 60 or 80 was beneficial.
You don’t need to be a “vegan purist”. While the biggest benefits were seen for people who came close to achieving a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet, people who only made half those changes saw significant benefits.
As I said above, this is a very strong study. However, the underlying data come from association studies, which can have confounding variables that influence the results.
For example, people who eat more plant-based diets tend to weigh less and exercise more. And both of those variables can influence longevity. Each study attempted to statistically correct for those variables, but they still might have a slight influence on the results.
However, I don’t see that as a problem because, in my view, a holistic approach is always best. As illustrated on the right, we should be seeking a lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, weight control, and exercise.
As for supplementation, both the vegan and semi-vegetarian diets tend to leave out whole food groups. Unless you are married to a dietitian, that means your diet is likely to be missing important nutrients.
The Bottom Line
A recent study asked whether changing from the typical western diet to a healthier, more plant-based diet could influence longevity. The results were very encouraging. The study showed that:
Changing to a healthier diet could add up to a decade to your lifespan.
The improvement in lifespan was greatest for those whose diets approached a vegan or semi-vegetarian diet, but a significant improvement in lifespan was seen for people who made only half those dietary improvements.
The improvement in lifespan was greatest for those who switched to a healthier diet in their 20’s, but significant improvements in lifespan were seen for people who didn’t change their diet until their 60’s or 80’s.
In terms of the foods that have the biggest effect on longevity.
This study suggests that consuming more legumes, whole grains, and nuts and less red & processed meats has a significant beneficial effect on health and longevity.
Consuming more fruits and vegetables is likely to have a significant benefit on health and longevity, but you would need to consume more than people did in this study to achieve those benefits.
Other foods may impact health and longevity, but the data in this study are not good enough to be confident of an effect.
The authors concluded, “A sustained dietary change may give substantial health gains for people of all ages for both optimized and feasible [diet] changes. [These health gains] could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years. Gains are predicted to be larger the earlier the dietary changes are initiated in life.
An increase in the intake of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, and a reduction in the intake of red meat and processed meats, contributed most to these gains. Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but, for these food groups, the intake in a typical Western diet is closer to the optimal intake than for the other food groups.”
For more details about this study and what it means for you, read the article above.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
You may be one of the millions of Americans who celebrated St. Patrick’s Day a couple of weeks ago. If so, you may have sung the famous Irish folk song “The Wearing of the Green”. If you are Irish, that song has special meaning for you. However, when I hear that song, I think of “Eating of the Green.”
And when I think of eating green, I don’t mean that everything we eat should be green. I am thinking of whole fruits and vegetables in a variety of colors. We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our health. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated a lower risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, inflammatory diseases, and much more.
For today’s health tip, I am going to focus on heart health and an unexpected explanation for how fruits and vegetables reduce our risk of heart disease.
Why Is Eating Green Good For Your Heart?
We have assumed that whole fruits and vegetables lower our risk of heart disease because they are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. All of that is true. But could there be more?
Recent research has suggested that the nitrates found naturally in fruits and vegetables may also play a role in protecting our hearts. Here is what recent research shows:
The nitrates from fruits and vegetables are converted to nitrite by bacteria in our mouth and intestines.
Fruits and vegetables account for 80% of the nitrate in our diet. The rest comes from a variety of sources including the nitrate added as a preservative to processed meats.
Although all fruits and vegetables contain nitrates, the best sources are green leafy vegetables and beetroot. [Beet greens are delicious and also a good source of nitrate, but beetroot is the part of the beet we usually consume.]
Nitrite is absorbed from our intestine and converted to nitric oxide by a variety of enzymes in our tissues.
Both reactions require antioxidants like vitamin C, which are also found in fruits and vegetables.
Nitric oxide has several heart healthy benefits. For example:
It helps reduce inflammation in the lining of blood vessels. Inflammation stimulates atherosclerosis, blood clot formation, and is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
It relaxes the smooth muscle cells that surround our blood vessels. This makes the blood vessels more flexible and helps reduce blood pressure.
It prevents smooth muscle cells from proliferating, which prevents them from invading and constricting our arteries. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of atherosclerosis.
It prevents platelet aggregation. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke due to blood clots that block the flow of blood to our heart or brain.
It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.
This study made use of data from the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Program. That program enrolled 53,150 participants from Copenhagen and Aarhus between 1993 and 1997 and followed them for an average of 21 years. None of the participants had a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease at the beginning of the study.
Other characteristics of the participants at the time they were enrolled in the study were:
46% male
Average age = 56
BMI = 26 (>20% overweight)
Average systolic blood pressure = 140 mg Hg
Average diastolic blood pressure = 84 mg Hg
At the beginning of the study, participants filled out a 192-item food frequency questionnaire that assessed their average intake of various food and beverage items over the previous 12 months. The vegetable nitrate content of their diets was analyzed using a comprehensive database of the nitrate content of 178 vegetables. For those vegetables not consumed raw, the nitrate content was reduced by 50% to account for the nitrate loss during cooking.
Blood pressure was measured at the beginning of the study. Data on the incidence (first diagnosis) of heart disease during the study was obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry. Data were collected on diagnosis of the following heart health parameters:
Cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the circulatory system).
Ischemic heart disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the heart). The symptoms of ischemic heart disease range from angina to myocardial infarction (heart attack).
Ischemic stroke (lack of sufficient blood flow to the brain).
Hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in brain).
Heart failure.
Peripheral artery disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the extremities).
Is Nitrate From Vegetables Good For Your Heart?
Intake of nitrate from vegetables ranged from 18 mg/day (<1/3 serving of nitrate-rich vegetables per day) to 168 mg (almost 3 servings of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). The participants were grouped into quintiles based on their vegetable nitrate intake. When the group with the highest vegetable nitrate intake was compared to the group with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:
Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 2.58 mg Hg.
Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 1.38 mg Hg.
Risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.
Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.
Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.
Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.
Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.
Risk of hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) was not significantly reduced.
Two other observations were of interest:
Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion. However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.
Only about 21.9% of the improvement in heart health could be explained by the decrease in blood pressure. This is not surprising when you consider the other beneficial effects of nitric oxide described above.
The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Are Nitrates Good For You Or Bad For You?
You are probably thinking, “Wait a minute. I thought nitrates and nitrites were supposed to be bad for me. Which is it? Are nitrates good for me or bad for me?”
It turns out that nitrates and nitrites are kind of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They can be either good or bad. It depends on the food they are in and your overall diet.
Remember the beginning of this article when I said that the conversion of nitrates to nitric oxide depended on the presence of antioxidants? Vegetables are great sources of antioxidants. So, when we get our nitrate from vegetables, most of it is converted to nitric oxide. And, as I discussed above, nitric oxide is good for us.
However, when nitrates and nitrites are added to processed meats as a preservative, the story is much different. Processed meats have zero antioxidants. And the protein in the meats is broken down to amino acids in our intestine. The amino acids combine with nitrate to form nitrosamines, which are cancer-causing chemicals. Nitrosamines are bad for us.
Of course, we don’t eat individual foods by themselves. We eat them in the context of a meal. If you eat small amounts of nitrate-preserved processed meats in the context of a meal with antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, some of the nitrate will be converted to nitric oxide rather than nitrosamines. The processed meat won’t be as bad for you.
Eating Of The Green
Your mother was right. You should eat your fruits and vegetables!
The USDA recommends at least 3 servings of vegetables and 2 servings of fruit a day.
Based on this study, at least one of those servings should be nitrate-rich vegetables like green leafy vegetables and beets.
If you don’t like any of those, radishes, turnips, watercress, Bok choy, Chinese cabbage, kohlrabi, chicory leaf, onion, and fresh garlic are also excellent sources of nitrate.
The good news is that you may not need to eat green leafy vegetables and beets with every meal. If this study is correct, one serving per day may have heart health benefits. That means you can enjoy a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables as you try to meet the USDA recommendations.
Finally, if you don’t like any of those foods, you may be asking, “Can’t I just take a nitrate supplement?”
For blood pressure, there are dozens of clinical trials, and the answer seems to be yes – especially when the nitrate comes from vegetable sources and the supplement also contains an antioxidant like vitamin C.
For heart health benefits, the answer is likely to be yes, but clinical trials to confirm that would take decades. Double blind, placebo-controlled trials of that duration are not feasible, so we will never know for sure.
Moreover, you would not be getting all the other health benefits of a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables. Supplementation has its benefits, but it is not meant to replace a healthy diet.
The Bottom Line
We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our hearts. We have assumed that was because whole fruits and vegetables are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. But could there be more?
It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.
However, few studies have asked whether this reduction in blood pressure translates into improved cardiovascular outcomes. A recent study was designed to answer that question.
When the study compared people with the highest vegetable nitrate intake to people with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:
Blood pressure was significantly reduced.
The risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.
Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.
Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.
Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.
Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.
Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion.
However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.
The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Of course, you may have heard that nitrates and nitrites are bad for you. I discuss that in the article above.
For more details about this study and what it means for you, read the article above.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?
Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney
Supplementation for cancer patients is a controversial topic.
Dr. Strangelove and his friends promote a variety of herbal ingredients, vitamins, and minerals as a cure for various kinds of cancer.
Unscrupulous supplement companies hype their cancer “cures”.
Doctors often tell their patients to avoid all supplements while they are being treated for cancer.
Nutrition experts and some doctors tell us that a good diet and basic supplementation help normal cells recover from cancer treatment and improve patient outcomes.
Where is the truth? For this article I will break it down into three questions:
2) Does supplementation interfere with cancer treatment? I will provide a perspective and practical advice on this question based on my 40 years of cancer research.
3) Does supplementation prevent (reduce the risk of) cancer? I have covered this topic in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Just put cancer or breast cancer in the search box to find the relevant articles.
But before I answer these questions, I should cover my favorite topic as a Biochemist, “Metabolism 101”. Specifically, “Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation?”
Metabolism 101: Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation?
Let me start out by saying that there are two kinds of stress.
Psychological stress is our body’s response to a hectic day or a stressful work environment.
Metabolic stress is our body’s response to trauma or a major disease.
Dr. Strangelove and his buddies will tell you that psychological stress increases your nutritional needs. And they just happen to have the perfect blend of vitamins and minerals for you. However, this is a myth.
Psychological stress has relatively little effect on your nutritional needs. If you have a nutritional deficiency, supplementation can help you cope with psychological stress, but psychological stress doesn’t create nutritional deficiencies.
Metabolic stress, on the other hand, has a major effect on your nutritional needs.
Trauma and major diseases put you in a catabolic state. Catabolism literally means “breaking down”. You are breaking down your body tissues at an alarming rate. This affects every aspect of your health, including your immune system.
Trauma and major disease also increase your need for certain micronutrients. Plus, there are often loss of appetite and mobility issues that prevent you from getting the nutrients you need.
Research in the 60s and 70s showed that providing hospitalized patients with protein, energy in the form of healthy fats and carbohydrates, and micronutrients significantly shortened hospital stays and improved outcomes. Today, nutritional support is the standard of care for severely ill hospital patients.
Cancer is the poster child for metabolic stress.
It forces the body into a catabolic state to provide nutrients the cancer needs to grow.
That is why cancer patients often experience dramatic weight loss and weakness from muscle loss.
Catabolism also weakens the immune system, which is one of the most important tools in our fight against cancer.
To make matters worse:
Cancer treatment destroys normal cells as well as tumor cells. Because of this cancer patients sometimes die from the treatment, not the cancer.
Cancer treatment often causes nausea and/or suppresses appetite, which makes it even harder for cancer patients to get the nutrients they need from their diet.
Because of this, you would think that nutritional support would be the standard of care for cancer patients, but it isn’t. Because of fears that nutritional support might “feed cancer cells” or interfere with chemotherapy, there have been very few studies of supplementation in cancer patients. That is what makes this study so important.
How Was This Study Done?
This study took advantage of the fact that supplementation is prevalent among cancer patients even though their doctors may not have recommended it.
This study drew on data from the 2011-2012 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is a yearly survey that monitors the health and nutritional status of non-institutionalized adults in the US population.
NHANES participants were asked to respond to a medical condition questionnaire in their homes by a trained interviewer. In one portion of the interview, they were asked if they had ever been told they had cancer, arthritis, diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or hypertension. The participants were also asked if they had been hospitalized with one of those diseases.
The study consisted of 14 million people who answered ‘yes’ to the question, “Have you ever been told you had a cancer or malignancy?” The participants were selected to give an equal number of supplement users and non-users who were closely matched for age, sex, race, and other demographics.
All NHANES participants were asked to fill in two 24-hour dietary recalls separated by 3-10 days. The dietary recalls included supplement use but did not identify the kind of supplements used.
Finally, participants in the NHANES survey were asked to rate their physical and mental health on a scale from 1 (excellent health) to 5 (poor health). Participants were also asked to indicate on how many days in the past 30 days their physical or mental health was not good. A quality-of-life score was calculated from these data.
Does Supplementation Improve Outcomes For Cancer Patients?
The study found that for cancer patients:
Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
This is important because:
Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
The self-reported quality of life score was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.
This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.
This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.
A major strength of the study is the large sample size (> 14 million US adults).
A major limitation of this study is that the NHANES survey does not record which supplements people were using.
The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”
Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?
The reason that supplementation is not more widely recommended for cancer patients is two-fold.
1) There is a fear among many doctors that improved nutrition will feed the cancer cells and promote tumor growth.
This thinking is like the famous quote from a general during the Vietnamese war that, “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it [from the Viet Cong]”.
We need healthy normal cells to fight the cancer and for good quality of life while we are fighting the cancer. We need to protect these cells while we are destroying the cancer cells. We cannot afford to destroy the whole “village”.
For example, both cancer treatment and the catabolism associated with the cancer weaken the immune system, and a strong immune system is essential to successfully fight the cancer.
2) There is also a fear that supplementation will interfere with cancer treatment. This is a more legitimate fear and deserves a more in-depth analysis.
There are some instances where supplementation can clearly interfere with treatment. For example,
Radiation treatment relies on the production of free radicals. High-dose antioxidants have been shown to interfere with radiation treatment.
Some drugs act by suppressing folate levels in cells. High-dose B complex or folic acid supplements would clearly interfere with these drugs. However, high-dose folic acid supplementation is often used before and after drug treatment to “rescue” normal cells.
There are other cases where supplementation is likely to interfere with treatment.
A few drugs depend in part on free radical formation. High-dose antioxidants have the potential to interfere with these drugs.
Some herbal supplements activate enzymes involved in the metabolism of certain anti-cancer drugs. While these interactions are rare, they could interfere with the effectiveness of these drugs. [Note: This concern only applies to certain herbal supplements. It does not apply to vitamin-mineral supplements.]
Most other fears about supplement-drug interactions are theoretical. There are neither potential mechanisms nor evidence to support those fears.
However, there is a strategy for minimizing the potential for supplement-drug interactions based on the science of pharmacokinetics. Simply put:
Most cases of supplement-drug interactions can be avoided by assuring that high doses of anti-cancer drugs and nutrients that might interfere with those drugs are not present in the bloodstream at the same time.
Pharmocokinetic studies tell us that most anticancer drugs and nutrients are cleared from the bloodstream in 24-48 hours.
So, my standard recommendation is to avoid supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and wait to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment. This recommendation does not apply to radiation treatment since it is done on a daily basis.
However, there are a few drugs that are cleared from the bloodstream more slowly, so it is always best to check with your pharmacist or doctor before deciding on the appropriate window to avoid supplementation. The goal is always to protect normal cells without interfering with the drug’s ability to kill cancer cells.
Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements?
With the information I have shared above in mind, I am now ready to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this article, “Should cancer patients take supplements?” The answer is a qualified, “Yes”.
Let me start with the yes, and then talk about the qualifications.
This study makes clear that cancer is like every other major disease that can land you in the hospital. Nutritional support, including protein supplements, vitamins, and minerals, can reduce your risk of hospitalization, get you out of the hospital quicker, and improve your quality of life.
A strong immune system is important for fighting cancer, so immune-supporting supplements may also be important for cancer patients.
Note I did not say that supplementation can cure cancer. There is little evidence to support that claim.
The role of supplementation in preventing cancer is complex. I have covered this in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Let me summarize by saying that supplementation can play a role in preventing cancer when nutrient levels are suboptimal. However, the evidence that megadoses of nutrients can prevent cancer is scant.
The qualifications mostly revolve around taking supplements while undergoing cancer treatment. To summarize what I said above:
There are a few cases in which supplements clearly interfere with cancer treatment.
There are other cases in which supplements are likely to interfere with cancer treatment.
However, in most cases supplement-treatment interactions are only theoretical.
In most cases any interaction between supplements and anti-cancer drugs can be minimized by avoiding supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and waiting to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment.
However, there are exceptions to this rule, so it is always best to consult your pharmacist or doctor if in doubt.
The Bottom Line
A recent study looked at the effect of supplementation for patients with cancer. The study found that for cancer patients:
Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
This is important because:
Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
The self-reported quality of life was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.
This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.
This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.
The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”
For more details, a discussion on the effect of supplementation on cancer treatment, and a summary of what this study means for you, read the article above.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert
Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney
What Pillow Is Best For You?
The way you sleep is often a key to discovering the cause of headaches and more. If you wake up with neck pain, a headache, or you suffer from ringing in your ears, dizziness, or ear pain, there is a good possibility that it may be caused by the way you are sleeping.
Your pillow may be the culprit, but it’s easy to find the best pillow for you, it just takes a little “investigation.” And the best pillow for you depends on how you sleep.
The Best Pillow If You Sleep On Your Side
Your head, neck, and spine need to always stay in a nice straight line, just as it is when you are standing up, but that takes a little thought and understanding of the way you sleep. So, get comfy in your bed and then notice how your head is resting.
If you sleep on your side, your pillow needs to be just the right size, so your head doesn’t point down toward the mattress (your pillow is too soft) or up to the ceiling (your pillow is too thick). Either of these positions will make the muscles on the side of your neck stay in the contracted position for hours and pull your vertebrae in that direction, especially when you try to turn over to your other side
Your SCM Muscle May Cause Serious Problems
You also need to notice if you turn your head a bit, especially if you are turning into your pillow or turning your head up toward away from your pillow. In either of these two cases you will be causing your sternocleidomastoid (SCM for short) to be held shortened for hours.
Your SCM originates on your collarbone and inserts into the bone behind your ear, and when it contracts you turn your head to the opposite side. However, if the muscle is tight (for example, when you’ve held your head turned toward one side for an extended period of time) and then you bring your head back, so you are facing forward, the tight muscle will pull on the bone behind your ear and cause havoc.
The symptoms for a tight SCM are tinnitus (ringing in the ear), dizziness, loss of equilibrium, ear pain, headaches, pain in the eye and around the skull, pain at the top of the head, and even pain in the throat. Amazing! What’s even more amazing is that it’s rare that this muscle is considered when a medical professional is searching for the cause of your symptoms.
The Best Pillow If You Sleep On Your Back
If you sleep on your back, your head should be on the mattress (not propped up with a pillow) and you should have a tiny support (like a folded washcloth) under your neck, or you can have a wedge pillow that starts at your mid-back and gently raises your entire trunk and head up while still allowing your head and back to be in a straight line.
It’s always a challenge for people who toss and turn during the night, sometimes on their side and sometimes on their back. The best thing I’ve found for this situation is to have the pillow below shoulder level so when you turn on your side your shoulder will automatically slide to the edge of the pillow while still supporting your head properly, and when you turn onto your back, the pillow will start at shoulder level so your head and neck are supported, but your head is being pushed in a way that causes your chin to move down to your chest.
It’s tricky, but I can personally attest to the fact that it will work. I can always tell when I’ve had my head tilted (I toss and turn during the night) because I will wake with a headache. When that happens I’m grateful that I know how to self-treat the muscles of my neck and shoulders, so the headache is eliminated quickly. If you already have Treat Yourself to Pain Free Living you can self-treat all your neck and shoulder muscles to release the tension.
What If You Sleep On Your Stomach?
If you sleep on your stomach, this is the one position that is so bad that it behooves you to force yourself to change your position. Your head is turned to the side and held still for hours, putting a severe strain on all your cervical and upper thoracic vertebrae. Not only will this cause headaches, tinnitus, and a list of other pains, but it can cause problems down your entire spine. It can also impinge on the nerves that pass through the vertebrae on their way to your organs.
If you do sleep that way, let me know and I’ll give you some suggestions that work to change your habit of sleeping. It takes time and energy, but the results are worth the effort.
In every case, the way you sleep may cause neck pain that won’t go away until the pillow situation is resolved.
Wishing you well,
Julie Donnelly
www.FlexibleAthlete.com
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Happy Spring! My friends and family up north told me that it was a looooog winter, so I’m sure all you “Snow Birds” are thrilled to have Spring here at last.
If you have had a car accident you may have suffered from whiplash, which causes horrific headaches, because the bones of your neck have been forced out of alignment. In many cases neck pain is either caused, or complicated, by tension in a muscle called Levator Scapulae.
Put a ball, preferably the Perfect Ball, on the very top of your shoulder.
If you have either carpal tunnel syndrome or trigger finger, you’ll want to get the Julstro System For Hand/Wrist Pain And Numbness.
