Dr. Steve Chaney

Would You Like Cancer With That Burger?

by

Enjoy Your Cookouts Without Increasing Cancer Risk 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Barbecue GatheringIt is July and backyard cookouts are in full swing. One question that you probably won’t hear from your host or hostess is “Would you like cancer with that burger?” But perhaps that is exactly the question they should be asking.

  • You probably didn’t really want to know that when fat from the meat hits the hot coals, carcinogens form that are deposited on the meat.
  • You probably also didn’t want to know that when you cook meat to high temperatures the amino acids in the meat combine to form cancer causing substances.
  • And you really didn’t want to know that a recent study showed that men who consume well-done red meat were ~60% more likely to develop advanced prostate cancer.

Would You Like Cancer With That Burger?

Grilled HamburgersA recent study compared 531 people ages 40-79 who had recently been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer with 527 matched controls. Both groups were asked about their dietary intake of meats, usual meat cooking methods and doneness of the meat.

The results were quite striking:

  • Increased consumption of hamburgers was associated with a 79% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Increased consumption of processed meat was associated with a 57% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Grilled red meat was associated with a 63% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Well done red meat was associated with a 52% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.

However, those percentages are a little bit difficult to compare, because “increased consumption” was defined relative to what the usual consumption or cooking practice was. So put another way, weekly consumption of…

  • 3 or more servings of red meat or…
  • 5 or more servings of processed meat or…
  • 1 or more servings of grilled or well-done red meat…

…were associated with a 50% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.

In contrast, consumption of white meat was not associated with increased prostate cancer risk, no matter what the cooking method was used.

Enjoy Your Cookouts Without Increasing Cancer Risk

Grilled Chicken With VeggiesOur local newspaper recently carried some tips by Dr. Denise Snyder from the Duke University School of Nursing on how you could reduce the risk of giving your guests cancer the next time you are the chef at your backyard cookout.

Here are her suggestions:

  • Grill fruits and vegetables instead of meat. That was her idea, not mine. My editorial comment would be that grilling white meat (fish or chicken) may also be OK.
  • Use the lowest temperature that will cook your food thoroughly and keep the grill rack as high as possible.
  • Use a meat thermometer so that you can make sure that as soon as the meat is thoroughly cooked you remove it from the grill. We usually overcook the meat to make sure that it is done.
  • Shorten your grill time by microwaving the meat first, using thinner leaner cuts of meat or cutting up the meat and making kabobs.
  • Trim as much fat from the meat as possible before you cook it.
  • Line your grill rack with aluminum foil poked with holes. This allows the fat to drip down but minimizes the exposure of the meat to the carcinogens formed when the fat hits the coals.
  • Marinate your meats before grilling. That has been shown to reduce the formation of cancer-causing chemicals.
  • And, of course, avoid processed meats like hot dogs and sausage completely because they have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and diabetes no matter how they are cooked.

So, here’s to a healthier cookout. Bon appétit!

The Bottom Line

  1. You already knew that red meat and processed meats may increase your risk of cancer, but how you cook your red meat also matters. Grilling your meat and/or cooking it until it is well done appear to significantly increase your risk of developing advanced prostate cancer.

2) In contrast, consumption of white meat was not associated with increased cancer risk, no matter what the cooking method was used.

3) I have included several tips on how you can reduce the cancer risk associated with grilling red meats in the article above so you can enjoy both your cookouts and your health.

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.

Which Diet Is Best For Your Heart?

by

Why Are Dietary Studies So Confusing? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

heart diseaseYou are concerned about your heart.

  • Perhaps it is because of genetics. Everyone on one side of your family tree had their first heart attack in their mid-forties.
  • Perhaps it is because your doctor has warned you that your heart is a ticking time bomb. Unless you make some drastic changes, you will die of a heart attack in the near future.
  • Perhaps you already have some symptoms of heart disease, and you are scared.

You want to make some changes. You want to protect your heart. What should you do?

The short answer is that a holistic approach is best, and I will share the American Heart Association recommendations below. But let’s start by asking what you should eat. There are two important questions:

#1: Which diet is best for your heart?

  • A whole food vegan diet, the Mediterranean diet, and the DASH diet are all strong contenders for the best heart healthy diet.
  • But there are many other diets that claim to be heart healthy. Some enthusiasts even claim the Paleo and keto diets are heart healthy.
  • The problem is that few studies have compared these diets against each other. That makes it difficult to settle the question of which diet is best for your heart.

#2: Which protein source is best for your heart – plant protein, fish, poultry, or red meat?

  • Plant and fish protein are both strong contenders for the most heart healthy protein.
  • Poultry has the reputation of being more heart healthy than red meat. But this has become controversial. Some recent studies suggest poultry is no better than red meat in terms of heart health.

Fortunately, a recent study (F Petermann-Rocha et al, European Heart Journal, 42: 1136-1143, 2021) has made this comparison. It compared vegetarians, fish eaters, poultry eaters, and red meat eaters for the risk of developing heart disease.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study made use of data from the UK Biobank program. The UK Biobank program recruited over 500,000 participants (ages 37-73) from England, Wales, and Scotland between 2006 and 2010 and followed them for an average of 8.5 years.

At entry into the program, each participant filled out a touchscreen questionnaire, had physical measurements taken, and provided biological samples.

Dietary intake was assessed based on the touchscreen questionnaire and the average of 5 24-hour dietary recalls. The participants were divided into four groups based on this dietary analysis:

  • Vegetarians (All participants in the study consumed cheese and eggs, so this group would more accurately be described as lacto-ovo-vegetarians).
  • Fish eaters.
  • Poultry eaters.
  • Red meat eaters.

Over the next ~8.5 years, each group was compared with respect to the following heart health parameters:

  • Risk of developing cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the circulatory system).
  • Risk of developing ischemic heart disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the heart. The most common symptom of ischemic heart disease is angina).
  • Risk of having a myocardial infarction (commonly referred to as a heart attack).
  • Risk of having a stroke.
  • Risk of developing heart failure.

Which Diet Is Best For Your Heart?

The study compared vegetarians, fish eaters, and poultry eaters with red meat eaters with respect to each of the heart disease parameters listed above. The results were:

  • When fish eaters were compared with meat eaters, they had:
    • 7% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.
    • 21% lower risk of ischemic heart disease (angina).
    • 30% lower risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack).
    • 21% lower risk of stroke.
    • 22% lower risk of heart failure.
  • When vegetarians were compared with meat eaters, they had:
    • 9% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.
    • Lower, but statistically non-significant, risk of other heart disease parameters.
  • When poultry eaters were compared with meat eaters there were no significant differences in heart disease outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Eating fish rather than meat or poultry was associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes…supporting its role as a healthy diet that should be encouraged. Vegetarianism was only associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease incidence.”

Why Are Dietary Studies So Confusing?

confusionSo, you are probably thinking, “Are diets with fish protein really more heart healthy than diets with plant protein?”

Fish have a lot going for them. They are an excellent source of heart healthy omega-3 fats. And, when substituted for red meat protein, they decrease intake of saturated fats.”

But plant protein has a lot going for it as well. Numerous studies have shown that vegetarian diets are more heart healthy than the typical American diet. And only plant-based diets have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis.

So, why are dietary studies so confusing? The problem is that diets are complex. They have many moving parts. When we focus on one aspect of a diet, we are ignoring the rest of the diet. The food we have focused on may be healthy. But if it is paired with unhealthy foods, the overall diet can still be unhealthy.

The current study is a perfect example of that principle:

  • The participants represented a cross section of the British population. All the “diets” were high in sugar, sugary drinks, saturated fat, and processed meals bought from the supermarket. None of them were optimal.
  • In addition to consuming cheese and eggs, “vegetarians” consumed more crisps, slices of pizza, and smoothie drinks than meat-eaters. [In case you were wondering, the English refer to small thin salty snacks like potato chips as crisps. They reserve the term chips for what we call French Fries.]
  • “Vegetarians” also consumed a lot of highly processed vegetarian alternatives designed to taste like other meat products.
  • On the other hand, fish eaters consumed more fruits and vegetables than meat-eaters. It wasn’t just the fish that made this diet more heart healthy.

In other words, the “vegetarian diet” in this study was not nearly as healthy as the whole food vegetarian diets that have previously been shown to be heart healthy. And the “fish-eaters diet” was healthier than the “meat-eaters diet” because of both the fish and the extra fruits and vegetables these people were consuming.

In the words of the authors, “…As a group, vegetarians consumed more unhealthy foods, such as crisps, than meat eaters. Therefore, vegetarians should not be considered a homogeneous group, and avoidance of meat will not be sufficient to reduce health risk if the overall diet is not healthy.”

My summary:

  • Whole food plant-based diets (the true definition of vegetarianism) are very heart healthy. [Note: The diet in this study was lacto-ovo-vegetarian rather than a true vegetarian diet. However, recent studies have suggested that addition of small amounts of dairy and eggs to a vegetarian diet may make them more heart healthy rather than less heart healthy.]
  • Primarily plant-based diets with fish as the main protein source (otherwise known as pescatarian diets) are also very heart healthy.
  • If you want a healthy heart, choose the one that best fits your preferences and your lifestyle.

A Holistic Approach: The American Heart Association Recommendations

Doctor With Patient

  • If you smoke, stop.
  • Choose good nutrition.
    • Choose a diet that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, poultry, fish, legumes, non-tropical vegetable oils, and nuts.
    • Choose a diet that limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meats.
    • Reduce high blood cholesterol and triglycerides.
    • Reduce your intake of saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol.
  • Lower High Blood Pressure.
  • Be physically active every day.
    • Aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity per week.
  • Aim for a healthy weight.
  • Manage diabetes.
  • Reduce stress.
  • Limit alcohol.
  • Have a regular physical checkup.

The Bottom Line

A recent study in the United Kingdom compared vegetarians, fish eaters, poultry eaters, and red meat eaters for the risk of developing heart disease and the risk of dying from heart disease. The results were:

  • When fish eaters were compared with meat eaters, they had:
    • 7% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.
    • 21% lower risk of ischemic heart disease (angina).
    • 30% lower risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack).
    • 21% lower risk of stroke.
    • 22% lower risk of heart failure.
  • When vegetarians were compared with meat eaters, they had:
    • 9% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.
    • Lower, but statistically non-significant, risk of other heart disease parameters.
  • When poultry eaters were compared with meat eaters there were no significant differences in heart disease outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Eating fish rather than meat or poultry was associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes…supporting its role as a healthy diet that should be encouraged. Vegetarianism was only associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease incidence.”

However, the “vegetarian diet” in this study was not nearly as healthy as the whole food vegetarian diets that have previously been shown to be heart healthy. And the “fish-eaters diet” was healthier than the “meat-eaters diet” because of both the fish and the extra fruits and vegetables this group of people were consuming.

In the words of the authors, “…As a group, vegetarians consumed more unhealthy foods, such as crisps [potato chips], than meat eaters. Therefore, vegetarians should not be considered a homogeneous group, and avoidance of meat will not be sufficient to reduce health risk if the overall diet is not healthy.”

My summary:

  • Whole food plant-based diets (the true definition of vegetarianism) are very heart healthy.
  • Primarily plant-based diets with fish as the main protein source (otherwise known as pescatarian diets) are also very heart healthy.
  • If you want a healthy heart, choose the one that best fits your preferences and your lifestyle.

For more details about this study, read the article above.

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

How Much Omega-3 Should You Take During Pregnancy?

by

Which Omega-3s Are Beneficial? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Premature BabyPreterm births (births occurring before 37 weeks) are increasing in this country. Just between 2018 and 2019, the percentage of preterm births increased by 2% to over 10% of all pregnancies. That is a concern because preterm births are associated with an increased risk of:

  • Visual impairment.
  • Developmental delays.
  • Learning difficulties.
  • Problems with normal development of lungs, eyes, and other organs.

Plus, it is expensive to keep premature babies alive. One recent study estimated that reducing the incidence of preterm births by around 50% could reduce health care costs by $6 billion in the United Stated alone.

Of the 10% preterm births, 2.75% of them are early preterm births (births occurring before 34 weeks). Obviously, the risk of health problems and the cost of keeping them alive is greatest for early preterm babies.

We don’t know why preterm births are increasing, but some experts feel it is because in this country:

  • More older women are having babies.
  • There is increased use of fertility drugs, resulting in multiple babies

Unfortunately, there is no medical standard for identifying pregnancies at risk for preterm birth. Nor is there any agreement around prevention measures for preterm births.

However, recent research has suggested that some premature births may be caused by inadequate omega-3 status in the mother and can be prevented by omega-3 supplementation.

What Do We Know About Omega-3s And Risk Of Preterm Births?

omega-3s during pregnancy is healthyThe role of omega-3s on a healthy pregnancy has been in the news for some time. Claims have been made that omega-3s reduce preterm births, postnatal depression, and improve cognition, IQ, vision, mental focus, language, and behavior in the newborn as they grow.

The problem is that almost all these claims have been called into question by other studies. If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, you don’t know what to believe.

Fortunately, a group called the Cochrane Collaboration has recently reviewed these studies. The Cochrane Collaboration consists of 30,000 volunteer scientific experts from across the globe whose sole mission is to analyze the scientific literature and publish reviews of health claims so that health professionals, patients, and policy makers can make evidence-based choices about health interventions. Their reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.

This is because most published meta-analyses simply report “statistically significant” conclusions. However, statistics can be misleading. As Mark Twain said: “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics”.

The problem is the authors of most meta-analyses group studies together without considering the quality of studies included in their analysis. This creates a “Garbage In – Garbage Out” effect. If the quality of individual studies is low, the quality of the meta-analysis will also be low.

The Cochrane Collaboration reviews are different. They also report statistically significant conclusions from their meta-analyses. However, they carefully consider the quality of each individual study in their analysis. They look at possible sources of bias. They look at the design and size of the studies. Finally, they ask whether the conclusions are consistent from one study to the next. They clearly define the quality of evidence that backs up each of their conclusions.

For omega-3s and pregnancy, the Cochrane Collaboration performed a meta-analysis and review of 70 randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of added omega-3s on pregnancy outcomes with the effect of either a placebo or no omega-3s. These trials included almost 19,927 pregnant women.

This Cochrane Collaboration Review looked at all the claims for omega-3s and pregnancy outcome, but they concluded that only two of the claims were supported by high-quality evidence:

  • Omega-3s reduce the risk of preterm births.
  • Omega-3s reduce the risk of low birth-weight infants.

The authors concluded: “Omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the riskclinically proven of preterm birth…More studies comparing [the effect of] omega-3s and placebo [on preterm births] are not needed at this point.”

In other words, they are saying this conclusion is definite. The Cochrane Collaboration has declared that omega-3 supplementation should become part of the standard of medical care for pregnant women.

However, the Cochrane Collaboration did say that further studies were needed “…to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3s, timing [stage of pregnancy], doses [of omega-3s], or by characteristics of women.”

That’s because these variables were not analyzed in this study. The study included clinical trials:

  • Of women at low, moderate, and high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes.
  • With DHA alone, with EPA alone, and with a mixture of both.
  • Omega-3 doses that were low (˂ 500 mg/day), moderate (500-1,000 mg/day), and high (> 1,000 mg/day).

I have discussed these findings in more detail in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe current study (SE Carlson et al, EClinicalMedicine, 2021) is a first step towards answering those questions.

The authors of this study focused on how much DHA supplementation is optimal during pregnancy. This is an important question because there is currently great uncertainty about how much DHA is optimal:

  • The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends supplementation with 200 mg/day of DHA. However, that recommendation assumes that the increase will come from fish and was influenced by concerns that omega-3-rich fish are highly contaminated with heavy metals and PCBs.
  • Another group of experts was recently asked to develop guidelines for omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy. They recommended pregnant women consume at least 300 mg/day of DHA and 220 mg/day of EPA.
  • The WHO has recommended of minimum dose of 1,000 mg of DHA during pregnancy.
  • Many prenatal supplements now contain 200 mg of DHA, but very few provide more than 200 mg.

Accordingly, the authors took the highest and lowest recommendations for DHA supplementation and asked whether 1,000 mg of DHA per day was more effective than 200 mg of DHA at reducing the risk of early preterm births. Their hypothesis was that 1,000 mg of DHA would be more effective than 200 mg/day at preventing early preterm births.

This study was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 1032 women recruited at one of three large academic medical centers in the United States (University of Kansa, Ohio State University, and University of Cincinnati).

  • The women were ≥ 18 years old (average age = 30) and between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation when they entered the study.
  • The breakdown by ethnicity was 50% White, 22% Black or African American, 22% Hispanic, 6% Other.
  • 18% had a prior preterm birth (<37 weeks) and 7% had a prior early preterm birth (<34 weeks).
  • Prior to enrollment in the study 47% of the participants reported taking a DHA supplement and 19% of the participants took a DHA supplement with > 200 mg/day.

All the participants received 200 mg DHA capsules and were told to take one capsule daily. The participants were also randomly assigned to take 2 additional capsules that contained a mixture of corn and soybean oil (the 200 mg DHA/day group) or 2 capsules that contained 400 mg of DHA (the 1,000 mg DHA/day group). The capsules were orange flavored so the participants could not distinguish between the DHA capsules and the placebo capsules.

Blood samples were drawn upon entry to the study and either just prior to delivery or the day after delivery to determine maternal DHA status.

The study was designed to look at the effect of DHA dose (1,000 mg or 200 mg) on early preterm birth (<34 weeks), preterm birth (<37 weeks), low birth weight (< 3 pounds), and several other parameters related to maternal and neonatal health.

How Much Omega-3 Should You Take During Pregnancy?

pregnant women taking omega-3The primary findings from this study were:

  • The rate of early preterm births (<34 weeks) was less (1.7%) for pregnant women taking 1,000 mg of DHA/day compared to 200 mg/day (2.4%).
  • The rate of late preterm births (between 34 and 37 weeks) was also less for women taking 1,000 mg of DHA/day compared to 200 mg/day.
  • Finally, low birth weight and the frequency of several maternal and neonatal complications during pregnancy, delivery, and immediately after delivery were also lower with 1,000 mg/day of supplemental DHA than with 200 mg/day.

This confirms the authors’ hypothesis that supplementation with 1,000 mg/day of DHA is more effective than 200 mg/day at reducing the risk of early preterm births. In addition, this study showed that supplementation with 1,000 mg of DHA/day had additional benefits.

This study did not have a control group receiving no DHA. However:

  • The US average for early preterm births is 2.74%.
  • For the women in this study who had previous pregnancies, the rate of early preterm birth was 7%.

Of course, the important question for any study of this type is whether all the women benefited equally from supplementation. Fortunately, this study was designed to answer that question.

As noted above, each woman was asked whether they took any DHA supplements at the time they enrolled in the study, and 47% of the women in the study were taking DHA supplements when they enrolled. In addition, the DHA status of each participant was determined from blood samples taken at the time the women were enrolled in the study. When the authors split the women into groups based on their DHA status at the beginning of the study:

  • For women with low DHA status the rate of early preterm births was 2.0% at 1,000 mg of DHA/day versus 4.1% at 200 mg of DHA/day.
  • For women with high DHA status the rate of early preterm births was around 1% for both 1,000 mg of DHA/day and 200 mg of DHA/day.

In other words, DHA supplementation only appeared to help women with low DHA status. This is good news because:

  • DHA status is an easy to measure predictor of women who are at increased risk of early preterm birth.
  • This study shows that supplementation with 1,000 mg of DHA/day is effective at reducing the risk of early premature birth for women who are DHA deficient.

In the words of the authors, “Clinicians could consider prescribing 1,000 mg DHA daily during pregnancy to reduce early preterm birth in women with low DHA status if they are able to screen for DHA.”

Which Omega-3s Are Beneficial?

DHA is the most frequently recommended omega-3 supplement during pregnancy.

It is not difficult to understand why that is.

  • DHA is a major component of the myelin sheath that coats every neuron in the brain. [You can think of the myelin sheath as analogous to the plastic coating on a copper wire that allows it to transmit electricity from one end of the wire to the other.]
  • Unlike other components of the myelin sheath, the body cannot make DHA. It must be provided by the diet.
  • During the third trimester, DHA accumulates in the human brain faster than any other fatty acid.
  • Animal studies show that DHA deficiency during pregnancy interferes with normal brain and eye development.
  • Some, but not all, human clinical trials show that DHA supplementation during pregnancy improves developmental and cognitive outcomes in the newborn.
  • Recent studies have shown that most women in the United States only get 60-90 mg/day of DHA in their diet.

Clearly, DHA is important for fetal brain development during pregnancy, and most pregnant women are not getting enough DHA in their diet. This is why most experts recommend supplementation with DHA during pregnancy. And this study suggests supplementation with 1,000 mg/day is better than 200 mg/day. However, two important questions remain:Questioning Woman

#1: Is 1,000 mg of DHA/day optimal? The answer is, “We don’t know”. This study compared the highest recommended dose (1,000 mg/day) with the lowest recommended dose (200mg/day) and concluded that 1,000 mg/day was better than 200 mg/day.

But would 500 or 800 mg/day be just as good as 1,000 mg/day? We don’t know. More studies are needed.

#2: Can DHA do it all, or are other omega-3s also important for a healthy pregnancy? As noted above, the emphasis on supplementation with DHA was based on the evidence for a role of DHA in fetal brain development during pregnancy.

But is DHA or EPA more effective at preventing early preterm birth and maternal pregnancy complications? Again, we don’t know.

As noted above, the Cochrane Collaboration concluded that omega-3s were effective at reducing early preterm births but was unable to evaluate the relative effectiveness of EPA and DHA because their review included studies with DHA only, EPA only, and EPA + DHA.

This is an important question because the ability of the body to convert EPA to DHA and vice versa is limited (in the 10-20%) range. This means that if both EPA and DHA are important for a healthy pregnancy, it might not be optimal to supplement with a pure DHA or pure EPA supplement.

Based on currently available data if you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, my  recommendations are:

  • Chose a supplement that provides both EPA and DHA.
  • Because the evidence is strongest for DHA at this time, chose an algal source of omega-3s that has more DHA than EPA.
  • Aim for a dose of DHA in the 500 mg/day to 1,000 mg/day range. Remember, this study showed 1,000 mg/day was better than 200 mg/day but did not test whether 500 or 800 mg/day might have been just as good.

As more data become available, I will update my recommendations.

The Bottom Line

The Cochrane Collaboration recently released a report saying that the evidence was definitive that omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy reduced the risk of early preterm births. However, they were not able to reach a definitive conclusion on the optimal dose of omega-3s or the relative importance of EPA and DHA at preventing early preterm birth.

Most experts recommend that pregnant women supplement with between 200 mg/day and 1,000 mg/day of DHA.

A recent study asked whether 1,000 mg of DHA/day was better than 200 mg/day at reducing the risk of early preterm birth. The study found:

  • The rate of early preterm births (<34 weeks) was less (1.7%) for pregnant women taking 1,000 mg of DHA/day than pregnant women taking 200 mg/day (2.4%).
  • For women with low DHA status at the beginning of the study, the rate of early preterm births was 2.0% at 1,000 mg of DHA/day versus 4.1% at 200 mg of DHA/day.
  • For women with high DHA status at the beginning of the study, the rate of early preterm births was around 1% for both 1,000 mg of DHA/day and 200 mg of DHA/day.

The authors concluded, “Clinicians could consider prescribing 1,000 mg DHA daily during pregnancy to reduce early preterm birth in women with low DHA status…”

There are two important caveats:

  • This study did not establish the optimal dose of DHA. The study concluded that 1,000 mg/day was better than 200 mg/day. But would 500 or 800 mg/day be just as good as 1,000 mg/day? We don’t know. More studies are needed.
  • This study did not establish the relative importance of EPA and DHA for reducing the risk of early preterm births. DHA is recommended for pregnant women based on its importance for fetal brain development. But is DHA more important than EPA for reducing the risk of early preterm births? Again, we don’t know. More studies are needed.

For more details about this study and my recommendations, read the article above.

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

Treatment For Plantar Fasciitis Pain

by

What Causes Plantar Fasciitis Pain?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney 

June, Glorious June

sunFlorida is heating up and mid-day is pretty hot, but the rest of the USA is just entering the best time of year (if you love warm weather). And I think the best part is that the days are longer so we can get out and enjoy life more.

Last month was the beginning of me trying to get in shape to do the El Camino de Santiago. This 500-mile trek was beautifully shown in a 2011 movie titled “The Way,” starring Martin Sheen.  It’s something I had wanted to do to celebrate my 70th birthday, but then I broke both bones of my left ankle in half (OUCH) and had lots of complications.  Now I’m determined to try again for my 80th birthday which is several years away.  As a result, I have a lot of time to get in shape.  I’ll keep you updated as the months go past.  Let me know if you have ever done this trip, I’d love to hear your experiences.

As the beginning of my training, I did a 5K race on May 1st – walking, not running.  I was shocked when I came in 2nd place for my age group.  Of course, at my age the competition is limited, but I still have a trophy here in my office to applaud my efforts.

It seems like a perfect time to talk about foot pain that can prevent you from walking around your house, never mind a 500-mile cross-country journey.  Let’s look into plantar fasciitis – pain in the arch of the foot.

What Causes Plantar Fasciitis Pain?

If you have arch pain, don’t rub your foot! There is a good chance the pain is actually coming from your lower leg.  You will understand as we discuss the logic of the body and how lower muscles cause the pain.  By the way, this treatment is also great for healing a sprained ankle, so it is doubly helpful!

The Muscles Involved In Plantar Fasciitis

The muscles of your lower leg, specifically the Tibialis Anterior, Peroneus, Gastrocnemius and Soleus, all insert into your foot.

The tibialis anterior inserts into your arch and pulls your foot so you can lean on the outside of your foot.

The peroneus tendon inserts into the bone at the outside of your foot and pulls up on the bone so your foot rolls in toward your arch.  Your two calf muscles insert into your heel bone (talus) and can be pulling it backward, so you can lift your heel up from the floor.

The culmination of these movements is your arch is being pulled to the left, the right, and backward.  Your arch hurts and too many people are addressing their arch, but not the muscles that are causing the strain.

Treatment For Plantar Fasciitis Pain 

In my books, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living and The Pain-Free Athlete, I show you how to treat all the muscles of your leg. If you are suffering with plantar fasciitis, or if you’ve had a sprained ankle, you would benefit by getting one of these books.

Meanwhile, I would like to share one self-treatment that will help.

Treating Your Tibialis Anterior Muscle

Using the Perfect Ball, place the ball as shown in the picture to the left. The ball is just to the outside of your shin bone, and just below your knee joint.

Press down on the ball and move your leg do the ball rolls down your leg.  If you feel like your arch will cramp, curl your toes as shown.

Go all the way down your leg to just above your ankle.

About midway down your shin, you will find an exceptionally tender area.  That is the knot (spasm) that is putting pressure on the inside of your arch.  Just stay still on the spasm until it releases.  Sometimes it can be so painful that you need to lift your weight up off the ball for a little bit while you collect your breath.

Keep doing the pressure-release until the pain in your tibialis anterior muscle is gone.

If you have one of my books, I suggest you do all the treatments shown in the chapter about the lower leg, including each of the techniques for the back of your ankle.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly 

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

Is The Paleo Diet Based On A Myth?

by

Are Starchy Foods Bad For Us? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

the paleo dietThe Paleo Diet is still very popular. And it does have its good points. It is a whole food diet. It eliminates sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. Any diet that does that can’t be all bad.

But is it unnecessarily restrictive? It eliminates starchy foods like grains, beans, peas, and corn. It is true that widespread consumption of these foods did not occur until after the agricultural revolution some 12,000 years ago. Our paleolithic ancestors probably did not consume significant quantities of these foods.

But did they consume other starchy foods? Our ideas about this have come primarily from comparing the diets of modern man with the diets of the few primitive hunter-gatherer populations that currently exist in our world. Based on that comparison, some Paleo advocates have concluded that the paleolithic diet contained few, if any, starchy foods.

More importantly, some Paleo advocates have gone a step further to assert that our bodies are not designed to eat starchy foods. They claim that foods like grains, legumes, corn, and potatoes are bad for us. They should be avoided.

How can we test whether these claims are true? After all, we don’t have any way of directly determining whether our paleolithic ancestors ate starchy foods or not. Or do we? That question is the topic of a new study (JA Fellows et al, PNAS, 118 No. 20 e2021655118 I will share with you today.

But first I need to acquaint you with what starch is and how we digest it. Once again, it is time for Biochemistry 101.

Biochemistry 101

professor owlStarch is simply a long polymer of glucose molecules. Digestion of starch starts in our mouth. Our saliva contains an enzyme called alpha-amylase that breaks the bond between adjacent glucose molecules. Alpha-amylase breaks starch down sequentially, first to maltodextrin (a shorter polymer of glucose molecules), then to maltose (two glucose molecules), and finally to glucose.

[Note: The nutrition gurus that tell you to read labels and avoid foods with maltodextrin are ignoring the fact that we produce maltodextrin naturally whenever we digest starch in the foods we eat.]

All humans contain the alpha-amylase gene. Simply put, that means that all humans have the potential to digest starchy foods.

However, not all humans have the same number of copies of the alpha-amylase gene. When we habitually consume a diet containing starchy foods, our bodies duplicate the alpha-amylase gene until our saliva contains enough alpha-amylase to easily digest the amount of starchy foods we are consuming. Simply put, that means our bodies are designed to easily adapt to the amount of starchy foods in our diet.

Most modern human populations have between six and 30 copies of the alpha-amylase gene. Our saliva contains a lot of alpha-amylase. However, the few primitive hunter-gatherer societies that still exist in our world have only two or three copies of the alpha-amylase gene. Their saliva contains very little alpha-amylase.

It is this difference that has led to the hypothesis that our paleolithic ancestors did not possess salivary alpha-amylase, which implies they didn’t eat starchy foods. This hypothesis also assumes that humans only began producing significant quantities of salivary alpha-amylase after the agricultural revolution when starchy foods like grains, rice, and beans became widely available.

This hypothesis is one of the central tenets of the Paleo diet. But we need to remember that it is just a hypothesis. It has not been directly tested because we thought there was no way to determine the starch content of the paleolithic diet – until now. However, before we get to the study that explodes this hypothesis, I want to revisit the Paleo Diet myths I described in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”. I call this next section “Unicorns And The Paleo Diet”.

Unicorns And the Paleo Diet

the paleo diet and unicornsI titled this section “Unicorns and the Paleo Diet” because both are myths. In fact, the Paleo Diet is based on several myths.

Myth #1: Our ancestors all had the same diet. What we currently know as the Paleo diet is based on the diets of a few primitive hunter-gatherer societies that still exist in some regions of the world. However, when you look at the data more carefully, you discover that the diet of primitive societies varies with their local ecosystems.

The “Paleo diet” is typical of ecosystems in which game is plentiful and fruits and vegetables are less abundant or are seasonal. In ecosystems where fruits and vegetables are abundant, primitive societies tend to be more gatherers than hunters. They eat more fruits and vegetables and less meat.

The assumption that starchy foods were absent in the paleolithic diet is also a myth. For some primitive societies, starchy fruits or starchy roots are a big part of their diet. In short, our paleolithic ancestors ate whatever nature provided.

Myth #2: Our genetic makeup is hardwired around the “paleolithic diet”. In fact, humans are very adaptable. We are omnivores, which means we can eat whatever nature provides. We are designed to thrive in a wide variety of ecosystems. It is this adaptability that has allowed us to expand to every nook and cranny of the world.

For example, the enzymes needed to digest grains are all inducible, which means the body can turn them on when needed. Our paleolithic ancestors may not have eaten much grain, but we can very quickly adapt to the introduction of grains into our diet. As I described above, for alpha-amylase this adaptation occurs through gene duplication.

Myth #3: Our paleolithic ancestors were healthier than modern man: It some respects, the paleolithic diet is healthy, as I mentioned above. However, we need to remember that our paleolithic ancestors rarely lived past 30 or 40. They simply did not live long enough to experience degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer. We have no idea whether a diet that served our paleolithic ancestors well will keep us healthy into our 70s, 80s and beyond.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis is a fascinating study, and one that would have been impossible just a few years ago. As I have described in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, studies on our microbiome, the bacteria that inhabit our bodies, is a rapidly evolving area of research.

When we talk about our microbiome, we generally think about our gut bacteria. However, the term “microbiome” includes all the bacteria that reside in our body, including those that reside in our oral mouth.

And, like our gut bacteria, the species of bacteria that reside in our mouth are heavily dependent on the foods we eat. Specifically, there are three species of oral bacteria that thrive on starch. They possess an “amylase binding protein” that allows them to capture salivary alpha-amylase and use it to break down dietary starch so they can use it as an energy source.

Consequently, the abundance of these three bacterial species in the oral microbiome is a precise marker for the amount of starch in a person’s diet. More importantly, high throughput DNA sequencing and supercomputers have made it simple to sequence all the bacteria in the oral microbiome and quantify the relative abundance of these three bacterial species.

You are probably thinking, “That’s fine, but how could you possibly determine the abundance of those bacteria in the mouth of a paleolithic human?” Here is where it gets really interesting!

The bacteria in our mouth form biofilms on our teeth, something we refer to as plaque. If the plaque remains on our teeth long enough, it calcifies, forming what is referred to as dental calculus (tooth tartar).

In the modern world we remove dental biofilms by brushing after every meal. We remove dental plaque and tartar by semi-annual visits to the dentist. But these are recent developments. They are not something our ancestors did.

Our ancestors simply accumulated dental calculus during their lifetime. More importantly, the dental calculus excluded air and water, so it preserved the DNA of the bacteria in their oral microbiome. That was the basis of the current study.

The study was a collaboration of 50 scientists over a 7-year period. The scientists sequenced 124 oral microbiomes from humanoid species in Africa, including Neanderthals (430,000 to 40,000 years ago), Late Pleistocene (129,000 to 11,700 years ago) humans, and modern-day humans.

Bacterial DNA from modern-day humans was obtained from dental calculus obtained during routine dental cleaning procedures by practicing dentists. The older DNA samples were obtained from dental calculus in the teeth of skeletal remains. The oldest DNA sample was obtained from a Neanderthal that lived around 100,000 years ago.

For comparison they also obtained bacterial DNA from the dental calculus of chimpanzees and gorillas, man’s closest primate relatives.

The species of bacteria in the oral microbiome from all these samples were determined by high throughput sequences and computerized analysis using high speed supercomputers.

Is The Paleo Diet Based On A Myth?

Question MarkThere were three important findings from this analysis:

  1. The species of bacteria in the oral microbiome of Neanderthals and Late Pleistocene humans was much more diverse than for modern humans. This suggests that their diets were more diverse (perhaps depending on what foods were available in their environment), while modern diets have become more standardized.

2) The species of bacteria that thrive on starchy foods were remarkably constant in the oral microbiome of all human species from Neanderthals to Late Pleistocene humans to modern-day humans.

3) The species of bacteria that thrive on starchy foods were virtually absent from the oral microbiomes of our most closely related primates – chimpanzees and gorillas.

The authors concluded, “This … supports an early importance of starch-rich foods in Homo evolution.”

In other words, our paleolithic ancestors likely did eat starchy foods. Their diet may not have contained grains, rice, or beans in significant quantities. However, they consumed whatever starchy roots, fruits, and vegetables they could find.

So, is the Paleo diet based on a myth? It depends on how you phrase the question.

  • If we ask whether our paleolithic ancestors consumed grains, rice, or beans, the answer is probably, “No”. The introduction of these foods in significant quantities probably depended on the agricultural revolution that occurred thousands of years later.
  • If we ask whether our paleolithic ancestors consumed starchy foods, the answer is probably, “Yes”. The foundation of the Paleo diet was based on a myth. Their oral microbiome contained bacterial species that thrived on starchy foods. In fact, starchy foods may have been an important staple in their diet because they are more calorie dense than other fruits and vegetables.
  • If we ask whether our paleolithic ancestors were capable of thriving on a diet that included grains, rice, and beans, the answer is also probably, “Yes”. The oral bacterial species that thrive on starchy foods do so by utilizing the alpha-amylase in human saliva. This means our paleolithic ancestors likely had enough alpha-amylase in their saliva to digest and to thrive on starchy foods like grains, rice, and beans.

Are Starchy Foods Bad For Us?

Starchy FoodsIt is not just the Paleo diet. Many popular diets have villainized starchy foods. Are starchy foods as bad for us as some “experts” would have you believe?

Let’s start by identifying starchy foods. If we think in terms of whole foods, they are:

  • Root vegetables (for example, potatoes, sweet potatoes, beets, carrots, and parsnips).
  • Legumes (for example, beans, peas, and lentils).
  • Grains (for example, wheat, rye, barley, oats, and rice).
  • Winter squash (for example, acorn squash, butternut squash, hubbard squash, and pumpkin).
  • Corn

These foods are good sources of nutrients and phytonutrients. Many of them are also excellent sources of fiber, including a special type of fiber called resistant starch. (I have described the benefits of resistant starch in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.) These are foods that definitely deserve to be part of a healthy diet.

The only drawback of starchy vegetables is that they tend to be more calorie dense than other vegetables. While this was a “plus” for our paleolithic ancestors, it is not quite as advantageous in our modern world. If you are trying to watch your calories, my advice is to incorporate these foods into your diet sparingly.

However, there is another class of starchy foods you want to avoid. Of course, I am talking about highly processed foods made from grains, legumes, and corn. They retain all the calories but lose most of the nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber of the foods they came from.

In short, starchy whole foods are a valuable part of a healthy diet. It is the starchy processed foods made from these whole foods you want to avoid. Of course, I am talking about bread, pasta, and pastries made from refined grains and sugar.

So, how do you know which starchy foods to avoid? My advice is not to become an expert label reader. Just eat foods without labels.

The Bottom Line

One of the founding principles on which the Paleo diet is based is that our paleolithic ancestors ate very few starchy foods, and the human body really isn’t designed to handle these foods. Accordingly, the Paleo diet recommends we should avoid starchy foods like grains and legumes. This has the unfortunate effect of creating an unbalanced diet that overemphasizes meat and animal fats.

But is this founding principle correct, or is it just a myth? When you look beneath the surface, you discover that it is a hypothesis based on the diets of the few primitive hunter-gatherer populations that still exist in our world.

It has been assumed that was as good an estimate of the paleolithic diet as we could get. After all there was no way to directly determine the starch content of the paleolithic diet – until now.

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I describe a novel approach that allowed scientists to determine the species of bacteria residing in the mouth of our humanoid ancestors based on the DNA extracted from the plaque coating their teeth. (For details on how this was done, read the article above.)

What the scientists found was that all human species, including a Neanderthal who died 100,000 years ago, harbored bacteria in their mouths that thrive on starchy foods.

The scientists concluded, “This … supports an early importance of starch-rich foods in Homo evolution.” In other words, our paleolithic ancestors likely did eat starchy foods. Restricting whole grains and legumes from the Paleo diet is based on a myth. They are an important part of a healthy diet.

For more details about the study and which starchy foods are bad 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.

Do Omega-3s Add Years To Your Life?

by

Why Are Omega-3s So Controversial? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

ArgumentI don’t need to tell you that omega-3s are controversial. Some experts confidently tell you that omega-3s significantly reduce your risk of heart disease and may reduce your risk of cancer and other diseases. Other experts confidently tell you that omega-3s have no effect on heart disease or any other disease. They claim that omega-3 supplements are no better than “snake oil”.

The problem is that each camp of experts can cite published clinical studies to support their claims. How can that be? How can clinical studies come to opposite conclusions on such an important topic? The problem is that it is really difficult to do high quality clinical studies on omega-3s. I will discuss that in the next section.

The question of whether omega-3s affect life span has also been controversial. Heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death in this country. So, if omega-3s actually reduced the risk of heart disease and cancer, you might expect that they would also help us live longer. Once again, there are studies on both sides of this issue, but they are poor quality studies.

We need more high-quality studies to clear up the controversies surrounding the health benefits of omega-3s. I will report on one such study in this issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”. But first let me go into more depth about why it is so difficult to do high-quality studies with omega-3 fatty acids.

Clinical Studies 101: Why Are Omega-3s So Controversial?

professor owlI have covered this topic in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, but here is a quick summary.

  1. Randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, but they ill-suited to measure the effect of omega-3s on health outcomes.
    • Heart disease and cancer take decades to develop. Most RCTs are too small and too short to show a meaningful effect of omega-3s on these diseases.
    • To make up for this shortcoming, some recent RCTs have started with older, sicker patients. This way enough patients die during the study that it can measure statistically significant outcomes. However, these patients are already on multiple medications that mimic many of the beneficial effects of omega-3s on heart disease.

These studies are no longer asking whether omega-3s reduce the risk of heart disease. They are really asking if omega-3s have any additional benefits for patients who are already taking multiple medications – with all their side effects. I don’t know about you, but that is not the question I am interested in.

    • Until recently, most RCTs did not measure circulating omega-3 levels before and after supplementation, so the investigators had no idea whether omega-3 supplementation increased circulating omega-3 levels by a significant amount.

And for the few studies where omega-3 levels were measured before and after supplementation, it turns out that for many of the participants, their baseline omega-3 levels were too high for omega-3 supplementation to have a meaningful effect. Only participants with low omega-3 levels at the beginning of the study benefited from omega-3 supplementation.Supplementation Perspective

These studies are often quoted as showing omega-3 supplementation doesn’t work. However, they are actually showing the true value of supplementation. Omega-3 supplementation isn’t for everyone. It is for people with poor diet, increased need, genetic predisposition, and/or pre-existing disease not already treated with multiple medications.

2) Prospective cohort studies eliminate many of the shortcomings of RCTs. They can start with a large group of individuals (a cohort) and follow them for many years to see how many of them die or develop a disease during that time (this is the prospective part of a prospective cohort trial). This means they can start with a healthy population that is not on medications.

This also means that these studies can answer the question on most people’s minds, “Are omega-3s associated with reduced risk of dying or developing heart disease?” However, these studies have two limitations.

    • They are association studies. They cannot measure cause and effect.
    • Ideally, omega-3 levels would be measured at the beginning of the study and at several intervals during the study to see if the participant’s diet had changed during the study. Unfortunately, most prospective cohort studies only measure omega-3 levels at the beginning of the study.

3) Finally, a meta-analysis combines data from multiple clinical studies.

    • The strength of a meta-analysis is that the number of participants is quite large. This increases the statistical power and allows it to accurately assess small effects.
    • The greatest weakness of meta-analyses is that the design of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis is often quite different. This introduces variations that decrease the reliability of the meta-analysis. It becomes a situation of “Garbage in. Garbage out”

The study (WS Harris et al, Nature Communications, Volume 12, Article number: 2329, 2021) I am discussing today is a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. It was designed to determine the association between blood omega-3 fatty acids and the risk of:

  • Death from all causes.
  • Death from heart disease.
  • Death from cancer.
  • Death from causes other than heart disease or cancer.

More importantly, it eliminated the major weakness of previous meta-analyses by only including studies with a similar design.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was a meta-analysis of 17 prospective cohort studies with a total of 42,466 individuals looking at the association between omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood and premature death due to all causes, heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.

Participants in the 17 studies were followed for an average of 16 years, during which time 15,720 deaths occurred. This was a large enough number of deaths so that a very precise statistical analysis of the data could be performed.

The average age of participants at entry into the studies was 65, and 55% of the participants were women. Whites constituted 87% of the participants, so the results may not be applicable to other ethnic groups. None of the participants had heart disease or cancer when they entered the study.

Finally, the associations were corrected for a long list of variables that could have influenced the outcome (Read the publication for more details).

A strength of this meta-analysis is that all 17 studies were conducted as part of the FORCE (Fatty Acids & Outcomes Research Consortium) collaboration. The FORCE collaboration was established with the goal of understanding the relationships between fatty acids (as measured by blood levels of the omega-3 fatty acids) on premature death and chronic disease outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other conditions).

Each study was designed using a standardized protocol, so that the data could be easily pooled for a meta-analysis. In the words of the FORCE collaboration founders:

  1. The larger sample sizes of [meta-analyses] will substantially increase statistical power to investigate associations…enabling the [meta-analyses] to discover important relationships not discernible in any individual study.

2) Standardization of variable definitions and modeling of associations will reduce variation and potential bias in estimates across cohorts.

3) Results will be far less susceptible to publication bias.

Do Omega-3s Add Years To Your Life?

Omega-3sThe meta-analysis divided participants into quintiles based on blood omega-3 levels. When comparing participants with the highest omega-3 levels with participants with the lowest omega-3 levels:

  • Premature death from all causes was decreased by 16%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > EPA+DHA > DHA.
  • Premature death from heart disease was decreased by 19%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, DHA > EPA+DHA > EPA.
  • Premature death from cancer was decreased by 15%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > DHA > EPA+DHA.
  • Premature death from causes other than heart disease and cancer was decreased by 18%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > EPA+DHA > DHA.
  • The differences between the effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA+DHA were small.
  • ALA, a short chain omega-3 found in plant foods, had no effect on any of these parameters.

In the words of the authors: “These findings suggest that higher circulating levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower risk of premature death. Similar relationships were seen for death from heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer. No associations were seen with the short chain omega-3, ALA [which is found in plant foods]”.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

confusionIf you are thinking that 15-19% decreases in premature death from various causes don’t sound like much, let me do some simple calculations for you. The average lifespan in this country is 78 years.

  • A 16% decrease in death from all causes amounts to an extra 12.5 years. What would you do with an extra 12.5 years?
  • A 19% decrease in death from heart disease might not only allow you to live longer, but it has the potential to improve your quality of life by living an extra 15 years free of heart disease.
  • Similarly, a 15% decrease in death from cancer might help you live an extra 12 years cancer-free.
  • In other words, you may live longer, and you may also live healthier longer, sometimes referred to as “healthspan”.

Don’t misunderstand me. Omega-3s are not a magic wand. They aren’t the fictional “Fountain of Youth”.

  • There are many other factors that go into a healthy lifestyle. If you sit on your couch all day eating Big Macs and drinking beer, you may be adding the +12.5 years to a baseline of -30 years.
  • Clinical studies report average values and none of us are average. Omega-3s will help some people more than others.

I will understand if you are skeptical. It seems like every time one study comes along and tells you that omega-3s are beneficial, another study comes along and tells you they are worthless.

This was an extraordinarily well-designed study, but it is unlikely to be the final word in the omega-3 controversy. There are too many poor-quality studies published each year. Until everyone in the field agrees to some common standards like those in the FORCE collaboration, the omega-3 controversy will continue.

The Bottom Line 

A recent meta-analysis looked at the association between omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood and premature death due to all causes, heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.

The meta-analysis divided participants into quintiles based on blood omega-3 levels. When comparing participants with the highest omega-3 levels with participants with the lowest omega-3 levels:

  • Premature death from all causes was decreased by 16%.
  • Premature death from heart disease was decreased by 19%.
  • Premature death from cancer was decreased by 15%.
  • Premature death from causes other than heart disease and cancer was decreased by 18%.

In the words of the authors: “These findings suggest that higher circulating levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower risk of premature death. Similar relationships were seen for death from heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.”

For more details about study and 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.

 

 

Are Vegan Diets Bad For Your Bones?

by

The Secrets To A Healthy Vegan Diet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Frail ElderlyOsteoporosis is a debilitating and potentially deadly disease associated with aging. It affects 54 million Americans. It can cause debilitating back pain and bone fractures. 50% of women and 25% of men over 50 will break a bone due to osteoporosis. Hip fractures in the elderly due to osteoporosis are often a death sentence.

As I discussed in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, a “bone-healthy lifestyle requires 3 essentials – calcium, vitamin D, and weight bearing exercise. If any of these three essentials is presence in inadequate amounts, you can’t build healthy bones. In addition, other nutrients such as protein, magnesium, zinc, vitamin B12, and omega-3 fatty acids may play supporting roles.

Vegan and other plant-based diets are thought to be very healthy. They decrease the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers. However, vegan diets tend to be low in calcium, vitamin D, zinc, vitamin B12, protein, and omega-3 fatty acids. Could vegan diets be bad for your bones?

A meta-analysis of 9 studies published in 2009 (LT Ho-Pham et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 90: 943-950, 2009) reported that vegans had 4% lower bone density than omnivores, but concluded this difference was “not likely to be clinically relevant”.

However, that study did not actually compare bone fracture rates in vegans and omnivores. So, investigators have followed up with a much larger meta-analysis (I Iguacel et al, Nutrition Reviews 77, 1-18, 2019) comparing both bone density and bone fracture rates in vegans and omnivores.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe investigators searched the literature for all human clinical studies through November 2017 that compared bone densities and frequency of bone fractures of people consuming vegan and/or vegetarian diets with people consuming an omnivore diet.

  • Vegan diets were defined as excluding all animal foods.
  • Vegetarian diets were defined as excluding meat, poultry, fish, seafood, and flesh from any animal but including dairy foods and/or eggs. [Note: The more common name for this kind of diet is lacto-ovo vegetarian, but I will use the author’s nomenclature in this review.]
  • Omnivore diets were defined as including both plant and animal foods from every food group.

The investigators ended up with 20 studies that had a total of 37,134 participants. Of the 20 studies, 9 were conducted in Asia (Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Korea, and Hong-Kong), 6 in North America (the United States and Canada), and 4 were conducted in Europe (Italy, Finland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom).

Are Vegan Diets Bad For Your Bones?

Here is what the investigators found:

Unhealthy BoneBone density: The clinical studies included 3 different sites for bone density measurements – the lumbar spine, the femoral neck, and the total body. When they compared bone density of vegans and vegetarians with the bone density of omnivores, here is what they found:

Lumbar spine:

    • Vegans and vegetarians combined had a 3.2% lower bone density than omnivores.
    • The effect of diet was stronger for vegans (7% decrease in bone density) than it was for vegetarians (2.3% decrease in bone density).

Femoral neck:

    • Vegans and vegetarians combined had a 3.7% lower bone density than omnivores.
    • The effect of diet was stronger for vegans (5.5% decrease in bone density) than it was for vegetarians (2.5% decrease in bone density).

Whole body:

    • Vegans and vegetarians combined had a 3.2% lower bone density than omnivores.
    • The effect of diet was statistically significant for vegans (5.9% decrease in bone density) but not for vegetarians (3.5% decrease in bone density). [Note: Statistical significance is not determined by how much bone density is decreased. It is determined by the size of the sample and the variations in bone density among individuals in the sample.]

Bone FractureBone Fractures: The decrease in bone density of vegans in this study was similar to that reported in the 2009 study I discussed above. However, rather than simply speculating about the clinical significance of this decrease in bone density, the authors of this study also measured the frequency of fractures in vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores. Here is what they found.

  • Vegans and vegetarians combined had a 32% higher risk of bone fractures than omnivores.
  • The effect of diet on risk of bone fractures was statistically significant for vegans (44% higher risk of bone fracture) but not for vegetarians (25% higher risk of bone fractures).
  • These data suggest the decreased bone density in vegans is clinically significant.

The authors concluded, “The findings of this study suggest that both vegetarian and vegan diets are associated with lower bone density compared with omnivorous diets. The effect of vegan diets on bone density is more pronounced than the effect of vegetarian diets, and vegans have a higher fracture risk than omnivores. Both vegetarian and vegan diets should be appropriate planned to avoid dietary deficiencies associated with bone health.”

The Secrets To A Healthy Vegan Diet

Emoticon-BadThe answer to this question lies in the last statement in the author’s conclusion, “Both vegetarian and vegan diets should be appropriate planned to avoid dietary deficiencies associated with bone health.” 

The problem also lies in the difference between what a nutrition expert considers a vegan diet and what the average consumer considers a vegan diet. To the average consumer a vegan diet is simply a diet without any animal foods. What could go wrong with that definition? Let me count the ways.

  1. Sugar and white flour are vegan. A vegan expert thinks of a vegan diet as a whole food diet – primarily fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, and seeds. A vegan novice includes all their favorites – sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods. And that may not leave much room for healthier vegan foods.

2) Big Food, Inc is not your friend. Big Food tells you that you don’t need to give up the taste of animal foods just because you are going vegan. They will just combine sugar, white flour, and a witch’s brew of chemicals to give you foods that taste just like your favorite meats and dairy foods. The problem is these are all highly processed foods. They are not healthy. Some people call them “fake meats” or “fake cheeses”. I call them “fake vegan”.

If you are going vegan, embrace your new diet. Bean burgers may not taste like Big Macs, but they are delicious. If need other delicious vegan recipe ideas, I recommend the website https://forksoverknives.com.

3) A bone healthy vegan diet is possible, but it’s not easy. Let’s go back to the author’s phrase “…vegan diets should be appropriate planned to avoid dietary deficiencies associated with bone health.” A vegan expert will do the necessary planning. A vegan novice will assume all they need to do is give up animal foods. 

As I said earlier, vegan diets tend to be low in calcium, vitamin D, zinc, vitamin B12, protein, and omega-3 fatty acids. Let’s look at how a vegan expert might plan their diet to get enough of those bone-healthy nutrients.

    • Calcium. The top plant sources of calcium are leafy greens and soy foods at about 100-250 mg (10-25% of the DV) of calcium per serving. Some beans and seeds are moderately good sources of calcium. Soy foods are a particularly good choice because they are a good source of calcium and contain phytoestrogens that stimulate bone formation.

A vegan expert makes sure they get these foods every day and often adds a calcium supplement.

    • Protein. Soy foods, beans, and some whole grains are the best plant sources of protein.soy

It drives me crazy when a vegan novice tells me they were told they can get all the protein they need from broccoli and leafy greens. That is incredibly bad advice.

A vegan expert makes sure they get soy foods, beans, and protein-rich grains every day and often adds a protein supplement.

    • Zinc. There are several plant foods that supply around 20% the DV for zinc including lentils, oatmeal, wild rice, squash and pumpkin seeds, quinoa, and black beans.

A vegan expert makes sure they get these foods every day and often adds a multivitamin supplement containing zinc.

    • Vitamin D and vitamin B12. These are very difficult to get from a vegan diet. Even vegan experts usually rely on supplements to get enough of these important nutrients.

4) Certain vegan foods can even be bad for your bones. I divide these into healthy vegan foods and unhealthy “vegan” foods. 

    • Healthy vegan foods that can be bad for your bones include.
      • Pinto beans, navy beans, and peas because they contain phytates.
      • Raw spinach & swiss chard because they contain oxalates.
      • Both phytates and oxalates bind calcium and interfere with its absorption.
      • These foods can be part of a healthy vegan diet, but a vegan expert consumes them in moderation.
    • Unhealthy “vegan” foods that are bad for your bones include sodas, salt, sugar, and alcohol.
      • The mechanisms are complex, but these foods all tend to dissolve bone.
      • A vegan expert minimizes them in their diet.

5) You need more than diet for healthy bones. At the beginning of this article, I talked about the 3 Weight Trainingessentials for bone formation – calcium, vitamin D, and exercise. You can have the healthiest vegan diet in the world, but if you aren’t getting enough weight bearing exercise, you will have low bone density. Let me close with 3 quick thoughts:

    • None of the studies included in this meta-analysis measured how much exercise the study participants were getting.
    • The individual studies were generally carried out in industrialized countries where many people get insufficient exercise.
    • The DV for calcium in the United States is 1,000-1,200 mg/day for adults. In more agrarian societies dietary calcium intake is around 500 mg/day, and osteoporosis is almost nonexistent. What is the difference? These are people who are outside (vitamin D) doing heavy manual labor (exercise) in their farms and pastures every day.

In summary, a bone healthy vegan lifestyle isn’t easy, but it is possible if you work at it.

The Bottom Line 

A recent meta-analysis asked two important questions about vegan diets.

  1.     Do vegans have lower bone density than omnivores?

2) Is the difference in bone density clinically significant? Are vegans more likely to suffer from bone fractures?

The study found that:

  • Vegans had 5.5%–7% lower bone density than omnivores depending on where the bone density was measured.
  • Vegans were 44% more likely to suffer from bone fractures than omnivores.

The authors of the study concluded, ““The findings of this study suggest that…vegan diets are associated with lower bone density compared with omnivorous diets, and vegans have a higher fracture risk than omnivores…Vegan diets should be appropriate planned to avoid dietary deficiencies associated with bone health.”

In evaluating the results of this study, I took a detailed look at the pros and cons of vegan diets and concluded, “A bone healthy vegan lifestyle isn’t easy, but it is possible if you work at it.”

For more details about study and my recommendations for a bone healthy vegan lifestyle read the article above.

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

Relief From Groin Pain

by

How Can A Thigh Muscle Cause Groin Pain? 

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

May Is A Beautiful Time Of Year

It’s MAY!!   Bring on the flowers that came from the April showers!

Of course, here in Florida we have flowers all year, so it’s our friends to the north that are enjoying a glorious array of color during this month.

In some ways, life is beginning to slow down for us.  With most of the snowbirds gone, driving is easier, the stores are less crowded, and we can park at the beach.  The weather is still beautiful so we can still go outside to ride a bike, jog, or play the sports we enjoy.

This Month’s Treatment – The Rectus Femoris Muscle

Rectus Femoris Muscle

Your Rectus Femoris muscle is one of the four quadriceps muscles of your thigh. It is the only one of the quadriceps that originates on the tip of your pelvis.  When your “quads” contract you straighten your leg.

I’ve written several times about the domino-effect of a string of muscles that cause low back pain, hamstring tension, sciatica, and hip/knee pain.  I call the entire treatment the Julstro Protocol.  I’ve even written a book titled The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution that explains the whole thing. This time I would like to talk about how the rectus femoris muscle can cause groin pain.

How Can A Thigh Muscle Cause Groin Pain?

It’s a bit complicated unless we go through the entire cycle of muscles involved in the Julstro Protocol, but that would be redundant.  As a quick refresher, your psoas muscle (anterior side of your lumbar vertebrae) and your iliacus muscle (on the inside of your pelvis bones) both insert into the inside of your thigh bone.  When they are strained (usually from sitting for long periods of time – including cyclists who ride for hours, or when you drive a car long distances) they shorten and rotate your pelvis forward and down.

This forward rotation causes your rectus femoris to be too long to do the job of straightening your leg, so the body ties a knot (a spasm/trigger point) on the outside of your thigh, right where your middle finger touches when you have your arms relaxed at your side.  This knot then holds your pelvis down in the front, and your pelvis rotates – down in the front and up in the back.

This is where the groin problem comes in.  Your pubic bone/groin is being moved backward during this rotation.  The muscles of your inner thigh all originate on your pubic bone, but they are now being overstretched!  As a result, they are putting stress on your pubic bone.

Just like pulling on your hair will hurt your scalp, the muscle pulling on the bone will hurt the bone, in this case, the pubic bone.  You end up with groin pain!

I’ve had people think they had a serious condition (one man was told he had the beginning of prostrate cancer!!) when all that is happening is a muscle strain.  And one that is simple to fix.

We aren’t going through the entire Julstro Protocol, even though that is exactly what I’d do if you came in to the office.  If you’re interested, the entire program is in the book.  However, I do want to show you how to do the treatment for your rectus femoris.

Relief From Groin Pain

Treating Your Rectus Femoris 

Sit in a chair and use either a 12”x1” piece of PVC pipe or a rolling pin (don’t let it roll). Starting at the top of your thigh, slide the pipe down to your knee as shown in the pictures below.  Rolling will prevent you from going deep enough into the muscle, so just slide.

Do your entire thigh, outside-front-inside.  You will likely find big “speed bumps” all along the muscles. The picture on the right is treating your rectus femoris, and the picture on the left is treating your adductor muscles which all originate on your pubic bone.  With the adductors, you may find a painful point closer to your inner knee where several muscles all join together to stabilize your knee joint.

 

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

Press deeply, but always stay within your pain tolerance level – it should “hurt so good,” but never be severe pain.

I always suggest that you do three passes down each line of muscles, and then go back and focus some direct attention on each bump (spasm) to bring blood into the area and release the knotted muscle fibers.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly 

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

Do Calcium And Magnesium Reduce Migraines?

by

Avoiding Migraines

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

headacheMigraines can be agonizing. They can upend your life. Drugs provide some relief, but they have side effects. I am often asked about natural approaches for preventing migraines.

My simple answer is that there is no single thing that can eliminate migraines. As the saying goes, “It takes a village”. There is no “magic” supplement or herb you can take. It requires a holistic approach to defeat migraines.

I will discuss the holistic approach for migraines in more detail below. But first I would like to describe a recent study (SH Meng et al, Frontiers in Nutrition, doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.653765) that suggests calcium and magnesium should be part of that holistic approach.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study used data from the CDC’s most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The CDC has been doing these surveys since 1960, but the most recent NHANES study began in 1999.

Briefly, data collection for the current NHANES began in early 1999 and remains a continuous annual survey. Each year approximately 7,000 randomly selected residents across the United States are given the opportunity to participate in the NHANES survey.

The NHANES survey provides information on demographics, physical examinations, laboratory tests, diet surveys, and other health-related questions.

This study used data from 10,798 NHANES participants between 1999 and 2004 who completed a questionnaire asking if they suffered from severe headaches or migraines.

[Based on previous studies they considered self-reported severe headaches as likely migraines and grouped the two together. Accordingly, I will simply refer to them as migraines in this review.]

Here are a few important characteristics of the participants:

  • Gender was 51% male and 49% female.
  • Average age was 51.
  • Average intake was low for both calcium (70% of the RDA) and magnesium (62% of the RDA).
  • Only 20% suffered from migraines. However, the gender discrepancy was significant.
    • Women (64%) were much more likely to suffer from migraines than men (36%). This is consistent with previous studies.

Do Calcium And Magnesium Reduce Migraines?

dairy foodsThe investigators divided intake of both calcium and magnesium into quintiles and compared the frequency of migraines of those in the highest quintile with those in the lowest quintile.

  • For calcium, the highest quintile was ≥1,149 mg/day, and the lowest quintile was ≤378 mg/day.
    • For comparison, the RDA for calcium is 1,200 mg/day for women between 50 and 70 and 1,000 mg/day for men between 50 and 70.
  • For magnesium, the highest quintile was ≥371 mg/day, and the lowest quintile was ≤161 mg/day.
    • For comparison, the RDA for magnesium is 320 mg/day for women over 30 and 420 mg/day for men over 30.

For women:

  • Those with the highest intake of calcium were 28% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of calcium.
  • Those with the highest intake of magnesium were 38% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of magnesium.

For men:

  • Those with the highest intake of calcium were 29% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of calcium.
  • Those with the highest intake of magnesium were 20% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of magnesium, but this result was not statistically significant.

The authors concluded, “Our study found that high dietary intake of calcium and magnesium…were inversely associated with migraines in women. For men, high dietary calcium intake was inversely associated with migraines. People should pay more attention to dietary calcium and magnesium, which may be an effective way to prevent migraines.”

Avoiding Migraines

headacheThis study showed that RDA levels of both calcium and magnesium are effective at reducing the risk of developing migraines. However, if you suffer from migraines, you are probably looking for more than a 28-38% reduction in migraines. You want them to be gone. That is why a holistic approach is best.

What does a holistic approach for migraines look like? In fact, it is very individualistic. Different things work for different people. Here are a few suggestions.

  • In addition to calcium and magnesium, make sure you are getting enough omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, riboflavin, and vitamin B12 in your diet.
  • Avoid “trigger foods”. Different foods trigger migraines in different people, but here are a few of the most common.
    • Nitrate-containing processed meats.
    • Cheeses containing tyramine such as blue, feta, cheddar, Parmesan, and Swiss.
    • Alcohol, especially red wine.
    • Chocolate and foods containing caffeine.
    • Processed foods.
  • Some evidence suggests that a plant-based diet may reduce migraines, but only if it includes adequate amounts of the nutrients listed above.
  • Stay hydrated. Drink pure water rather than other beverages.
  • If overweight, shed some pounds. Obesity is linked to migraines.
  • Get adequate rest.
  • Try stress reduction techniques like yoga or meditation.

This is not a comprehensive list. If you have migraines, I probably left some of your favorite approaches off my list. The bottom line is that there are many natural approaches for reducing migraines. None is a “magic bullet” by itself but keep searching for the ones that help you the most.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

calcium supplementsGetting back to magnesium and calcium, this study shows that RDA levels of both calcium and magnesium are sufficient to significantly reduce your risk of migraines. The problem is that many Americans are not getting RDA levels of calcium and magnesium from their diets. Why is that?

  • Dairy foods are the biggest source of calcium in the American diet. However, many Americans don’t get enough dairy foods in their diet because:
    • Restrictive diets like Vegan and Paleo exclude dairy foods.
    • They are trying to avoid saturated fats.
    • They are lactose intolerant or have milk allergies.
    • They have a malabsorption disease or have undergone gastric bypass surgery.
  • Magnesium is found in lots of whole foods. The problem is that most Americans are eating highly processed foods instead of whole foods.

If you are not getting enough calcium and magnesium in your diet, supplementation is a viable option. However, you don’t want megadoses of either one. You just want to reach RDA levels. Here are some tips:

Calcium:

  • Start by estimating how much calcium you are getting from your diet. My rule of thumb is to estimate 250 mg of calcium from each serving of dairy and an additional 200 mg of calcium from a typical diet. Subtract that from 1,200 mg, and you have the amount of supplemental calcium you need to match the highest quintile of calcium intake in this study.
  • The calcium supplement should also contain vitamin D because vitamin D is needed for calcium absorption.
  • Take no more than 500 mg of supplemental calcium at a time. Higher amounts are absorbed less efficiently.
  • It is generally better to take calcium supplements between meals than with meals. That is because many components of the typical diet interfere with calcium absorption. For example,
    • Phytates in some high fiber foods.
    • Oxalic acid in spinach and some other leafy greens.
    • Saturated fats.

Magnesium:

  • The amount of magnesium in your diet is more difficult to calculate. However, 200 mg of magnesium will take you from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile in this study. And if you are already at the highest quintile, an extra 200 mg will not be excessive.
  • Magnesium can cause diarrhea, so I suggest a slow-release magnesium supplement.

The Bottom Line 

Migraines can be agonizing. They can upend your life. Drugs provide some relief, but they have side effects. I am often asked about natural approaches for preventing migraines.

My simple answer is that there is no single thing that can eliminate migraines. As the saying goes, “It takes a village”. There is no “magic” supplement or herb you can take. It requires a holistic approach to defeat migraines.

A recent study reported that calcium and magnesium should be part of a holistic approach to reduce migraines.

The study found that:

For women:

  • Those with the highest intake of calcium were 28% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of calcium.
  • Those with the highest intake of magnesium were 38% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of magnesium.

For men:

  • Those with the highest intake of calcium were 29% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of calcium.
  • Those with the highest intake of magnesium were 20% less likely to suffer from migraines than those with the lowest intake of magnesium, but this result was not statistically significant.

The authors concluded, “Our study found that high dietary intake of calcium and magnesium…were inversely associated with migraines in women. For men, high dietary calcium intake was inversely associated with migraines. People should pay more attention to dietary calcium and magnesium, which may be an effective way to prevent migraines.”

For more details about other components of a holistic approach and my recommendations for calcium and magnesium 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.

Do Low Fat Diets Reduce The Risk Of Diabetes?

by

Why Is Nutrition So Confusing?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

EpigeneticsSometimes the professor likes to introduce you to the frontiers of nutrition. Epigenetics is such a frontier. In recent years, the hype has centered on DNA sequencing. It seems like everyone is offering to sequence your genome and tell you what kind of diet is best for you, what foods to eat, and what supplements to take. But can DNA sequencing fulfill those promises?

The problem is that DNA sequencing only tells you what genes you have. It doesn’t tell you whether those genes are active. Simply put, it doesn’t tell you whether those genes are turned on or turned off.

This is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics is the science of modifications that alter gene expression. In simple terms, both DNA and the proteins that bind to DNA can be modified. This does not change the DNA sequence. But these modifications can determine whether a gene is active (turned on) or inactive (turned off).

This sounds simple enough, but here is where it really gets interesting. These modifications are affected by our diet, our lifestyle (BMI and exercise), our microbiome (gut bacteria), and our environment.

In today’s “Health Tips From The Professor” I am going to share a study (CQ Lai et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112: 1200-1211, 2020) that looks at the effect of diet (low-fat versus low-carb diets) on a particular kind of DNA modification (methylation) that affects a gene (CPT) which influences our risk for metabolic diseases (obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL, insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and type 2 diabetes).

[Note: For simplicity I will just refer to type 2 diabetes in the rest of this article. Just be aware that whatever I say about type 2 diabetes applies to other metabolic diseases as well.]

Previous studies have shown that:

  • Methylation of the CPT gene is the only epigenetic change in the entire genome that is associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • CPT gene activity regulates multiple metabolic pathways that influence the risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • High fructose and sucrose consumption increases CPT gene methylation in rats, and high fat diets suppress that methylation.

Based on those data, the authors hypothesized that carbohydrate and fat intake affect the methylation of CPT gene, which:

  • Alters the activity of the CPT gene and…
  • Affects the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Since we are talking about our diet making alterations to our DNA, we could consider this as an example of, “We are what we eat”.

Biochemistry 101: Why Is Nutrition So Confusing?

ConfusionNow it is time for my favorite topic, Biochemistry 101. Along the way you will discover why nutrition is so complicated – and so confusing.

The CPT gene codes for a protein called carnitine palmitoyltransferase or CPT. CPT transports fats into the mitochondria where they can be oxidized to generate energy. Simply put, without CPT we would be unable to utilize most of the fats we eat. And, as you might expect, CPT is not required for carbohydrate metabolism.

  • In a simple world where our DNA sequence determines our destiny, we would either have an active CPT gene or an inactive mutant version of the gene. If we had the mutant version of the CPT gene, we would be unable to use fat as an energy source.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. Epigenetic modifications alter the activity of the CPT gene. When the CPT gene is unmethylated it is fully active. Methylation inactivates the gene.

  • In a simple world, a high fat diet would activate the CPT gene so our body would be able to utilize the fat in our diet. It would do that by decreasing methylation of the gene. Conversely, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet would decrease CPT gene activity by increasing methylation of the gene.

This is the one simple prediction that works exactly as expected. 

  • In a simple world, CPT would be involved in transport of fat into our mitochondria and nothing else. In that world, the activity of the CPT gene would only affect fat metabolism.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. By mechanisms that are not completely understood, carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) also influences both insulin resistance and release of insulin by our pancreas. That means the activity of the CPT gene also affects our risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 

  • In the simplest terms, we can think of diabetes as an inability to properly regulate blood sugar levels. In a simple world, that would mean that carbohydrates are the problem, and we could reduce our risk of developing diabetes by restricting our intake of carbohydrates.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. There are short-term studies supporting the effectiveness of both low carb and low fat diets at helping to control blood sugar levels. However, longer term studies generally show that only whole food, low fat diets are associated with reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In other words, healthy carbohydrates aren’t the problem. They are the solution for reducing your risk of type 2 diabetes. This isn’t intuitive. It isn’t simple. But the weight of evidence points in this direction.

[I should add the emphasis is on “healthy” carbohydrates. I am talking about diets that emphasize whole food sources of carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes), not diets loaded with sugar, refined carbohydrates, and highly processed foods.]

Confused yet? Don’t worry. The authors of this study combined all this information into a single, unifying hypothesis.

They proposed that the fat and carbohydrate content of the diet influence methylation of the CPT gene, which influences the activity of the CPT gene, which influences both fat metabolism and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Specifically, they proposed that:

  • High fat diets reduce methylation of the CPT gene. This activates the CPT gene which results in more carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) being produced. This improves fat metabolism, but also increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
  • High carbohydrate, low fat diets increase methylation of the CPT gene. This inactivates the CPT gene which results in less CPT being produced. This is OK because there is little fat to be metabolized. However, it also has the advantage of reducing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

This can be visually represented as:Diet And CPT

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study combined the results from 3,954 selected participants in three previous clinical trials:

  • The Genetics of Lipid Lowering Drugs and Diet Network (GOLDN) study.
  • The Framingham Heart Study.
  • The REGICORE study. This study is similar in design to the Framingham Heart Study except the participants were drawn from a region of Spain.

The participants were selected based on 4 criteria:

  • The study they were in measured metabolic disease outcome.
  • The study they were in included a detailed diet analysis.
  • A DNA methylation analysis was performed on blood taken from these participants so that the methylation status of the CPT gene could be determined.
  • mRNA levels were measured for the CPT gene (This is a measure of how active the gene is. Active genes will produce lots of mRNA. Inactive genes will produce very little mRNA).

The study then analyzed the data and looked at the associations between carbohydrate and fat intake with:

  • Methylation of the CPT gene.
  • Activity of the CPT gene (measured as the amount of CPT mRNA produced by the gene).
  • Type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

Do Low Fat Diets Reduce The Risk Of Diabetes?

The authors systematically tested the predictions of their unifying hypothesis (To help you understand the significance of their findings, I am repeating the visual representation of their unifying hypothesis below):

Diet And CPT

  1. Methylation of the CPT gene was negatively associated with type 2 diabetes. Simply put, when the methylation of the of the CPT gene was high, the risk of type 2 diabetes was low. This confirmed the results of previous studies.

2) Carbohydrate and fat intake influenced methylation of the CPT gene. Specifically:

    • Carbohydrate intake and the ratio of carbohydrate to fat intake were positively associated with CPT methylation. Simply put, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet resulted in increased methylation of the CPT gene.
    • Fat intake was negatively associated with CPT methylation. Simply put, a high fat, low carbohydrate diet resulted in decreased methylation of the CPT gene.

3) Carbohydrate and fat intake influenced the activity of the CPT gene. Specifically:Diabetes and healthy die

    • Carbohydrate intake and the ratio of carbohydrate to fat intake was negatively associated with CPT mRNA levels (a measure of CPT gene activity). Simply put, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet resulted in lower CPT gene activity. This means the CPT gene produced less CPT. And, combined with the previous data, it also means that methylation of the CPT gene decreases its activity.
    • Fat intake was positively associated with CPT mRNA levels. Simply put, a high fat, low carbohydrate diet resulted in greater CPT gene activity. This means the CPT gene produces more CPT. And, combined with the previous data, it also means that reducing methylation of the CPT gene increases its activity.

4) CPT gene activity influenced the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Specifically:

    • High CPT gene activity was positively associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes.
    • Low CPT gene activity was negatively associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Putting this all together, as the authors had predicted,

  1. High fat, low carbohydrate diets reduce methylation of the CPT gene. This activates the CPT gene which results in more CPT being produced. This improves fat metabolism, but also increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

2) High carbohydrate, low fat diets increase methylation of the CPT gene. This results in less CPT being produced. This is OK because there is little fat to be metabolized. However, it also has the advantage of reducing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In short, the results of the study confirmed all the predictions of the author’s unifying hypothesis.

Putting it all together, the authors concluded, “Our results suggest that the proportion of total energy supplied by carbohydrate and fat can have a causal effect on metabolic diseases [like type 2 diabetes] via the epigenetic status (DNA methylation) of the CPT gene.” Simply put, their data suggested that high carbohydrate, low fat diets reduced the risk developing type 2 diabetes.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Peek Behind The CurtainLet me start by saying that occasionally I like to give you a peak behind the curtain and talk about emerging areas of research. We should think of this article as the beginning of an exciting new area of research rather than as a definitive study.

I should start with the disclaimer that this study looks at associations between diet, methylation of the CPT gene, and risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Associations do not prove cause and effect. This study does not prove that epigenetic changes to the CPT gene caused the reduction in type 2 diabetes risk.

High carbohydrate and high fat diets likely influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in other ways as well. For example, the fiber in healthy high carbohydrate diets may support friendly gut bacteria that reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

I also don’t view this study as one that settles the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are better for reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. It does not clinch the argument for low fat diets. Rather, this study suggests a mechanism by which low fat diets may reduce the risk of metabolic diseases.

In summary, this study does not end the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are best. However, it does remind us just how complex the human body is. It reminds us that simple assumptions about how foods affect our bodies may not be the correct assumptions. It also helps us understand why nutrition can be so confusing.

The Bottom Line 

In recent years, DNA sequencing has become all the rage. It seems like everyone is offering to sequence your genome and tell you what kind of diet is best for you.

The problem is that DNA sequencing only tells you what genes you have. It doesn’t tell you whether those genes are active. Simply put, it doesn’t tell you whether those genes are turned on or off.

That is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics is the science of modifications that alter gene expression. In simple terms, both DNA and the proteins that bind to DNA can be modified. This does not change the DNA sequence. But these modifications can determine whether a gene is active (turned on) or inactive (turned off).

Epigenetics makes nutrition more complicated, and more confusing. For example, diabetes is characterized an inability to control blood sugar levels properly. Accordingly, it seems only logical that carbohydrates, especially sugars and simple carbohydrates, are the problem.

This study showed that high carbohydrate, low fat diets cause epigenetic modifications to a gene that reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Conversely, high fat, low carb diets have the opposite effect.

This mechanism is consistent with multiple long-term studies showing that whole food, low fat diets reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

This study does not end the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are best. However, it does remind us just how complex the human body is. It reminds us that simple assumptions about how foods affect our bodies may not be the correct assumptions. It also helps us understand why nutrition can be so confusing.

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.

 

Health Tips From The Professor