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

Will A Healthy Lifestyle Help Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease?

September 24, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can Lifestyle Overcome Genetics?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Will a healthy diet help prevent Alzheimer’s disease?

Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia are among the most feared diseases of aging. What use is it to have a healthy body, a loving family, and a successful career if you can’t remember any of it? You should be able to enjoy your Golden years, not see them slip through your fingers.

If you have a family history of dementia or have sent your DNA off for testing and learned you are genetically predisposed to dementia, you are probably worried. You are not alone.

According to the World Health Organization:

50 million people worldwide have dementia.
Alzheimer’s Disease accounts for 60-70% of all dementia cases.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association:

8 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer’s Disease.
1 in 3 seniors will die from Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia.
The number of Americans with Alzheimer’s Disease is expected to increase to 14 million by 2050.

Perhaps the scariest thing about Alzheimer’s is that the medical community has no answers. There are no drugs to prevent or cure Alzheimer’s and brain transplants are out of the question. Some medical professionals will tell you nothing can be done, but is that true?

Studies have suggested that a healthy lifestyle can help reduce your risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. But what about genetics? Will a healthy lifestyle only reduce your risk of dementia if your genetic risk is low or will it be equally effective when your genetic risk is high? Can lifestyle overcome genetics?

This study (I Lourida et al, JAMA, 322: 430-437, 2019 ) was designed to answer that important question.

How Was The Study Done?

This study used data collected from the UK Biobank study, which was designed to assess the effect of genetics and lifestyle on health outcomes. The UK Biobank study enrolled more than 500,000 participants between 2006 and 2010.

At the time of enrollment, UK Biobank participants were given a physical exam. Blood samples were taken and preserved for subsequent genetic analysis. They also completed an online questionnaire and were interviewed about lifestyle, medical history, and nutritional habits.

This study used a subset of the UK Biobank data, consisting of 196,383 people who were 60 years or older and free of cognitive impairment or dementia at the time of enrollment. They were followed for an average of 8 years.

The authors created the following scoring system to assess the effect of genetics and lifestyle on Alzheimer’s disease and dementia:

The Genetic Risk Score represents the combined effect of all genetic variants known to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. [Note: There is no single gene that determines whether you will develop Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. There are multiple gene variations that affect your risk.]

The Healthy Lifestyle Score was based on 4 well-established dementia risk factors (smoking status, physical activity, diet, and alcohol consumption). The risk factors were defined as follows:

Smoking status was categorized as current or no current smoking.
Regular physical activity was defined as meeting the American Heart Association of:
≥ 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week – OR –
≥ 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week.

A healthy diet was defined as meeting at least 4 of these 7 criteria.

≥ 3 servings/day of fruit.
≥ 3 servings/day of vegetables.
≥ 2 servings/week of fish.
≥ 3 servings/day of whole grains.
≤ 1 serving/week of processed meats.
≤ 1.5 servings/week of red meat.
≤ 1.5 servings/day of refined grains.

Moderate alcohol consumption was defined as:

Up to one drink a day for women.
Up to two drinks a day for men.

Finally, the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia was obtained from the centralized databank of the UK National Health Service.

Will A Healthy Lifestyle Help Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease?

Here are the results from the study:

People at high genetic risk were almost twice as likely to develop dementia as those at low genetic risk.

In other words, genetics matter. If you have “bad” genes, your risk of developing dementia is increased significantly.

A healthy lifestyle decreased the risk of developing dementia by about 40% for both people at high genetic risk and for people at low genetic risk.

In other words, lifestyle also matters. You can significantly decrease your risk of developing dementia, no matter what your genetic risk.

People at high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle were almost three times more likely to develop dementia than people at low genetic risk and a healthy lifestyle.

In other words, the combination of a high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle is the worst of all possible worlds.

People at low genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle were just as likely to develop dementia as people at high genetic risk and a healthy lifestyle.

In other words, bad genetics does not doom you to Alzheimer’s and dementia. A healthy lifestyle can cut your risk almost in half. Conversely, good genetics is not a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. You can squander the advantage of good genetics with an unhealthy lifestyle.

Simply put, both genetics and lifestyle influence the risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease and dementia. However, the take-home lesson from this study is that:

A healthy lifestyle can partially offset the effect of bad genetics.
A healthy lifestyle can enhance the effect of good genetics.
An unhealthy lifestyle can negate the benefit of good genetics.

Can Lifestyle Overcome Genetics?

This study clearly suggests that a healthy lifestyle can significantly reduce the effect of “bad” genetics on your risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia as you age. Considering that the medical profession has no other answer for preventing or treating Alzheimer’s Disease, this is really good news.

In the words of Dr. John Haaga of the U.S. National Institute on Aging: “No one can guarantee you’ll escape this awful disease, but you can tip the odds in your favor with clean living.”

The main strength of this study is its very large size. It is also supported by many smaller studies that have come to similar conclusions.

Moreover, a recent intervention study has been performed in Scandinavia in which one group was enrolled in a healthy lifestyle program while the other group continued with their previous health habits. That study also concluded that healthy habits could help prevent mental decline. The Alzheimer’s Association also has a similar intervention study in the United States. We should have more definitive information on this important subject very soon.

Finally, Alzheimer’s Disease may not be unique. Another recent study found that a healthy lifestyle can partially overcome a high genetic risk for developing heart disease.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of genetics and lifestyle on developing Alzheimer’s Disease and other forms of dementia. Here are the results from the study:

People at high genetic risk were almost twice as likely to develop dementia as those at low genetic risk.

In other words, genetics matter. If you have “bad” genes, your risk of developing dementia is increased significantly.

A healthy lifestyle decreased the risk of developing dementia by about 40% for both people at high genetic risk and for people at low genetic risk.

In other words, lifestyle also matters. You can significant decrease your risk of developing dementia, no matter what your genetic risk.

People at high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle were almost three times more likely to develop dementia than people at low genetic risk and a healthy lifestyle.

In other words, the combination of a high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle is the worst of all possible worlds.

People at low genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle were just as likely to develop dementia as people at high genetic risk and a healthy lifestyle.

In the words of Dr. John Haaga of the U.S. National Institute on Aging: “No one can guarantee you’ll escape this awful disease, but you can tip the odds in your favor with clean living.”

For more details on the study and how a healthy lifestyle was defined in 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.

Can Plant-based Diets Be Unhealthy?

September 10, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Plant-Based Diets Reduce Heart Disease Deaths?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Plant-based diets have become the “Golden Boys” of the diet world. They are the diets most often recommended by knowledgeable health and nutrition professionals. I’m not talking about all the “Dr. Strangeloves” who pitch weird diets in books and the internet. I am talking legitimate experts who have spent their life studying the impact of nutrition on our health.

Certainly, there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the claim that plant-based diets are healthy. Going on a plant-based diet can help you lower blood pressure, inflammation, cholesterol and triglycerides. People who consume a plant-based diet for a lifetime weigh less and have decreased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

But, can a plant-based diet be unhealthy? Some people consider a plant-based diet to simply be the absence of meat and other animal foods. Is just replacing animal foods with plant-based foods enough to make a diet healthy?

Maybe not. After all, sugar and white flour are plant-based food ingredients. Fake meats of all kinds abound in our grocery stores. Some are very wholesome, but others are little more than vegetarian junk food. If you replace animal foods with plant-based sweets, desserts, and junk food, is your diet really healthier?

While the answer to that question seems obvious, very few studies have asked that question. Most studies on the benefits of plant-based diets have compared population groups that eat a strictly plant-based diet (Seventh-Day Adventists, vegans, or vegetarians) with the general public. They have not looked at variations in plant food consumption within the general public. Nor have they compared people who consume healthy and unhealthy plant foods.

This study (H Kim et al, Journal of the American Heart Association, 8:e012865, 2019) was designed to fill that void.

How Was The Study Done?

This study used data collected from 12,168 middle aged adults in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study between 1987 and 2016.

The participant’s usual intake of foods and beverages was assessed by trained interviewers using a food frequency questionnaire at the time of entry into the study and again 6 years later.

Participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they consumed 66 foods and beverages of a defined serving size in the previous year. Visual guides were provided to help participants estimate portion sizes.

The participant’s adherence to a plant-based diet was assessed using four different well-established plant-based diet scores. For the sake of simplicity, I will include 3 of them in this review.

The PDI (Plant-Based Diet Index) categorizes foods as either plant foods or animal foods. A high PDI score means that the participant’s diet contains more plant foods than animal foods. A low PDI score means the participant’s diet contains more animal foods than plant foods.
The hPDI (healthy plant-based diet index) is based on the PDI but emphasizes “healthy” plant foods. A high hPDI score means that the participant’s diet is high in healthy plant foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, coffee and tea) and low in animal foods.
The uPDI (unhealthy plant-based diet index) is based on the PDI but emphasizes “unhealthy” plant foods. A high uPDI score means that the participant’s diet is high in unhealthy plant foods (refined grains, fruit juices, French fries and chips, sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts) and low in animal foods.

For statistical analysis the scores from the various plant-based diet indices were divided into 5 equal groups. In each case, the group with the highest score consumed the most plant foods and least animal foods. The group with the lowest score consumed the least plant foods and the most animal foods.

The health outcomes measured in this study were heart disease events, heart disease deaths, and all-cause deaths. Again, for the sake of simplicity, I will only include 2 of these outcomes (heart disease deaths and all-cause deaths) in this review. The data on deaths were obtained from state death records and the National Death Index. (Yes, your personal information is available on the web even after you die.)

Do Plant-Based Diets Reduce Heart Disease Deaths?

The participants in this study were followed for an average of 25 years.

The investigators looked at heart disease deaths over the 25 years and compared people with the highest intake of plant foods to people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods. The results were:

People with the highest intake of plant foods and the highest intake of healthy plant foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, coffee and tea) had a 19-32% lower risk of dying from heart disease than people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.
People with the highest intake of unhealthy plant foods (refined grains, fruit juices, French fries and chips, sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts) had the same risk of dying from heart disease as people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.

When the investigators looked at all-cause deaths over the 25 years:

People with the highest intake of plant foods and the highest intake of healthy plant foods had an 11-25% lower risk of dying from any cause than people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.
People with the highest intake of unhealthy plant foods had the same risk of dying from heart disease as people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.

What Else Did The Study Show?

The investigators made a couple of other interesting observations:

The association of the overall diet with heart disease and all-cause deaths was stronger than the association of individual food components. This underscores the importance of looking at the effect of the whole diet on health outcomes rather than the “magic” foods you hear about on Dr. Strangelove’s Health Blog.
Diets with the highest amount of healthy plant foods were associated with higher intake of carbohydrates, plant protein, fiber, and micronutrients, including potassium, magnesium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, folate, and lower intake of saturated fat and cholesterol.
Diets with the highest amount of unhealthy plant foods were associated with higher intake of calories and carbohydrates and lower intake of fiber and micronutrients.

The last two observations may help explain some of the health benefits of plant-based diets.

Can Plant-Based Diets Be Unhealthy?

Now, let’s return to the question I asked at the beginning of this article: “Can plant-based diets be unhealthy?” Although some previous studies have suggested that unhealthy plant-based diets might increase the risk of heart disease, this study did not show that.

What this study did show was that an unhealthy plant-based diet was no better for you than a diet containing lots of red meat and other animal foods.

If this were the only conclusion from this study, it might be considered a neutral result. However, this result clearly contrasts with the data from this study and many others showing that both plant-based diets in general and healthy plant-based diets reduce the risk of heart disease deaths and all-cause deaths compared to animal-based diets.

The main message from this study is clear.

Replacing red meat and other animal foods with plant foods can be a healthier choice, but only if they are whole, minimally processed plant foods like whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, coffee and tea.
If the plant foods are refined grains, fruit juices, French fries and chips, sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, all bets are off. You may be just as unhealthy as if you kept eating a diet high in red meat and other animal foods.

There is one other subtle message from this study. This study did not compare vegans with the general public. Everyone in the study was the general public. Nobody in the study was consuming a 100% plant-based diet.

For example:

The group with the highest intake of plant foods consumed 9 servings per day of plant foods and 3.6 servings per day of animal foods.
The group with the lowest intake of plant foods consumed 5.4 servings per day of plant foods and 5.6 servings per day of animal foods.

In other words, you don’t need to be a vegan purist to experience health benefits from adding more whole, minimally processed plant foods to your diet.

The Bottom Line

A recent study analyzed the effect of consuming plant foods on heart disease deaths and all-cause deaths over a 25-year period.

When the investigators looked at heart disease deaths over the 25 years:

People with the highest intake of plant foods and the highest intake of healthy plant foods had a 19-32% lower risk of dying from heart disease than people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.
People with the highest intake of unhealthy plant foods had the same risk of dying from heart disease as people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.

When the investigators looked at all-cause deaths over the 25 years:

People with the highest intake of plant foods and the highest intake of healthy plant foods had an 11-25% lower risk of dying from any cause than people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.
People with the highest intake of unhealthy plant foods had the same risk of dying from heart disease as people with the highest intake of red meat and other animal foods.

The main message from this study is clear.

Replacing red meat and other animal foods with plant foods can be a healthier choice, but only if they are whole, minimally processed plant foods like whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, coffee and tea.
If the plant foods are refined grains, fruit juices, French fries and chips, sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, all bets are off. You may be just as unhealthy as if you kept eating a diet high in red meat and other animal foods.

A more subtle message from the study is that you don’t need to be a vegan purist to experience health benefits from adding more whole, minimally processed plant foods to your diet. The people in this study were not following some special diet. The only difference was that some of the people in this study ate more plant foods and others more animal foods.

For more details on the 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.

Can Eating Fish Make Kids Smarter?

September 3, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Will Omega-3s Turn Your Kid Into A Genius?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You have probably heard the old saying that fish is brain food. Is it true? Could eating fish make your kid(s) smarter?

It is certainly a plausible hypothesis. Many fish are good sources of long chain omega-3s (omega-3 fatty acids). Long chain omega-3s, particularly DHA, are an important part of the myelin sheath that coats our neurons.

We can think of the myelin sheath as analogous to the plastic coating on electrical wiring. The coating on electrical wires assures that the electrical signal gets from the beginning of the wire to the end without shorting out somewhere in the middle. The myelin sheath plays a similar role for our neurons.

A number of clinical studies suggest that adequate intake of fish and/or fish oil during pregnancy and the early stages of childhood is important for brain development. Other studies suggest that omega-3 supplementation may improve mental focus and reading skills in school-age children.

The current clinical study (J Liu et al, Scientific Reports, 7: 17961, 2017) looked at the effect of fish consumption in Chinese children aged 9-11 on their IQ score measured at age 12.

How Was The Study Done?

This study included 541 Chinese school children who were part of an ongoing prospective longitudinal study. [That is scientific jargon meaning that one variable (diet) was measured at the beginning of the study and correlated with a second variable (IQ) measured several years later.]

The children were asked to fill out a food frequency questionnaire at ages 9-11. Fish intake frequency was measured by asking the children: “How often do you consume fish in a typical month?” The children were required to choose from:

seldom (less than 2 times per month),
sometimes (2-3 times per month), and
often (at least once a week).

It was assumed that the children might not have known what kind of fish their mothers prepared, so they were not asked to identify the kind of fish they ate.

At the time the children were enrolled in the program the investigators collected data on 13 other variables which might influence IQ. These variables included:

Gender
Parent’s education.
Parent’s occupation.
Parent’s marital status.
Whether the child was breastfed or not.
Duration of breastfeeding.
Home location.
Siblings.
Breakfast consumption (previous research has suggested breakfast intake may influence cognition).

At age 12 the IQ of the children was assessed using the Chinese version of a standard IQ test. The IQ tests were administered independently by two trained investigators to minimize investigator bias.

Verbal IQ was assessed based on:
- Information Recall.
- Comprehension
- Arithmetic
- Vocabulary
- Recognition of Similarities.

Performance IQ was assessed based on:
- Picture Arrangement.
- Picture Completion.
- Object Assembly.
- Block Design.
- Coding
- Mazes
The Total IQ score was based on a combination of the Verbal and Performance scores.

The study measured the impact of fish consumption at ages 9-11 on IQ at age 12 and included statistical correction for other variables that might have influenced IQ.

Can Eating Fish Make Your Kids Smarter?

When the children who frequently consumed fish (≥once a week) were compared to children who seldom consumed fish (˂2 times a month), their IQ scores were:

75 points higher in verbal IQ.
79 points higher in performance IQ.
80 points higher in total IQ.

When the children who sometimes consumed fish (2-3 times a month) were compared to children who seldom consumed fish, their IQ scores were:

92 points higher in verbal IQ.
52 points higher in performance IQ.
31 points higher in total IQ.

These data are consistent with previous studies showing that both dietary fish and omega-3 intake are associated with improved cognitive and academic performance in school age children.

[Note: This study also suggested that fish consumption may improve sleep quality, and the improved sleep quality may influence IQ. This is a complex subject. As such, it is best discussed in a future issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.]

What Are the Strengths And Weaknesses Of This Study?

Strengths: The strengths of the study were:

It was a relatively large study.
Fish consumption was measured 1-3 years earlier than IQ.
The association between fish consumption and IQ remained significant after adjusting for 13 other variables known to influence IQ.
There was a clear dose-response relationship between the three levels of fish consumption.
It is consistent with a number of other studies showing that fish/omega-3 intake improves cognitive performance in children.

Thus, the authors concluded: “We believe the findings cannot be easily attributed to chance and that, instead, they reflect a reliable relationship between early, frequent fish consumption and later, improved cognitive performance.”

Weaknesses: The weaknesses of the study were:

It did not ask what kinds of fish the children were eating. Some fish are much better sources of omega-3s than others, so it is not entirely accurate to attribute the higher IQ to omega-3 intake.
It did not assess the effect of “diet context” on the results. The Chinese diet is a primarily plant-based, low-fat diet. It is unclear whether eating fish once a week would have the same effect on IQ in the context of a typical American diet.
It is an “association study.” It simply measured the association between fish consumption and IQ. It does not prove cause and effect.

Finally, this is the first study to measure the correlation between fish consumption and IQ in this age group. Clearly, more experiments are needed to confirm these findings.

Will Omega-3s Turn Your Kid Into A Genius?

Who wouldn’t want their children or grandchildren to have higher IQs?

However, I wouldn’t read too much into a study like this.

Let me share some perspective by way of a personal story. When I was in grade school, every child was given an IQ test and an aptitude test (I scored very low on anything mechanical in the aptitude test, which my wife can attest to.)

We children, as might be expected, shared our IQ scores. However, the scores didn’t prove to be as meaningful as we initially expected.

There were some kids in my class who had much higher IQ scores. In fact, they ranked in the genius category. However, many of them did mediocre in school and had undistinguished careers. In contrast, some of the kids who scored lower on their IQ tests had spectacular careers in their chosen fields.

The moral of this story is, of course, that there is a lot more than IQ that goes into success in school and success in life. With IQ, like many other things, it is important to have enough, but more is not necessarily better.

However, this study is consistent with many other studies suggesting that omega-3s, especially DHA, are important for brain development, mental focus, and cognitive skills in children. Consequently, if you have a child or grandchild, you want to make sure that they are getting enough omega-3s in their diet.

How much is enough, you might ask? Recommendations range from 70 mg/day EPA+DHA for children ages 1-3 to 100-150 mg/day EPA+DHA for older children, with about 2/3 of that coming from DHA.

While that may not sound like much, a recent study of 10, 942 American children ages 1-11 found that only around 25% of them were getting the recommended amount of EPA+DHA from their diet. In fact, most American children only get around 20-40 mg of EPA+DHA from their diet.

Fish are the preferred source of EPA+DHA because they also provide a healthy protein source, something else your child may not be getting enough of. The best fish sources of omega-3s are mackerel, salmon, sea bass, and sardines.

Of course, if your child is one of the many children who are not fond of omega-3-rich fish, you may want to consider an omega-3 supplement, especially one rich in DHA.

The Bottom Line

A recent study analyzed the correlation between fish consumption and IQ in school aged children. The study found:

When the children who frequently consumed fish (≥once a week) were compared to children who seldom consumed fish (˂2 times a month), their IQ scores were:

75 points higher in verbal IQ.
79 points higher in performance IQ.
80 points higher in total IQ.

When the children who sometimes consumed fish (2-3 times a month) were compared to children who seldom consumed fish, their IQ scores were:

92 points higher in verbal IQ.
52 points higher in performance IQ.
31 points higher in total IQ.

These data are consistent with previous studies showing that both dietary fish and omega-3 intake are associated with improved cognitive and academic performance in school age children.

For more details on the study and perspective on what the 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.

Do Older Adults Eat Enough Protein?

August 27, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Impact Of Inadequate Protein Intake On Healthy Aging

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Do older adults eat enough protein?

Most Americans lose lean muscle mass as they age, a physiological process called sarcopenia. There are three factors that influence the rate at which we lose muscle mass as we age:

Our physiology changes. Our bodies break down our protein stores more rapidly and we have a harder time utilizing the protein in our diet to replenish those protein stores.
We become less active. In some cases this reflects physical disabilities, but all too often it is because we are not giving weight-bearing exercises the proper priority in our busy lives.
Our diets become inadequate. The major driver of this phenomenon is loss of appetite which results in decreased caloric intake. However, physical disability, isolation, and insufficient income also contribute.

Sarcopenia in turn results in:

Loss of muscle strength. Even the simple act of picking up a grandchild or a bag of groceries can become problematic.
Increased risk of falls and fractures.
Lower quality of life.

Obviously, sarcopenia is a major health issue for those of us in our golden years. If you are younger, it is a concern for your parents or grandparents. Sarcopenia is a health issue that affects everyone.

But what can be done to prevent sarcopenia? We can’t change our physiology, but we can change our activity level and our diet. Weight-bearing exercise tugs on our muscle fibers. That stimulates those fibers to incorporate protein into new muscle cells. It is no wonder that weight-bearing exercise is recommended for preventing sarcopenia.

What about diet? Are older adults getting enough protein in their diet? The conventional wisdom is that protein intake is not a problem. We’ve been told that Americans get enough protein in our diet. In fact, we’ve been told that most of us get more protein than we need.

Is that true for older Americans? In fact, very few studies have specifically looked at protein intake in older Americans. This study (JL Krok-Schoen et al, The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 23: 338-347, 2019 ) was designed to fill that void.

How Was The Study Done?

This study used data on 11,680 Americans who participated in NHANES surveys between 2005 and 2014. (NHANES or National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys is a program run by the CDC that is designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children living in the United States).

Participants in the study were grouped into three groups: 51-60 years (4,016 participants), 61-70 years (3,854 participants), and 71 years and older (3,810 participants).

Protein intake and diet quality were based on the average of two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Trained dietary interviewers collected detailed information on all foods and beverages consumed during the past 24 hours.

Participants also filled out a questionnaire designed to assess health outcomes that might be affected by loss of muscle mass.

Note: The NHANES database is used for many studies on the association between diet and health outcomes. However, it is important to remember that a 24-hour diet recall is a single snapshot in time. This is a weakness of this and all similar studies. For example, in this study a participant’s average protein intake may be more or may be less than the amount reflected in the 24-hour diet recall.

Are Older Adults Eat Enough Protein?

To determine whether American older adults eat enough protein in their diet, the investigators compared protein intake in each age group with the DRI (Dietary Reference Intake) for protein of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (0.36 grams per pound). This is the standard set by the Food & Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences for all adults over the age of 19.

The results were:

Up to 46% of older adults were not getting the recommended 0.8 g/kg/day of protein. When broken down by age groups, the percentages were:
- 38% of the 51-60 age group.
- 42% of the 61-70 age group.
- 46% of those over 70.
Women were more likely to be consuming inadequate protein than men.
Blacks were more likely to be consuming inadequate protein than other demographic groups.

When the investigators looked at the correlation between diet quality and protein intake, those consuming inadequate protein:

Had significantly lower calorie intake.
Skipped meals more frequently.
Had lower HEI (Healthy Eating Index) scores. Specifically:
They scored low on intake of greens, beans, dairy, total protein foods, seafood protein foods, and plant protein foods.
They scored high on intake of refined grains and added sugars.
Had inadequate intakes of fiber, zinc, selenium, vitamin C, vitamin E, and vitamin D.

The Impact Of Inadequate Protein Intake On Healthy Aging

When the investigators compared older adults with inadequate protein intake to adults in the same age groups with adequate protein intake, those with inadequate protein intake:

Had a higher prevalence of physical, mental, and social limitations.
Were more likely to be limited when stooping, crouching, or kneeling, standing or sitting for long periods, walking up 10 steps, preparing meals, and walking for a quarter mile.
They had trouble lifting more than 10 or 15 pounds.

Limitations on everyday activities like these have a significant impact on the quality of life experienced by these individuals.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

If you are over 50 or have a family member over 50, this study should serve as a wake-up call. You or your loved ones may not be getting enough protein.

In the words of the authors: “A considerable portion of older adults (31%-50%) did not meet their protein recommendation (0.8 g/kg/d)…This contradicts the common perception that Americans are usually meeting or exceeding the 0.8 g/kg/d protein recommendation.”

The situation may be even worse than this study indicates. This study used the DRI standard for adequate protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/d. Many recent studies suggest that significantly higher protein intakes (1-1.2 g/kg/d) are needed for older adults to prevent loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia). If so, the likelihood that you or your loved ones are not getting enough protein is even higher.

In the words of the authors: “There is a general consensus recommending dietary protein intakes of 1-1.2 g/kg/d…for older adults…If over one third of older adults are not meeting the recommendation of 0.8 g/kg/d, these data suggest that far fewer older adults would be meeting the proposed higher levels (1-1.2 g/kg/d) needed to meet the demands to promote healthy aging.”

The consequences of inadequate protein intake in the older adults may have a significant effect on their quality of life.

In the words of the authors: “This analysis found a positive association between achieving the recommended protein intake and self-reported physical functioning. The functional limitations associated with not meeting the protein requirement were all related to activities of daily living…”

Because of decreased appetite in many older adults, it is difficult to meet protein intakes of 1-1.2 g/kg/d with food alone. Protein supplementation can play a valuable role.

In the words of the authors: “When food alone is insufficient to meet a patient’s needs, oral nutritional supplementation may provide a means to meet protein intake recommendations.

“To some extent, sarcopenia can be managed with protein supplementation, considering all the factors that are working to reduce food intake in aging.” [The authors used the phrase “To some extent” because weight-bearing exercise is also required to manage sarcopenia].

While this study focused on protein intake, weight-bearing exercise is also essential to prevent sarcopenia. Exercise and adequate protein intake work together to build and maintain lean muscle mass.
Finally, we should not ignore the fact that those adults who were not getting enough protein were also getting insufficient levels of many micronutrients that affect the aging process. A good diet and supplementation are also important for healthy aging.

Specifically, the authors noted:

“Dietary fiber is associated with many benefits, especially in reducing the risk of heart disease.”
“Vitamin D inadequacy is associated with reduced mobility and an increase in risk for falls and fracture.”
“Zinc deficiencies…may cause dysfunctions in immunity and reduced healing time.”

The Bottom Line

A recent study analyzed protein intake in older American adults. The conclusions of the study were:

If you are over 50 or have a family member over 50, this study should serve as a wake-up call. You or your loved ones may not be getting enough protein.
The situation may be even worse than this study indicates. This study used the DRI standard for adequate protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/d. Many recent studies suggest that significantly higher protein intakes are needed for older adults to prevent loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia). If so, the likelihood that you or your loved ones are not getting enough protein is even higher.
The consequences of inadequate protein intake in the older adults may have a significant effect on their quality of life.
Because of decreased appetite in many older adults, it is difficult to meet protein intakes of 1-1.2 g/kg/d with food alone. Protein supplementation can play a valuable role.
While this study focused on protein intake, weight-bearing exercise is also essential to prevent sarcopenia. Exercise and adequate protein intake work together to build and maintain lean muscle mass.
Finally, we should not ignore the fact that those adults who were not getting enough protein were also getting insufficient levels of many micronutrients that affect the aging process. A good diet and supplementation are also important for healthy aging.

For more details on the 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.

Eye Pain Relief

August 20, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Simple Treatment To Make Your Eye Pain Disappear

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

As the song goes: ”…Summertime and the living is e-a-s-y….” Here in Florida we know that the living is easy because it’s so hot who wants to be doing anything except either sitting in the shade, or inside in the air conditioning. Personally, I don’t think this summer was so bad, especially the evenings, but then, I really hate the cold so maybe my opinion is biased.

To stay in alignment with “living is easy,” I’m taking the advice of a few experts who teach easy ways to stay calm, motivated, and happy. I’m taking a 30-day break from the news. It’s so much in my face lately that it’s really affecting me in a very negative way. So far, I’m two days into my 30 days.

I’ve decided that I want to take away some of the stress that seems to be normal for everyone. To that end I was listening to a speaker who was talking about the dangers of stress and what it does to the body. Really frightening! He was saying that negative news sells and, for example, in the 1990’s in one city of the USA, homicides had gone down 42%, but the local TV station increased its coverage of homicides by 700%. It’s only gotten worse in 2019. It’s making us think we live in a dangerous country, and it sure isn’t helping our blood pressure.

To solve that problem, this speaker recommended going on a “news fast” for 30 days. Absolutely no negative news of any kind for a full month. I’m surrounded by news all day so it’s a challenge, but I’ve found a great substitute: www.GoodNewsNetwork.org. Their mission is to be an antidote to the barrage of negativity experienced in the mainstream media.

So, I want to share this with you, and if you have any other good news stations/websites you love, please feel free to share it with me.

I think I’m off to the beach with a big umbrella and a thermos of ice-cold tea! Living the e-a-s-y life!

Have a relaxing month!

Eye Strain And Eye Pain

This week I had a client come to the office with a situation that is pretty rare. He described his pain as on his eyeball, which then referred to the entire top half of his skull. It was like drawing a line that went under his eyes, through his ears, and around his head. It was definitely a headache but concentrated on his eyes. He was in desperate need of eye pain relief.

This client works in an industry that has the computer screen changing frequently and he’s needing to locate information on the new screen quickly. He has experienced eye strain before, but other times just having the weekend off has resolved the problem. This time the pain didn’t go away.

We don’t ever think about the muscles that move our eyes, but they can get repetitively strained just like any other muscle in the body. This especially happens if you are watching something that has your eye moving back and forth rapidly, like a game on your computer or phone.

The muscles that are most prone to a repetitive strain injury are the ones on the top of the eye and on the outside of the eye. I’m not an eye doctor so I can’t explain why these two muscles cause more problems than the others, but my experience has shown this to be the truth.

Eye Pain Relief

The treatment is simple, but you need to do it cautiously. If you wear contacts, you’ll need to remove them. The pressure is VERY light.

Put your fingertip directly onto your eyeball and press down GENTLY.

Slide your finger from the top of your eyeball to the outside of your eyeball.

If you find a point where it is tender, that’s the spasm that is putting a strain on your eyeball. Just leave your fingertip on that point for 30 seconds.

You may even get a light show while doing this, with different shapes and colors.

You’ll find that this simple treatment will soothe tired eyes at the end of the day. But remember, the pressure needs to be light and gentle.

Why stay in pain when it’s so easy to find the muscular source of the problem and eliminate it?

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living (https://julstromethod.com/product/treat-yourself-to-pain-free-living-hardcopy/) is filled with over 100 pictures and descriptions proven to show you how to find and self-treat muscle spasms from head to foot!

Join the 1000’s of people worldwide who have discovered that tight muscles were the true source of pains they thought were from arthritis, fibromyalgia, and other serious conditions. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by releasing tight muscles.

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living is your step-by-step guide to pain relief!

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.

About The Author

Julie Donnelly is a Deep Muscle Massage Therapist with 20 years of experience specializing in the treatment of chronic joint pain and sports injuries. She has worked extensively with elite athletes and patients who have been unsuccessful at finding relief through the more conventional therapies.

She has been widely published, both on – and off – line, in magazines, newsletters, and newspapers around the country. She is also often chosen to speak at national conventions, medical schools, and health facilities nationwide.

Are Pregnant Women and Children Dangerously Deficient in Omega-3s?

August 13, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Omega-3 Status Of The American Population?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It is no secret that the American population is deficient in omega-3s. Numerous studies have documented that fact. There are many reasons for Americans’ low intake of omega-3s:

The high price of omega-3-rich fish.
Concerns about sustainability, heavy metal contamination, and/or PCB contamination of omega-3 rich fish.
Misleading headlines claiming that omega-3 supplements are worthless and may even do you harm.

Of course, the questions you are asking are probably?

How deficient are we?
Does it matter?

The latest study (M Thompson et al, Nutrients, 2019, 11: 177, doi: 10.3390/nu11010177) goes a long way towards answering those important questions.

How Was The Study Done?

This study used data on 45,347 Americans who participated in NHANES surveys between 2003 and 2014. (NHANES or National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys is a program run by the CDC that is designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children living in the United States).

EPA and DHA intake from foods was based on the average of two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Trained dietary interviewers collected detailed information on all foods and beverages consumed during the past 24 hours.

To assess EPA and DHA intake from supplements study participants were asked what supplements they had taken in the past 30 days, how many days out of 30 they had taken it, and the amount that was taken on those days.

What Is The Omega-3 Status Of The American Population?

The results of the NHANES surveys were shocking.

In terms of total EPA+DHA intake:

EPA+DHA intake across all age groups was lower than recommended.
Toddlers (ages 1-5), children (ages 6-11), and adolescents (ages 12-19) had lower EPA+DHA intakes than adults (ages 20-55) and seniors (ages > 55).
Women had lower EPA+DHA intakes than men.
Pregnant women and women of childbearing age did not differ in their EPA+DHA.
Pregnant women consumed less fish than women of childbearing age (perhaps because of concerns about heavy metal contamination).
Pregnant women consumed more omega-3 supplements.

In terms of EPA+DHA from supplements:

Less than 1% of the American population reported using omega-3 supplements.
The one exception was pregnant women. 7.3% of pregnant women reported taking an omega-3 supplement.
People taking omega-3 supplements had significantly higher EPA+DHA intake than people not taking omega-3 supplements.
This was also true for pregnant women. Those taking omega-3 supplements had higher EPA+DHA intake.

Of course, like any clinical study, it has strengths and weaknesses.

The biggest weakness of this study is that omega-3 intake is based on the participants recall of what they ate. The strengths of the study are its size (45,347 participants) and the fact that its estimate of omega-3 intake is consistent with several smaller studies.

Are Americans Deficient In Omega-3s?

Now we are ready to answer the questions I posed at the beginning of this article. Let’s start with the first one: “How deficient are we?”

You would think the answer to that question would be easy. It is not. This study provides a precise estimate of American’s omega-3 intake. The problem is there is no consensus as to how much omega-3s we need. There is no RDA for omega-3s.

There are, in fact, three sets of guidelines for how much omega-3s we need, and they disagree.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for EPA+DHA intake range from 100-150 mg/day at ages 2-4 years to 200-500 mg/day for adults.
The US National Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for EPA+DHA intake range from 70 mg/day for ages 1-3 to 110 mg/day for adult females and 160 mg/day for adult males.
As if that weren’t confusing enough, an international group of experts recently convened for a “Workshop on the Essentiality of and Recommended Dietary Intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fatty Acids” (Workshop). This group recommended an EPA+DHA intake of 440 mg/day for adults and 520 mg/day for pregnant and lactating women.

Using these recommendations as guidelines, this study reported that:

EPA+DHA intake for children 1-5 years old was ~25% of the WHO recommendations and ~40% of IOM recommendations.
EPA+DHA intake for children 6-11 years old was ~27% of WHO recommendations and ~40% of IOM recommendations.
EPA+DHA intake for adolescents 12-19 years old was ~50% of IOM recommendations (The WHO did not have a separate category for adolescents.
EPA+DHA intake for adults 20-55 years old was ~30% of WHO recommendations, and ~65% of IOM recommendations.
EPA+DHA intake for seniors >55 years old was 38% of WHO recommendations and 82% of IOM recommendations.
EPA+DHA intake for pregnant women was ~20% of Workshop recommendations (The WHO and IOM did not have a separate category for pregnant women).

While the percentage deficiency varied according to the EPA+DHA guidelines used, it is clear from these results that Americans of all age groups are not getting enough omega-3s from their diet.

The authors concluded: “We found omega-3 intakes across all age groups was lower than recommended amounts.”

Are Pregnant Women and Young Children Dangerously Deficient In Omega-3s?

While the authors concluded that all age groups were deficient in omega-3s, they were particularly concerned about the omega-3 deficiencies in pregnant women and young children.

The authors said: “Taken together, these findings demonstrate that low omega-3 fatty acid intake is consistent among the US population and could increase the risk for adverse health outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations (e.g., young children and pregnant women).”

In part, the focus on young children and pregnant women was based on their very low omega-3 intake. With intakes at 20-27% of recommended levels, I would consider these groups to be dangerously deficient in omega-3s.

However, the focus on young children and pregnant women was also based on the seriousness of the adverse health outcomes associated with low omega-3 intake in these population groups. This answers the second question I posed at the beginning of this article: “Does it matter?”

According to the authors low intake of EPA and DHA during pregnancy and early childhood is associated with maternal depression, pre-term births, low birth-weight babies, increased risk of allergies and asthma, problems with learning and cognition, and other neurocognitive outcomes.

None of these associations between low omega-3 intake and adverse health outcomes have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the evidence is strong enough that we should be alarmed by the very low omega-3 intake in pregnant women and young children.

There is, however, a simple solution. The authors of this study concluded: “Individuals taking EPA/DHA containing supplements had significantly elevated intake compared to individuals not taking omega-3 fatty acid-containing supplements or not reporting any supplement use.”

They went on to say: “As supplement use is associated with increased omega-3 intake, supplementation could be an important source of EPA/DHA, particularly for pregnant women given their lower fish consumption compared to non-pregnant women of childbearing age.”

I agree. Given the low omega-3 intake in these population group and current guidelines for omega-3 intake. I recommend:

Pregnant & lactating women (and women of childbearing age who might become pregnant) take an omega-3 supplement providing around 520 mg of EPA+DHA/day.
Young children (ages 1-5) take an omega-3 supplement providing around 100 mg of DHA/day.

Of course, this study also confirmed that Americans of all age groups are not getting enough omega-3s from their diet, and low omega-3 intake may increase the risk of heart disease. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that high purity omega-3 supplements may reduce heart disease risk.

You will find my recommendations for omega-3 supplementation for adults in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor.”

The Bottom Line

The largest study to date (45,347 participants) measured omega-3 intake for Americans of all ages and compared that to current recommendations for omega-3 intake.

The authors of the study concluded:

“We found omega-3 intakes across all age groups was lower than recommended amounts.”
“Low omega-3 fatty acid intake … could increase the risk for adverse health outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations (e.g., young children and pregnant women.”

However, the focus on young children and pregnant women was also based on the seriousness of the adverse health outcomes associated with low omega-3 intake in these population groups.

According to the authors low intake of EPA and DHA during pregnancy and early childhood is associated with maternal depression, pre-term births, low birth-weight babies, increased risk of allergies and asthma, problems with learning and cognition, and other neurocognitive outcomes.

There is, however, a simple solution. The authors of this study also concluded:

“Individuals taking EPA/DHA containing supplements had significantly elevated intake compared to individuals not taking omega-3 fatty acid-containing supplements or not reporting any supplement use.”
“As supplement use is associated with increased omega-3 intake, supplementation could be an important source of EPA/DHA, particularly for pregnant women given their lower fish consumption compared to non-pregnant women of childbearing age.”

For more details on the study and my recommendations for omega-3 supplementation, read the article above.

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

What is Nutrigenomics

August 6, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Truth About Personalized Nutrition Testing? – Part 2

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When the human genome was sequenced in 2003, many of us in the scientific community thought we were on the verge of a revolution in human health and longevity. We would soon be able to tell individuals their risk of developing various diseases.

Even better, we would be able to tell them the kind of diet and supplementation they needed to avoid those diseases. We would be able to personalize our nutritional recommendation for every individual based on their genome – something called nutrigenomics.

How naive we were! It has turned out to be much more complicated to design personalized nutrition recommendations based on someone’s genome than we ever imagined.

What Is Nutrigenomics?

As a Professor at the University of North Carolina I specialized in cancer drug development for over 30 years. Over the last decade of my career a ﬁeld called pharmacogenomics became widely accepted in the ﬁeld of cancer drug development. In simple terms, pharmacogenomics looks at how an individual’s genes influence the effectiveness and side effects of drugs.

Because of pharmacogenomics, drugs today are being approved to target cancers for people whose cancer cells have a particular genetic makeup. These drugs would not have been approved a decade ago because if you test them on cancer in the general population, they have little or no eﬀectiveness. They only work on a subset of people who have a form of cancer with a specific genetic makeup.

In principle, nutrigenomics is the same principle. You’ve heard for years that we all have unique nutritional needs. Now we are starting to learn why. It’s because we all have unique variations in our genetic makeup. These genetic mutations increase our risk of certain diseases, and they increase our needs for certain nutrients.

For example, mutations in the MTHFR gene increase the risk of certain birth defects, and supplementation with folic acid is particularly important for reducing birth defects in that population group.

Similarly, mutations in the vitamin D receptor, the VDR gene, interfere with vitamin D absorption from foods and are associated with a condition known as “vitamin D-resistant rickets.” Babies born with this genetic defect require mega doses of vitamin D for normal bone formation.

These are the best-established examples of gene mutations that affect nutritional needs. Many more gene-nutrient interactions have been proposed, but they have not been validated by follow-up experiments.

The situation is similar when we look at gene mutations associated with metabolic responses such as fat and carbohydrate metabolism, obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. There are a few gene mutations that have strong associations with obesity and diabetes. Many more gene-metabolism interactions have been proposed, but the data are weak and inconsistent.

The Promise Of Nutrigenomics

Now that you understand what nutrigenomics is and have some background information about it, let’s look at the promise of nutrigenomics. One promise of nutrigenomics is personalized supplement programs.

We all have different nutritional needs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized supplement program that precisely fits your genetically determined nutritional requirements?

There are companies that offer such personalized supplement programs. Are they providing you with something of value or is their testing bogus? Are their supplements worthless?

Another promise of nutrigenomics is personalized diet advice. Some people seem to do better on low-fat diets. Other people do best on low-carb diets. Saturated fats and red meats may be more problematic for some individuals than for others. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized diet program – one that allows you to lose weight easily and gain vibrant health.

There are companies that will analyze your genome and tell you whether you are more likely to lose weight and be healthier on a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet. Is their testing accurate or is it bogus? Are they providing you with useful information, or is their diet advice worthless?

The Problem With Nutrigenomics

The short answer to the questions I posed in the previous section is that personalized supplement and diet programs are on the horizon, but we are not there yet. Companies promising you personalized nutrition programs based on DNA tests are misleading you. They quote a few studies supporting the tests they run and ignore the many studies showing their tests are worthless.

In case you think that is just my opinion, let me quote from some recent reviews on the current status of nutrigenomics.

For example, a review (C Murgia and MM Adamski, Nutrients, 366, 2017) published in 2017 concluded: “The potential applications to nutrition of this invaluable tool were apparent since the genome was mapped. The first articles discussing nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics were published less than a year after the first draft of the human DNA sequence was made available…However, fifteen years and hundreds of publications later, the gap between the experimental and epidemiologic evidence and health practice is not yet closed.”

“The [complexity] of the genotype information is not the only factor that complicates this translation into practice. The discovery of other levels of control, including epigenetics [modifications of DNA that affect gene expression] and the intestinal microbiome, are other complicating factors. While the science of nutritional genomics continues to demonstrate potential individual responses to nutrition, the complex nature of gene, nutrition and health interactions continues to provide a challenge for healthcare professionals to analyze, interpret and apply to patient recommendations.”

Another review (M Gaussch-Ferre et al, Advances in Nutrition, 9: 128-135, 2018 ) published in 2018 concluded: “Overall, the scientific evidence supporting the dissemination of genomic information for nutrigenomic purposes remains sparse. Therefore, additional knowledge needs to be generated…”

In short, the experts are saying we still don’t know enough to predict the best diets or the best supplements based on genetic information alone. Why is that? Why is it so complicated? In part, it can be explained by a term called penetrance. Penetrance simply means that the same gene mutation can have different effects in different people. In some people, its effects may be barely noticeable. In other people its effects may be debilitating.

What Is The Truth About Personalized Nutrition Testing?

Penetrance is not just a word. It’s a concept. What causes differences in genetic penetrance? Here are the most likely explanations.

Human genetics is very complex. There are some gene mutations, such as those causing cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia, that can cause a disease by themselves. Most gene mutations, however, simply predispose to a disease or metabolic disturbance and are highly influenced by the activity of other genes. That’s because the products of gene expression form intricate regulatory and metabolic networks. When a single gene is mutated, it interacts with many other genes in the network. And, that network is different for each of us.
Many common diseases are polygenic. That includes disease like heart disease, diabetes, and most cancers. Simply put, that means that they are not caused by a single gene mutation. They are caused by the cumulative effect of many mutations, each of which has a small effect on disease risk. The same appears to be true for mutations that influence carbohydrate and fat metabolism and affect nutrient requirements.
The outcome of gene mutations is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment. For example, a common mutation in a gene called FTO predisposes to obesity. However, the effect of this mutation on obesity is strongest when it is coupled with inactivity and foods of high caloric density (translation: junk foods and fast foods instead of fresh fruits and vegetables). Simply put, that means most of us are genetically predisposed to obesity if we follow the American lifestyle, but obesity is not inevitable.
Epigenetics has an important influence on gene expression. When I was a graduate student, we believed our genetic destiny was solely determined by our DNA sequence. That was still the prevailing viewpoint when the human genome project was initiated. We thought that once we had our complete DNA sequence, we would know everything we needed to know about our genetic destiny.

How short sighted we were! It turns out that our DNA can be modified in multiple ways. These modifications do not change the DNA sequence, but they can have major effects on gene expression. They can turn genes on or turn them off. More importantly, we have come to learn that these DNA modifications can be influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and exposure to environmental pollutants.

This is the science we call epigenetics. We have gone from believing we have a genome (DNA sequence) that is invariant and controls our genetic destiny to understanding that we also have an “epigenome” (modifications to our DNA) that is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment and can change day-to-day.

Our microbiome has an important influence on our health and nutritional status. Simply put, the term microbiome refers to our intestinal microbes. Our intestinal bacteria are incredibly diverse. Each of us has about 1,000 distinct species of bacteria in our intestines.

Current evidence suggests these intestinal bacteria influence our immune system, inflammation and auto-immune diseases, brain function and mood, and our predisposition to weight gain – and this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

More importantly, our microbiome is influenced by our diet. For example, vegetarians and meat eaters have entirely different microbiomes. Furthermore, the effect of diet on our microbiome is transitory. If you change your diet, the species of bacteria in your microbiome will completely change in a few weeks.

Finally, our microbiome also influences our nutritional requirements. For example, some species of intestinal bacteria are the major source of biotin and vitamin K2 for all of us and the major source of vitamin B12 for vegans. Intestinal bacteria may also contribute to our supply of folic acid and thiamine. Other intestinal bacteria inactivate and/or remove some vitamins from the intestine for their own use. Thus, the species of bacteria that populate our intestines can influence our nutritional requirements.

Now that you know the complexity of gene interactions you understand why we are not ready to rely on DNA tests yet. We don’t yet know enough to design a simple DNA test to predict our unique nutritional needs. That science is at least 10-20 years in the future. Companies that tell you otherwise are lying to you.

My Recommendations for Supplements and Foods

Here are my recommendations for how to decide which foods or supplements you should eat:

Think of DNA testing as only the first step in the process of learning which foods and supplements are best for you. Since DNA testing is not definitive by itself, I wouldn’t recommend spending thousands of dollars on a DNA test.
Next, start with diets that we know are healthy long-term. As I discussed in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths,” any primarily plant-based diet ranging from vegan to Mediterranean and DASH diets is likely to be healthy long-term. If you find you need a low carb diet, I recommend the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet.
Don’t eliminate plant food groups like fruits, whole grains, or legumes from your diet unless you have an objective reason to do so (more about that below).
Learn to listen to your body. Keep track of the foods and/or supplements you eat and how they make you feel.
In terms of listening to your body, start with your digestive system. I have vegan friends who experience constant gas and bloating and think of it as a badge of honor. I have keto friends who experience constant constipation and think of it as a badge of honor. Neither is correct. That is just their body telling them the diet they are eating is not right for them. Here is the process I recommend:
Start by trying the various plant-based diets for 4 to 6 weeks until you find the one that works best for you. For example, when I tried that approach it became clear that a vegan diet was not for me. I discovered I do much better on a semi-vegetarian diet.
If you are still experiencing digestive issues, start paying more attention to the foods you are eating. If you keep a log of the foods you eat and when you experience digestive issues for a few weeks, you will likely be able to identify foods that are problematic for you. Once you have done that, eliminate them from your diet for a few weeks and then go back and do a food challenge test where you add that food back to your diet to confirm that it is a problem for you.
If all this fails, I recommend an elimination diet or FODMAP diet to identify foods to avoid (You can find instructions for both on the internet). [Note: Skin tests are notoriously unreliable, but they may give you some clues about foods to avoid that you could confirm with a food challenge.]
Finally, if digestive issues persist, you should make an appointment with your doctor.
Also, pay attention to blood sugar control following the same approach I outlined for digestive issues.
Symptoms of high blood sugar are fatigue, thirst, headache, trouble concentrating, and frequent urination.
Symptoms of low blood sugar are hunger, shakiness, anxiety, irritability, feeling lightheaded, and sleepiness.
Biomarkers of disease, like LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, c-reactive protein (a measure of inflammation), and HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control), can be useful indicators of whether a diet or supplement is right for you. However, you should interpret improvements in disease biomarkers with caution because they can be misleading when you have been following a diet or supplement program for a short time.

Any diet that results in rapid weight loss will improve disease biomarkers in the short term. Similarly, some supplement programs give a transitory improvement in disease biomarkers. It is only when a diet or supplement program has been followed for 5, 10, or 20 years that disease biomarkers become truly reliable indicators of the success or failure of that diet or supplement program.

Finally, feelings of well-being, energy, mood, and clarity of thinking are subjective and highly susceptible to the placebo effect. They are the least reliable indicators of the success or failure of a food or supplement program.

The Bottom Line

Nutrigenomics is defined as the interaction between our genetic makeup and our diet. How far have we advanced in the science of nutrigenomics? Can a simple DNA test provide us with useful information?

For example, we all have different nutritional needs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized supplement program that precisely fits your genetically determined nutritional requirements?

There are companies that offer such personalized supplement programs. Are they providing you with something of value or is their testing bogus? Are their supplements worthless?

Two recent reviews have surveyed the nutrigenomic literature (all published clinical studies) and have concluded that we still don’t know enough to predict the best diets or the best supplements based on genetic information alone. Why is that? It is because:

Human genetics is very complex.
Many common diseases are polygenic (caused by the cumulative effect of many mutations).
The effect of gene mutations on our health and wellbeing is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment.
Epigenetics has an important influence on gene expression.
Our microbiome has an important influence on our health and nutritional status.

For more details and my personal recommendations on how to determine the best diet and supplement program 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.

Personalized Nutrition Tests Help Gain Control Of Your Blood Sugar

July 30, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Truth About Personalized Nutrition Testing? – Part 1

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Personalized nutrition testing is all the rage. Should you limit carbs or should you limit fats? Should you avoid sugar? Should you eat more protein or less protein? What supplements should you take?

Companies promise you that their version of personalized nutrition testing will tell you all that and more. Are they being truthful or are their claims false? Are the personalized nutrition tests they offer valuable or are they a waste of money?

In particular, recent headlines have proclaimed that a new personalized testing system can help you do a better job of controlling your blood sugar levels. Is this claim true?

Let me answer that question in 3 steps:

First, I will discuss why that kind of test could be valuable and describe how the study was done.
Next, I will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the study.
Finally, I will discuss why personalized nutrition testing is so difficult. I will also give you guidance on how you can gain better control of your blood sugar fluctuations without expensive tests.

Why Is Predicting How To Control Blood Sugar Important?

Why is it important to devise a personalized nutrition test to measure an individual’s blood sugar response to various foods? The answers to this are twofold:

The combination of the obesity epidemic and the American diet have created the perfect storm. Millions of Americans have high blood sugar levels. Elevated blood sugar levels are associated with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, inflammatory diseases and much more. This is a public health crisis.
Keeping track of carbohydrates in the foods you eat is not a particularly effective way to control your blood sugar levels. This approach is based on average responses, and none of us are average. I have discussed individual variation in blood sugar responses to common foods in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor.”

How Was The Study Done?

The study (H Mendes-Soares et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110: 63-75, 2019) enrolled 327 participants, primarily from two counties in Minnesota. The characteristics of the participants was as follows:

77% female.
Average age 45.
64% overweight and 27% obese which, unfortunately, is average for the American population.
HbA1c (a measure of long-term blood glucose control) averaged 5.2, with 8.4% of the population having elevated HbA1c (indicative of chronic high blood sugar levels and consistent with pre-diabetes).

The study lasted one week and was rigorously controlled.

The subjects provided a stool sample 2 days prior to the study. The stool sample was used to characterize the populations of gut bacteria (microbiome) for every subject.
Prior to the study, the subjects were also asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about their health, lifestyle, activities, and diet preferences. Height, weight, blood pressure, and HbA1c levels were also measured.
Subjects were given phone apps to record their food (meal content, duration, and time) and activity (intensity, duration, and time) throughout the week. They were also asked to record medications and sleep.
Subjects were outfitted with a glucose monitor that measured blood glucose levels continuously throughout the week. The subjects were also instructed to use a manual blood glucose monitor 4 times a day. This served as a check on the accuracy of the continuous blood glucose monitor.
On 4 days the subjects were given a standardized breakfast consisting of a bagel with cream cheese. This allowed estimation of variation in blood sugar response between subjects and day to day variations in blood sugar response for individual subjects.
Finally, the subjects were told to maintain their normal eating habits with no significant deviations during the week.

All this information was used to develop a personalized model to predict the blood sugar response of each subject to various foods. However, this was no ordinary model. It was not just using the subject’s genome or microbiome to predict their blood sugar response to foods. The model included:

Microbiome: Population of gut bacteria. This information came from the stool test.
Meal information: carbohydrate, fat, protein, sugar, fiber, calories, sodium, alcohol, & water. This information came from the food app on their phones that the subjects used to log everything they ate for a week.
Meal context: Time of day, total carbohydrate consumed over past 3 hours and 6 hours, total calories consumed over past 2 hours, 3 hours, and 6 hours, total fiber consumed over past 12 hours. This information also came from their food app.
HbA1c: A measure of long-term blood sugar control. This was measured at the beginning of the study.
Personal information: Physical activity duration and frequency, sleep quality, stress, and hunger levels throughout the day. This information came from their exercise phone app. BMI (a measure of obesity), age, gender, and regularity of defecation. This came from the questionnaire they filled out when they entered the study.
Continuous blood sugar responses before, during, and after each meal. This came from the glucose monitor the subjects wore for a week.

I went into detail in describing the modeling approach so you can understand how comprehensive the model was. This in not just some personalized testing protocol where you can just send off a stool sample for microbiome testing, a cheek swab for DNA testing, and/or fill out a diet and lifestyle questionnaire. This is the kind of personalized testing that could only be done in a medical center and would likely cost well over a thousand dollars.

Can Personalized Tests Help You Gain Better Control Of Your Blood Sugar?

Here are the key findings from the study.

The accuracy of this model for predicting the blood sugar response of individual subjects was around 60% compared to around 40% when the investigators just took into consideration the carbohydrate content of the meals.
Every component of the model contributed to the accuracy of predicting individual blood glucose response.

These findings led the authors to conclude that their model “…is a promising means for designing effective nutritional interventions to control glycemic [blood sugar] responses to foods.” This conclusion is what generated the headlines you may have seen.

What Are The Weaknesses Of The Study?

In many ways this was a very well-designed study, but it had two major weaknesses.

The day to day reproducibility of blood glucose predictions for the standardized bagel and cream cheese meal was only around 66%. That is disappointing for a very expensive test that can only be performed in a medical center.
The authors did not calculate the predictive value of glycemic index, which they could have easily done from their data. Since glycemic index is a better predictor of blood sugar response than carbohydrate content, this is a major weakness of the study. One is left wondering if this extensive and expensive test approach is significantly better at predicting blood sugar responses than simply using glycemic index as a predictor.

What Is The Truth About Personalized Nutrition Testing?

Here are the takeaways from this study:

Restricting carbohydrates is not a particularly effective way to control your blood sugar levels. Unless you completely eliminate carbohydrates, your chances of controlling blood sugar levels are only around 40%. And, if you do eliminate carbohydrates, your diet is deficient in nutrients, phytonutrients, fiber, and friendly gut bacteria. In short, it is a very unhealthy diet.
If the personalized nutrition testing protocol described in this study were commercially available, you could increase your ability to control blood sugar levels to 60%. That is an improvement, but…
You would need to continuously monitor diet, exercise, and blood sugar levels for a week as part of the testing protocol as described above.
The test would likely cost thousands of dollars and require that you travel to a major medical center with the capabilities to administer such a program.
We don’t know whether this testing protocol is significantly better at predicting your blood sugar response to various foods than simply relying on the glycemic index of those foods.
If you significantly changed your diet and/or lifestyle, this program would likely become worthless at predicting your blood sugar response. That is because the predictive ability of this program depends on the interaction of every component of your diet and lifestyle.

In short, this personalized nutrition program requires a lot of effort and expense for a slight increase in your ability to predict which foods cause your blood sugar levels to increase.

My Recommendations

If you want to keep your blood sugar under control, here are my recommendations:

Avoid “personalized nutrition tests.” The ones that offer any benefit are expensive and time-consuming. The slight advantage they offer is not worth your time and effort.
Start by eliminating sodas, sugary junk foods, and highly processed foods from your diet. That includes white flour and other refined grains. This one change will make a bigger improvement in your blood sugar control than anything else you can do.
Don’t eliminate whole food groups in an effort to restrict the carbohydrates in your diet. This is particularly true for fruits, legumes, and whole grains. They provide nutrients, phytonutrients, fiber, and support the growth of healthy gut bacteria that are essential for your good health.
If you have trouble controlling your blood sugar levels, choose carbohydrate foods with a low glycemic index.
Think in terms of meals rather than individual foods. A piece of chocolate cake will have much less effect on your blood sugar level when consumed as part of a meal containing protein, fiber, and healthy fats than when consumed as a snack.
We are all different. Learn to listen to your body. This is more important than personalized nutrition testing or anything else I have mentioned. Pay attention to the foods you eat.

If you consistently experience symptoms of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) shortly after you eat a particular food, and/or symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) a short time later, that food is not your friend.

It doesn’t matter that a personalized nutrition test said you could eat it. It doesn’t matter that the food has a low glycemic index. You should minimize that food in your diet.

Symptoms of high blood sugar: fatigue, thirst, headache, trouble concentrating, and frequent urination.
Symptoms of low blood sugar: hunger, shakiness, anxiety, irritability, feeling lightheaded, and sleepiness.

The Bottom Line

A recent study reported that a personalized testing program was 60% accurate in predicting an individual’s blood sugar response to various foods. That was slightly better than the 40% accuracy when the investigators just considered the carbohydrate content of the foods.

However:

The day to day reproducibility of blood glucose predictions for a standardized meal was only around 66%. That is disappointing for a very expensive test that can only be performed in a medical center.
The authors did not calculate the predictive value of glycemic index, which they could have easily done from their data. Since glycemic index is a better predictor of blood sugar response than carbohydrate content, this is a major weakness of the study. One is left wondering if this extensive and expensive test approach is significantly better at predicting blood sugar responses than simply using glycemic index as a predictor.

For more details and my personal recommendations on how to best control your blood sugar levels, 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.

TMJ Pain Treatment: Your Masseter Muscle

July 23, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Your Masseter Muscle Can Cause TMJ Pain

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Do you chew gum? Do you habitually clench your teeth? Do you grind your teeth while you’re sleeping? If you do, then this article is especially relevant to you! You’ll want to pay attention to learn about TMJ pain treatment.

Your masseter muscle (circled on graphic) originates on your cheekbone and inserts into your jawbone. When this short but very powerful muscle contracts, it draws your back teeth together so you can chew your food or clench your teeth.

When all is well and the muscle is functioning properly, the muscle lengthens while you put food into your mouth, and then contracts to enable you to chew the food. However, if you chew gum or clench your teeth, you are shortening the muscle without the balancing stretch of the fibers. This is a key cause of TMJ disorder, a painful condition that causes jaw pain and causes your jaw to shift to one side when you open your mouth.

[In case you were wondering, TMJ stands for temporomandibular joint. You have one on either side of your jaw connecting your jawbone to your skull. Your TMJs act as sliding hinges, allowing you to open and close your mouth and move your jaw from side to side.]

It’s Not Just a Minor Problem – It Can Be a Very Major Situation

Too often people think this is just a painful, but minor condition. However, it can become serious, especially if you chew gum or clench your teeth.

Several years ago, a medical doctor asked me to see a young patient who was in his office to get medical clearance before having her masseter muscle severed. Her jaw was locked tight and the oral surgeon was concerned that if she got sick and regurgitated that she would choke to death. As a result, he was planning on severing the muscle the following day.

If this happened, the young woman would lose the ability to shut her mouth, and she would be drooling for the rest of her life! This was a terrible situation! The doctor felt her masseter muscle and it felt like she had nuts packed in both of her cheeks. He told her he wouldn’t sign the clearance papers until she saw me to release these tight muscle spasms.

The following treatment took only 15 minutes to accomplish the task of releasing the muscles. I spent most of the time teaching her how to do this self-treatment, and when she was told to open her mouth slowly, she did it. She was so relieved that she burst out crying. Surgery was prevented and the young woman was able to open and close her mouth easily.

Just 15 minutes of this TMJ pain treatment saved her from spending the rest of her life with her mouth open and drooling. Amazing!

Why the Masseter Muscle Can Cause Arthritis in Your Jaw

It’s all about wearing down the bone. For example, if your masseter on your right side is very tight, each time you open your mouth wide enough to put food into your mouth the muscle won’t release. As a result, your left jaw is open normally, but your right jaw isn’t. As a result, your jaw gets pulled toward the right, rubbing across the jaw bones.

Eventually, just as water will wear down a rock, your jaw constantly rubbing across the joint will wear down the bone. This will cause arthritis and other pains.

TMJ Pain Treatment for Your Masseter Muscle

Put your fingers across your masseter muscle as shown in the picture to the left.

If you clench your teeth, you’ll feel the muscle bulge under your fingertips.

To make this easier to understand, we’ll start with your right fingers. Begin treatment by pressing your right fingers deeply on the right side only, just resting your left fingertips on the left masseter muscle. Hold the pressure for 15 seconds and gently release.

Next, press your left fingers deeply into your left masseter muscle and hold for 15 seconds.

Continue going back and forth and when you don’t feel pain anymore, then search the muscle for other painful points (they will feel like small peas) and repeat. You may, or may not, find multiple spasms; treat each one individually.

Continue doing this until both muscles are pain-free. Then press deeply into both sides at the same time. Slowly open your mouth as wide as you can – you are now stretching the masseter muscle.

Muscle memory is probably happening with these muscles, so I suggest you do this several times a day until you can’t find any more spasms. At that point, your masseter muscles are released and the TMJ pain treatment has been successful.

Final Thought

If you are under a stressful situation, it’s worthwhile to spend a bit of time treating these muscles, even if you aren’t feeling pain. It’s common for a person under stress to be clenching their teeth, and “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Why stay in pain when it’s so easy to find the muscular source of the problem and eliminate it?

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living is filled with over 100 pictures and descriptions proven to show you how to find and self-treat muscle spasms from head to foot!

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living is your step-by-step guide to pain relief!

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.

About The Author

Omega-3 Benefits: Lower High Blood Pressure

July 16, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Does the FDA Say About Omega-3 Benefit Claims?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Among omega-3 benefits is lower high blood pressure. That claim can be made according to the FDA.

High blood pressure is a killer! It can kill you by causing heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure, kidney failure and much more.

High blood pressure is a serial killer. It doesn’t just kill a few people. It kills lots of people. The American Heart Association estimates that high blood pressure directly or indirectly caused 410,000 deaths in 2014. That is almost 1 person every second and represents a 41% increase from 2000. It’s because high blood pressure is not a rare disease.

32% of Americans have high blood pressure, also called hypertension, (defined as a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more or a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or more).
Another 33% of Americans have prehypertension (systolic blood pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of 80-89 mm Hg).

That’s over 65% of Americans with abnormal blood pressure!

High blood pressure is a silent killer. That’s because it is a very insidious disease that sneaks up on you when you least expect it. Systolic blood pressure increases 0.6 mm Hg/year for most adults over 50. By age 75 or above 76-80% of American adults will have high blood pressure. Even worse, many people with high blood pressure have no symptoms, so they don’t even know that their blood pressure is elevated. For them the first symptom of high blood pressure is often sudden death.

Blood pressure medications can harm your quality of life. Blood pressure medications save lives. However, like most drugs, blood pressure medications have a plethora of side effects – including weakness, dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea, diarrhea or constipation, heartburn, depression, heart palpitations, and even memory loss. The many side effects associated with blood pressure medications lead to poor compliance, which is probably why only 46% of patients with high blood pressure are adequately controlled.

You do have natural options. By now you are probably wondering whether there are natural approaches for controlling your blood pressure that are both effective and lack side effects. The answer is a resounding YES! I’ll outline a holistic natural approach for keeping your blood pressure under control in a minute but let me start with the FDAs recent approval of what they call “qualified claims” that omega-3s lower blood pressure.

What Does the FDA Say About Omega-3 Benefits?

In my book “Slaying The Supplement Myths” I talk about the “dark side” of the supplement industry. There are far too many companies who try to dupe the public by making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about their products.

Only the FDA stands between us and those unscrupulous companies, and they take their role very seriously. That is why it is big news whenever the FDA allows companies to make health claims about their products.

Even then, the FDA is very cautious. They allow what they call “qualified” health claims. Basically, that means they are saying there is enough evidence that the health claim is probably true, but not enough evidence to say it is proven.

Of course, if you understand the scientific method, you realize there will always be some studies on both sides of every issue. That is why the only health claims the FDA allows are qualified health claims.

With that background in mind, let’s look at the qualified health claims the FDA allows for omega-3 benefits.

Since 2004 the FDA has allowed the qualified claim “Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.”
A few weeks ago, they added five qualified health claims about omega-3s and blood pressure. The 5 claims are very similar, so I will only list two below for the sake of brevity.
“Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce blood pressure and reduce the risk of hypertension, a risk factor for CHD (coronary heart disease).”
Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD (coronary heart disease) by lowering blood pressure.
Of course, they add the usual wording about the evidence being inconsistent and inconclusive.

Omega-3 Benefits?

We’ve known for some time that omega-3 fatty acids help lower blood pressure, but two recent studies were instrumental in convincing the FDA to allow these qualified health claims. These studies have highlighted just how strong the effect of omega-3s on lowering blood pressure is.

The first study was a meta-analysis of 70 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of long chain omega-3 (EPA + DHA) supplementation and blood pressure (Miller et al, American Journal of Hypertension, 27: 885-896, 2014 ).

This study showed:

In the group with normal blood pressure at the beginning of the study EPA + DHA supplementation decreased systolic blood pressure by 1.25 mm Hg.
Given that systolic blood pressure rises an average of 0.6 mm Hg/year in adults over 50, the authors estimated that omega-3 supplementation alone would delay the onset of age-related high blood pressure by 2 years.
In the group with elevated blood pressure not taking medication at the beginning of the study, EPA + DHA supplementation decreased systolic blood pressure by an impressive 4.51 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by 3.05 mm Hg.
The authors noted that this decrease in systolic blood pressure could “prevent an individual from requiring medication [with all its side effects] to control their hypertension” or decrease the amount of medication required.

However, the doses of omega-3s used in these studies ranged from 1 to over 4 grams/day (mean dose = 3.8 grams/day). That sparked a second study (Minihane et al, Journal of Nutrition, 146: 516-523, 2016) to see whether lower levels of omega-3s might be equally effective. This study was an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of 0.7 or 1.8 grams of EPA + DHA per day (versus an 8:2 ratio of palm and soybean oil as a placebo) on blood pressure.

This study showed:

In the group with normal blood pressure at the beginning of the study, EPA + DHA supplementation caused no significant decrease in blood pressure. This could be due to the smaller number of subjects or the lower doses of EPA + DHA used in this study.
In the group with elevated blood pressure not taking medication at the beginning of the study, EPA + DHA supplementation decreased systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg and, the effect was essentially identical at 0.7 grams/day and 1.8 grams/day.
The authors concluded “Our data suggest that increased EPA + DHA intakes of only 0.7 grams/day may be an effective strategy for blood pressure control.”

A Holistic Approach to Lower High Blood Pressure

The FDA’s allowed claims about omega-3s are good news indeed, but that’s not the only natural approach that lowers blood pressure. You have lots of other arrows in your quiver. For example:

The DASH diet (A diet that has lots of fresh fruits and vegetables; includes whole grains, low fat dairy, poultry, fish, beans, nuts and oils; and is low in sugar and red meats) reduces systolic blood pressure by 5-6 mm Hg. [Low fat, low carb and Mediterranean diets also lower blood pressure, but not by as much as the DASH diet].
Reducing sodium by about 1,150 mg/day reduces systolic blood pressure by 3-4 mm Hg.
Reducing excess weight by 5% reduces systolic blood pressure by 3 points.
Doing at least 40 minutes of aerobic exercise 3-4 times/week reduces systolic blood pressure by 2-5 mm Hg.
Nitrates, whether derived from fresh fruits and vegetables or from supplements probably also reduce blood pressure, but we don’t yet know by how much.

If you’ve been keeping track, you’ve probably figured out that a holistic lifestyle that included at least 0.7 grams/day of long chain omega-3s (EPA + DHA) plus the other omega-3 benefits in the list above could reduce your systolic blood pressure by a whopping 18-22 mm Hg. What

That’s significant because, the CDC estimates that reducing high systolic blood pressure by only 12-13 mm Hg could reduce your risk of:

Stroke by 37%.
Coronary heart disease by 21%.
Death from cardiovascular disease by 25%.
Death from all causes by 13%.

A Word of Caution

While holistic approaches have the potential to keep your blood pressure under control without the side effects of medications, it is important not to blindly rely on holistic approaches alone. There are also genetic and environmental risk factors involved in determining blood pressure. You could be doing everything right and still have high blood pressure. Plus, you need to remember that high blood pressure is a silent killer that often doesn’t have any detectable symptoms prior to that first heart attack or stroke.

My recommendations are:

Monitor your blood pressure on a regular basis.
If your blood pressure starts to become elevated, consult with your doctor about starting with natural approaches to bring your blood pressure back under control. Doctors are fully aware of the side effects of blood pressure medications, and most doctors are happy to encourage you to try natural approaches first.
Continue to monitor blood pressure as directed by your doctor. If natural approaches are insufficient to bring your blood pressure under control, they will prescribe the lowest dose of blood pressure medication possible to get your blood pressure where it needs to be.
Don’t stop making holistic lifestyle choices to reduce blood pressure just because you are on medication. The more you do to keep your blood pressure under control with a healthy diet and lifestyle, the less medication your doctor will need to use (That means fewer side effects).

The Bottom Line

Heart Disease is still the number 1 cause of death in this country. And, while deaths from heart disease have been declining in recent years, deaths due to high blood pressure have been increasing. That is why anything we can do lower blood pressure naturally is important. What does the FDA say about omega-3s and blood pressure?

Since 2004 the FDA has allowed the qualified claim “Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.”
A few weeks ago, they added qualified health claims about omega-3s and blood pressure. For example, they now allow the following claims.
“Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce blood pressure and reduce the risk of hypertension, a risk factor for CHD (coronary heart disease).”
Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD (coronary heart disease) by lowering blood pressure.

For more information on the studies that convinced the FDA to allow claims about omega-3s and blood pressure and for a discussion of holistic natural approaches for lowering blood pressure, 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.