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

Best Diet For Heart Disease Prevention

July 9, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are The American Heart Association’s Recommendations Correct?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

What is the best diet for heart disease prevention?

Heart disease is a killer. It continues to be the leading cause of death – both worldwide and in industrialized countries like the United States and the European Union. When we look at heart disease trends, it is a good news – bad news situation.

The good news is that heart disease deaths are continuing to decline in adults over 70.
The decline among senior citizens is attributed to improved treatment of heart disease and more seniors following heart-healthy diets.
The bad news is that heart disease deaths are starting to increase in younger adults, something I reported in an earlier issue, Heart Attacks Increasing in Young Women of “Health Tips From the Professor.”
The reason for the rise in heart disease deaths in young people is less clear. However, the obesity epidemic, junk and convenience foods, and the popularity of fad diets all likely play a role.

Everyone has a magic diet for reducing heart disease risk. The American Heart Association tells us to avoid fats, especially saturated fats. Vegans tell us to avoid animal protein. Paleo and keto enthusiasts tell us carbs are the problem. Who is correct?

Of course, we don’t eat fats, carbohydrates, or proteins. We eat foods. That is why a recent study (T Meier et al, European Journal of Epidemiology, 34: 37-45, 2019) is so important. It reported which foods increase and which decrease the risk of premature heart disease deaths.

How Was The Study Done?

The authors of the current study analyzed data from the “Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Study”, a major world-wide effort designed to estimate the portions of deaths caused by various risk factors.

The current study focused on the impact of 12 dietary risk factors on heart disease deaths between 1990 and 2016 for 51 countries in four regions (Western Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia).

The dietary risk factors were:

Diets low in fiber, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds, polyunsaturated fatty acids, omega-3 fatty acids, and whole grains.
Diets high in sodium, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and trans fatty acids.

Saturated fat and meat were not explicitly included in the GBS Study data. However, diets low in polyunsaturated fats and omega-3 fats are likely high in saturated fats. Similarly, diets low in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes are likely higher in meats. The study also did not include dairy, and some recent studies suggest that some dairy foods may decrease heart disease risk.

For simplicity I will only consider the findings from Western Europe because their diet and heart disease death trends are similar to those in the United States.

Best Diet for Heart Disease Prevention?

The study found that in 2016 (the last year for which data were available):

Dietary risk factors were responsible for 49.2% of heart disease deaths.
6% of all diet-related heart disease deaths occurred in adults younger than 70, and that percentage has been increasing in recent years.

When they looked at the contribution of individual foods to diet related heart disease deaths, the percentages were:

Diets low in whole grains = 20.4%
Diets low in nuts and seeds = 16.2%
Diets low in fruits = 12.5%
Diets high in sodium = 12.0%
Diets low in omega-3s = 10.8%
Diets low in vegetables = 9.0%
Diets low in legumes = 7.0%
Diets low in fiber = 5.7%
Diets low in polyunsaturated fats = 3.7%
Diets high in processed meats = 1.6%
Diets high in trans fatty acids = 0.8%
Diets high in sugar-sweetened beverages = 0.1%

So, what is the best diet for heart disease prevention?

In short, this study concluded:

A primarily plant-based diet is the best protection against premature death due to heart disease.
All plant-based food groups (whole grains, nuts and seeds, fruits, vegetables, and legumes) play an important role in reducing heart disease deaths.
Meat was not included in the analysis, but it is likely that most people’s diets in this region of the world contained some meat. The most likely take-away is that meat does not affect heart disease risk in the context of a primarily plant-based diet.
Dairy was not included in the analysis either, but some studies suggest dairy, particularly fermented dairy foods, reduce heart disease risk.
Finally, the study concluded: “Compared to other…modifiable risk factors (physical inactivity, drug and alcohol abuse, tobacco smoking, obesity, etc.), an altered diet is the most effective means of preventing premature deaths from cardiovascular disease in Western Europe.”

While every study has its weaknesses, this study is consistent with multiple previous studies showing that primarily plant-based diets are best for reducing heart disease risk. You will find a more complete discussion of these studies in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

Are the American Heart Association’s Recommendations Correct?

With this study’s results in mind we can now ask whether the recommendations of the American Heart Association and other popular diets are correct. Are they likely to reduce heart disease deaths?

The American Heart Association Recommends a dietary pattern that emphasizes a variety of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and legumes, skinless poultry and fish, and low-fat dairy products. This study supports those recommendations.
This study also supports the heart-health benefits of the Mediterranean and DASH diets.
Meat and dairy were not explicitly considered in this study. Thus, the results of this study are also consistent with vegan and semi-vegetarian diets.
However, low carb diets like Paleo and keto eliminate some of the key food groups (whole grains, fruits, and legumes) that appear to be essential for reducing heart disease risk. 40% of the heart-health benefits in this study came from those 3 food groups. Thus, this study does not support claims that those two diets are heart-healthy long term.

The Bottom Line

A recent study provides some important clues. It looked at dietary patterns associated with reduced risk of premature death from heart disease in Western Europe. The study concluded:

A primarily plant-based diet is the best protection against premature death due to heart disease.
All plant-based food groups (whole grains, nuts and seeds, fruits, vegetables, and legumes) play an important role in reducing heart disease deaths.
Meat did not appear to affect heart disease risk in the context of a primarily plant-based diet.
Dairy was not included in the analysis, but some studies suggest dairy, particularly fermented dairy foods, reduce heart disease risk.
Finally, the study concluded: “Compared to other…modifiable risk factors (physical inactivity, drug and alcohol abuse, tobacco smoking, obesity, etc.), an altered diet is the most effective means of preventing premature deaths from cardiovascular disease.”

With this study’s results in mind we can now ask whether the recommendations of the American Heart Association and other popular diets are correct. Are they likely to reduce heart disease deaths?

The American Heart Association Recommends a dietary pattern that emphasizes a variety of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and legumes, skinless poultry and fish, and low-fat dairy products. This study supports those recommendations.
This study also supports the heart-health benefits of the Mediterranean and DASH diets.
Meat and dairy were not explicitly considered in this study. Thus, the results of this study are also consistent with vegan and semi-vegetarian diets.
However, low carb diets like Paleo and keto eliminate some of the key food groups (whole grains, fruits, and legumes) that appear to be essential for reducing heart disease risk. 40% of the heart-health benefits in this study came from those 3 food groups. Thus, this study does not support claims that those two diets are heart-healthy long term.

For more details read the article above.

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

Are Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms Affected By Diet?

July 2, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Can You Do To Reduce ADHD Symptoms In Your Child?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder rates for American children are skyrocketing. One study reported that the percentage of children diagnosed with ADHD has increased by 43% between 2003 and 2011. Another study reported an increase of 67% between 1997 and 2015. Currently, 10-12% of American schoolchildren are diagnosed with ADHD. That amounts to around 6 million children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

The reason for the rapid increase in ADHD symptoms is controversial.

Some experts claim the increase simply reflects more accurate diagnostic protocols.
Others say the increase is driven by aggressive marketing of ADHD drugs by pharmaceutical companies.
Others feel the cause is environmental, with the worsening American diet and increased exposure to toxins in everyday consumer products being named as the most likely culprits.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Side Effects

62% of children diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are taking ADHD medications. These medicines reduce, but do not eliminate, ADHD symptoms. But the improvements come at a high price. Side effects include:

Sleeping problems.
Reduced taste perception.
Loss of appetite.
Anxiety, moodiness, and irritability.
Headaches and stomachaches.

Because of the side effects of ADHD medicines, parents often look for more natural solutions. Many of them report that improving their child’s diet reduces their child’s ADHD symptoms as well or better than ADHD medications. Are their opinions accurate, or do the child’s ADHD symptoms improve just because their parents are paying more attention to them?

The latest headlines proclaim that improving a child’s diet does not reduce their ADHD symptoms. Are those headlines correct, or do parents know something that the scientists missed?

To answer those questions, we should start by looking at the study (https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxy273) behind the headlines.

How Was The Study Done?

The authors of this study analyzed data from 3680 children who were involved in the Generation R Study in Rotterdam, Netherlands. This study measured the association between Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms and diet quality.

However, this was not a simple association study. It was something called a prospective cohort study. That means rather than measuring the association at a single time like most studies, this study measured ADHD symptoms at age 6 and 10 and diet quality at age 8.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms were assessed by using parent-reported questionnaires. Dietary intake was assessed by using a validated food frequency questionnaire filled out by the parents. Diet quality was based on comparing a child’s dietary intake to the Dutch dietary recommendations for children (Which are not significantly different from the US dietary recommendations).

Are Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms Affected By Diet?

The results of the study were confusing:

ADHD symptoms at age 6 were associated with poorer diet quality at age 8.
However, there was no association between diet quality at age 8 and ADHD symptoms at age 10.

The author’s conclusions, which generated the headlines you may have seen, were even more confusing.

Based on the first finding (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms at age 6 associated with poorer diet quality at age 8), they concluded “…children with more ADHD symptoms may be at a higher risk of an unhealthy diet.” They hypothesized:

ADHD symptoms may cause “…impulsive eating of highly palatable foods or no patience to eat vegetables…”
“…parents try to soothe difficult behavior of their children by offering meals, snacks, and beverages children prefer instead of healthy choices.”

Based on the second finding (diet quality at age 8 having no relationship with ADHD symptoms at age 10), they concluded “…overall diet quality does not affect ADHD risk.”

In short, they concluded that Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder caused poor diets, but poor diets did not cause ADHD.

Are The Conclusions Of This Study Accurate?

The authors identified several important limitations of their study. For example, they acknowledged:

They relied on parent reporting of both ADHD symptoms and dietary intake.
- Parents may have found it difficult to assess ADHD behavior in their children.
- Parents may not have known what their children consumed at school or during after-school care.

Both dietary intake and ADHD symptoms may change over time.
- ADHD symptoms are different at age 6 and 10, so two different ADHD assessment questionnaires were used.
- Parents have less control (and knowledge) of their child’s diet at age 10 than at age 8. The dietary assessment at age 8 might not have been valid for the children two years later.

However, to me the two biggest weakness of the study were:

All the children in the study had ADHD symptoms at both ages 6 and 10. These were the same children! That makes the fact that ADHD symptoms correlated with diet quality at age 6, but not at age 10 highly suspect.
ADHD symptoms and diet quality were measured at different times. This is a bizarre experimental design. The study would have been much stronger if the authors had measured both diet quality and ADHD symptoms at each age.

In short, this study is fatally flawed. The conclusions of the study are inaccurate. You should ignore the headlines.

What Can You Do To Reduce Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms In Your Child?

The recent study does illustrate the difficulty in proving diet-ADHD interactions. The truth is ADHD is a complex condition. It is affected by genetics, environment, family interactions, and food. This is best illustrated by a review written by two pediatricians specializing in ADHD that I featured in ADHD Diet vs Medication of “Health Tips From The Professor.”

The authors of the review described multiple nutritional approaches that reduce ADHD symptoms. The catch was each nutritional intervention only worked for some children. Parents needed to be willing to find what works best for their child by trial and error. Let me give some examples.

Eliminating Food Additives: The idea that food additives cause ADHD symptoms originated with the Feingold diet which was popularized in the 1970s. The Feingold diet eliminated food additives, foods with salicylates (luncheon meats, sausage, hot dogs), drinks containing artificial colors and flavors, and chemical preservatives (e.g. BHA and BHT). After clinical studies showed that only 6% percentage of children benefitted from this diet, it fell out of favor.

However, the experts who pooh-poohed the diet missed a key point. Yes, 6% is a very small percentage of the general population. However, if you are one of those parents whose child is in the 6%, this approach works wonders. A recent study showed that when children with suspected sensitivity to food additives were challenged with food colors, 65-89% of them displayed ADHD sensitivities.

My recommendation: Food additives are not one of the five essential food groups. There is no reason not to eliminate food additives from your child’s diet, and it might make a world of difference for their ADHD symptoms.

Adding Omega-3 Fatty Acids: The authors of the review reported that several studies have shown children with ADHD tend to have low levels of omega-3 fatty acids. They also cited several studies which showed significant improvement in reading skills and reductions in ADHD symptoms when children with ADHD were give omega-3 supplements. It was usually the children with the lowest omega-3 status who showed the biggest improvement in ADHD symptoms.

The pediatricians who wrote the review routinely use doses of 300-600 mg of omega-3s with their ADHD patients. They find that this intervention reduces ADHD symptoms in many children but does not completely eliminate the need for medications.

My recommendation: Whether adding omega-3s will help your child is anyone’s guess. However, it is a natural approach with no side effects. It is definitely worth trying.

Adding Iron and Zinc: Some studies have suggested that iron and zinc deficiencies may be associated with ADHD symptoms.

My recommendation: A good children’s multivitamin should be sufficient to eliminate these deficiencies.

Eliminating Sugar: This recommendation is controversial, but the authors of the review said it helps some of the children they treat reduce their ADHD symptoms.

My recommendation: Reducing intake of refined sugars in your child’s diet makes sense for many reasons, especially considering the role of sugar intake in obesity. If it also reduces ADHD symptoms, that is an added benefit.

Eating A Healthy Diet: Several studies have shown that children eating “Healthy” diets (fish, chicken, vegetables, fresh fruit, whole grains & low fat dairy products) have fewer ADHD symptoms than children eating “Western” diets (Fast foods, red meat, processed meats, processed snacks, high fat dairy products & soft drinks).

My recommendation: Again, this is an approach that makes sense for many reasons. If you and your family were to follow a “Healthy” diet instead of a “Western” diet, it would likely have numerous health benefits. Plus, you would automatically remove ADHD triggers such as food additives and sugar from your child’s diet.

Eliminating Food Sensitivities: If you have tried everything and your child’s ADHD symptoms are as bad as ever, your child may have a sensitivity to a perfectly healthy food. Even natural foods can be a problem for children with food sensitivities, and it appears that there may be a large percentage of hyperactive children with food sensitivities. The authors of the review reported that elimination diets (diets that eliminate all foods which could cause food sensitivity) improve behavior in 76-82% of hyperactive children.

Even though this approach can be very effective they don’t normally recommend it for their patients because it is difficult and time-consuming. The elimination diet is very restrictive and needs to be followed for a few weeks. Then individual foods need to be added back one at a time until the offending food(s) are identified. (They also reported that antigen testing is not a particularly effective way of identifying food sensitivities associated with hyperactivity).

My recommendation: I view this as something to be tried after all other natural approaches have failed. However, if there is a particular food that causes hyperactivity in your child, identifying it and eliminating it from their diet could be something that would benefit them for the rest of their life.

The Bottom Line

You may have seen recent headlines suggesting that healthy diets do not reduce ADHD symptoms. In fact, the study behind the headlines concluded that ADHD may cause poor diets, but poor diets do not cause ADHD.

My mission in writing “Health Tips From the Professor” is to analyze the studies behind the headlines and tell you whether you can believe the headlines or not.

In this case my analysis is clear-cut.

The study is fatally flawed.
Its conclusions are inaccurate.
You can forget the headlines.

However, the study does illustrate the difficulty in proving diet-ADHD interactions. The truth is ADHD is a complex condition. It is affected by genetics, environment, family interactions, and food.

There are multiple nutritional approaches that reduce ADHD symptoms. The catch is each nutritional intervention only works for some children. Parents need to be willing to find what works best for their child by trial and error. Here are some of the nutritional approaches that have merit:

Eliminate food additives.
Add omega-3s.
Add a children’s multivitamin.
Eliminate added sugars.
Eat a healthy diet.
Eliminate food sensitivities.

For more details read the article above.

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

Do Ultra-Processed Foods Make You Fat?

June 25, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Secret For Weight Loss?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Do ultra-processed foods make it harder to loose weight?

It is so confusing. It seems like everyone has a magical weight loss diet. You just follow their diet and the pounds will melt away. The problem is that everyone’s recommendations are different. What is the average consumer to think? Is the best diet low fat, low carb, low sugar, Paleo, Keto, or vegan? Or is intermittent fasting the secret to successful weight loss?

What if the secret to weight loss was none of the diets mentioned above, yet was something common to all of them?

The one common feature of every popular diet is they cut out sodas and processed foods and replace them with whole unprocessed foods. What if cutting out highly processed foods was the secret to successful weight loss, and none of the other restrictions of the various diets really mattered?

There are lots of studies suggesting that ultra-processed foods might be the problem. [Note: In the scientific community the term highly processed foods has been replaced with ultra-processed foods. There are subtle differences between the two terms, but for our purposes we will consider them identical]. Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been shown to be associated with overeating, obesity, poor health outcomes, and premature death.

For example, consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity have increased in parallel. Today ultra-processed foods constitute the majority of calories consumed in America, and 40% of Americans are now obese.

However, associations don’t prove cause and effect. In the words of the authors of the latest study: “There has never been a randomized controlled trial demonstrating any beneficial effects of reducing ultra-processed foods or deleterious effects of increasing ultra-processed foods in the diet.”

The latest study (KD Hall et al, Cell Metabolism, 30: 1-11, 2019 ) was the first randomized controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that consumption of ultra-processed foods leads to obesity.

How Was The Study Done?

Twenty overweight subjects (10 men and 10 women) volunteered for the study. Their average age was 31 and their average BMI was 27, which means they were overweight, but not obese. All were weight-stable in the months preceding the study.

They were admitted to the metabolic ward at the NIH where every aspect of what they ate and the exercise they got was controlled. The subjects were randomly assigned to consume an ultra-processed or an unprocessed diet for two weeks followed by the alternative diet for the final two weeks.

During the study the subjects were given three meals a day that provided twice the calories they were accustomed to eating plus unlimited snacks. They were instructed to eat as much or as little as they desired. The calories consumed were calculated based on how much food they left on their plates.

The ultra-processed diet and unprocessed diets were matched with respect to:

Total calories in the food portions given to the subjects.
Caloric density (calories per serving size).
Macronutrients (carbohydrate, fat, & protein).
Sugars, fiber, and sodium.

The ultra-processed and unprocessed diets were neither low fat, low carb, or high protein. The caloric composition was around 48% carbohydrate, 35% fat, and 17% protein.

However, because of the differences between ultra-processed and unprocessed foods, it was impossible to match all parameters. For example, the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets differed significantly in:

Added sugar: 54% of the sugar in the ultra-processed diet was added sugar versus only 1% added sugar in the unprocessed diet.
Insoluble fiber: 16% of the fiber in the ultra-processed diet was insoluble fiber versus 77% in the unprocessed diet.
Saturated fat: 34% of the fat in the ultra-processed diet was saturated versus 19% in the unprocessed diet.
Omega-6 to omega-3 ratio: The ratio was 11:1 in the ultra-processed diet versus 5:1 in the unprocessed diet.

To give you an example of what the two diets looked like, dinner one night for the unprocessed diet group consisted of beef tender roast with barley and spinach and a parfait made of fresh berries and nonfat, unflavored Greek yogurt while the ultra-processed diet group got processed turkey and cheese sandwiches (on white bread) with baked chips, canned peaches and nonfat vanilla Greek yogurt. For breakfast one morning the unprocessed diet group got omelets made from fresh eggs while the ultra-processed diet group got omelets made from Fresh Start liquid.

Do Ultra-Processed Foods Make You Fat?

The results of the study were quite interesting:

Subjects ate an additional 508 calories per day when on the ultra-processed diet.
Those extra calories came from both carbohydrate and fat, not from protein.
Subjects gained 2 pounds in just two weeks on the ultra-processed diet and lost 2 pounds in two weeks on the unprocessed diet.
Subjects ate their food more quickly on the ultra-processed diet (50 calories/minute) than on the unprocessed diet (32 calories/minute).

The authors of the study asked the participants several subjective questions about the two diets to better understand why they consumed more calories on the ultra-processed diet. However, those questions did not provide any useful insights. For example, the subjects rated the two diets equally with respect to:

Palatability and familiarity of the foods in the diet.
Hunger prior to eating and both fullness and satisfaction when they were finished eating.

These findings surprised the authors. The authors had assumed their subjects would eat more ultra-processed foods because they liked them better.

With respect to the overall study results, the authors concluded: “Limiting consumption of ultra-processed foods may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.”

In short, their study confirms what many experts have long suspected, but does not provide a mechanistic explanation of why ultra-processed foods lead to overconsumption and obesity.

What Is The Secret For Weight Loss?

The arguments over which diet is best for weight loss never end. Everyone claims they have the secret, and everyone quotes studies showing their diet works.

Yet the diets are as different as night and day. They shouldn’t all work, but they do. For example, weight loss is virtually identical on a very low-fat vegan diet and a very low carb keto diet. That tells us that the secret can’t be either low-fat or low carb.

The secret must be something all these diets have in common. When you ask what they have in common, the answer is simple. All the popular diets start by eliminating sodas and ultra-processed foods and replacing them with unprocessed foods.

Could it be that something as simple as eliminating sodas and ultra-processed foods and replacing them with unprocessed foods is the secret to successful weight loss? Many experts have hypothesized that ultra-processed foods were the cause of the obesity epidemic, but this is the first randomized controlled clinical trial to prove that hypothesis.

Like any individual study, this study needs to be confirmed by additional randomized controlled studies. One might hope for longer duration studies with more subjects, but it would be very difficult to duplicate the precision of this study. Asking volunteers to enter a metabolic ward where every aspect of their life is controlled for multiple weeks is both expensive and a huge commitment by the volunteers.

My recommendation is simple. You don’t have to choose radical diets that eliminate whole food groups to lose weight successfully. They are hard to follow and may not be healthy long-term. Just ditch the sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. Rediscover the pleasures of whole unprocessed foods. You will lose weight gradually and safely. You will be healthier.

Of course, it is not quite that simple.

Portion control is essential. You can eat too much unprocessed food.
Caloric density (calories per serving) is important. This is one reason why primarily plant-based diets are generally more successful for long-term weight control.
Practice mindful eating. Savor your food and eat it slowly. You will be less likely to overeat.
And, of course, don’t neglect the exercise component.

For a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons of popular diets, read my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”

The Bottom Line

It seems like everyone has a magical weight loss diet. You just follow their diet and the pounds will melt away. The problem is that everyone’s recommendations are different. What is the average consumer to think? Is the best diet low fat, low carb, low sugar, Paleo, Keto, or vegan? Or is intermittent fasting the secret to successful weight loss?

What if the secret to weight loss was none of the diets mentioned above, yet was something common to all of them? The one common feature of every popular diet is they cut out sodas and processed foods and replace them with whole unprocessed foods.

For years experts have claimed that the consumption of highly processed foods is responsible for the obesity epidemic and replacing ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods was the secret to successful weight loss. However, those claims are based on associations, and association studies do not prove cause and effect.

Finally, the first randomized controlled trial to test this hypothesis has been published. The study showed:

Subjects ate an additional 508 calories per day when on the ultra-processed diet.
Subjects gained 2 pounds in just two weeks on the ultra-processed diet and lost 2 pounds in two weeks on the unprocessed diet.

My recommendation is simple. Just ditch the sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. Rediscover the pleasures of whole unprocessed foods. You will lose weight gradually and safely. You will be healthier.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. I discuss other aspects of successful weight loss in the article above.

For a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons of popular diets, read my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”

For more details read the article above.

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

Headache Relief By Treating Your Shoulder

June 18, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Headache Remedy Can be Treating Your Shoulder

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

When you experience the debilitating effects of headache pain, you just want headache relief.

Your head throbs. It’s hard to think. It’s hard to enjoy life.

What should you do?

You could take Tylenol or some other drug, but that offers temporary relief at best.
You could see a chiropractor, but it may take multiple visits to correct your problem.
You could get a massage, but the headache will probably come back.

What you really want is a natural protocol you can use to make the headache go away whenever it occurs. There is such a protocol. It’s called muscular therapy, and I teach people how to perform it on themselves whenever a headache or joint pain occurs.

What Is The Difference Between Massage And Muscular Therapy?

There is a difference between massage and muscular therapy as a headache remedy, and both are worthwhile. Massage is great for moving the fluids (like blood and lymph) through your body and getting muscles to relax. It’s perfect if you’re under stress and you feel like you’re going to explode. A good massage therapist can have a positive impact on your nervous system and blood pressure, and you’ll come out walking on air.

Muscular therapy, the way I do it anyway, is more focused than it is general. You’ve heard about spasms, but most people can’t visualize a spasm, so they ignore the term. You probably have an idea that a spasm may be painful, and it isn’t a great thing to have, but what is a spasm?

What is a Spasm

I explain it as a knot in the muscle. Through some very complicated physiology (that none of us need to know about) the muscle forms a knot in the thick part of the muscle, and it’s putting a strain on the two ends.

Both ends are attached to a bone, so the pressure causes a strain on the end points and you have pain at the bone. Most of the time the end points are just after the muscle crosses over a joint, so you end up with joint pain.

Too often people think this is arthritis and they are stuck suffering or taking strong drugs to mask the pain. But in the majority of cases it’s not arthritis, it’s just tight muscles pulling on the bones of the joint and preventing them from moving freely.

But, all you need is to know where the knot (spasm) is, and then apply direct pressure on it. Hold the pressure for 30 seconds or so, and then let go. Keep repeating this until it doesn’t hurt anymore.

Headache Relief

Let’s say you have headache pain. There are so many muscles that impact headaches that it would take a book (like my book: “Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living”) to discuss each of them. So, let’s just look at one muscle, the Levator Scapulae.

The Levator Scapulae is responsible for lifting your shoulder up. In fact, the nickname for the Levator Scapulae is “the shrug muscle.” But look at this graphic and you’ll see where the knots form (the round red circles) and where you feel the pain (the red shaded areas).

You may not think to press on your lower neck/shoulder when you feel headache pain. This muscle also causes the pain you feel in the middle of your back, between your shoulder blades.

And self-treatment is so easy!

You can put your opposite thumb into the front of your shoulder as shown in this picture, and your fingers in the back of the muscle. Then squeeze your thumb and fingers so they pinch the entire muscle.

headache relief shoulder muscle pressure using wall

Or you can put the perfect ball on the very top of your shoulder and then lean into the corner of a wall as shown in this picture.

What you are doing is forcing the acid (as in Lactic Acid) out of the muscle fiber so blood can fill the void and heal the muscle fiber. As you do this you are untying the knot and the pressure is removed from the joint. In most cases the joint can now move more freely and without pain.

All the self-treatments in my book are just this easy!

Most people have significant pain relief, and I am happy to say many get total and permanent pain relief. Try it yourself, self-treatment is easy. The worst thing that can happen is nothing, and the best thing that can happen is regaining normalcy.

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

Get Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living . It 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.

Can Supplements Help You Live Longer?

June 11, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Supplements The Fountain Of Youth?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It is buyer beware in the supplement industry. I have discussed the dark side of the supplement industry in the first half of my book “Slaying The Supplement Myths.”

I called that section of my book “The Lies of the Charlatans.” In it, I detailed many of the false claims that some manufacturers make for their supplements. There are claims that their supplements will…

Cure what ails you (Just fill in the disease of your choice. Some company will try to tell you they have the cure).
Make the pounds melt away.
Make you smarter.
Make you stronger.
Improve your sex life.

Can supplements help you live longer?

The list seems endless…Except for one! I don’t know of any supplement company claiming their supplements make you live longer. Nobody is claiming their supplements are the “Fountain of Youth.”

However, many of you have been asking me about headlines claiming that a recent study showed that supplements don’t extend lives. Could it be that the study generating the recent headlines was designed to disprove a claim nobody was making?

In this issue of “Health Tips From The Professor” I will analyze the study and answer two questions:

Is it true?
Is it important?

How Was The Study Done?

Every few years the National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the CDC) conducts a massive survey of factors affecting the health of the American population. This survey is called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The NHANES survey includes interviews and examinations of thousands of people across the country.

The interview includes dietary, health-related, demographic, and socioeconomic questions. The examination component includes laboratory tests plus medical, dental, and physiological measurements. The NHANES database is used for many studies such as this one.

The current study (F Chen et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, doi:10.7326/M18-2478, published April 9, 2019) used data from 30,899 US adults aged 20 years or more who participated in 6 cycles of the NHANES survey from 1999 to 2010. The dietary portion of the survey taken by these participants contained questions on the dietary supplements they had used in the 30 days prior to the survey.

The NHANES data were linked to the National Death Index mortality data so that the effect of nutrient intake and supplement use on mortality could be assessed. The median follow-up for the participants in the study was 6.1 years. During that time, 3613 deaths occurred, 945 from heart disease and 805 from cancer.

Of the participants:

71% were white, 11% were non-Hispanic black, and 13% were Hispanic.
9% were female, 49.1% were male.
2 % of the participants reported supplement use in the 30 days preceding the survey.
Among the supplement users, the major supplements reported were:
- Multivitamin/multimineral (74.8%).
- Vitamin C (40.3%).
- Calcium (38.6%).
- Vitamin D (37.6%).
- Zinc (34.5%).
- Magnesium (33.3%).

When they compared supplement users with non-supplement users, the supplement users were:

More likely to be female and non-Hispanic white.
Have higher levels of family education and income.
Eat a healthier diet and be more physically active.
Less likely to be current smokers, heavy drinkers, or obese.

These are all factors that favor a longer lifespan. However, the supplement users were also:

Older (average age = 50.7 versus 42.8 for non-supplement users).
Sicker (They were more likely to have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol levels).

These are factors that favor a shorter lifespan.

These are what statisticians refer to as confounding variables. They can influence the results of a study in unexpected ways.

Can Supplements Help You Live Longer?

When they looked at the raw data, supplemental use of most-individual nutrients was associated with a lower risk for all-cause death. In simple terms, supplementation appeared to increase lifespan.

However, when the data were statistically adjusted for all of the confounding variables (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, BMI [a measure of obesity], and diseases the participants had when they entered the study), the effect of supplementation on lifespan became non-significant.

The authors concluded: “Use of dietary supplements was not associated with mortality benefits among a nationally representative sample of U.S adults.” Those are the headlines you saw from your favorite news source.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Let’s go back to the two questions I posed about the study at the beginning of this article.

Is it true? Can supplements help you live longer? The study had many weaknesses, which the authors identified in their discussion. Of course, the people writing the headlines never bothered to read the paper, so they were unaware of its weaknesses. Here are some of the major weaknesses reported by the authors:
The NHANES questionnaire only asked about supplement use over the preceding 30 days. We have no idea how long the participants had been using those supplements. It could have been years, or it could have been a month. In the words of the authors: “Dietary supplement use was assessed in the previous 30 days, which may not reflect habitual use or capture changes in use [before or] after the baseline assessment.”
The supplement users were more likely to have been diagnosed with health conditions such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. It is well documented that diagnosed health conditions motivate some people to initiate supplement use.
Finally, there were multiple confounding variables in this study. The conclusion of the study rested on a statistical adjustment of the data to correct for those confounding variables. In the words of the authors: “Residual confounding may still be present.”

That last point reminds me of the famous Mark Twain quote: “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.” Don’t misunderstand me. I am not accusing the study authors of lying. They are some of the top scientists in the field. What Mark Twain and I are saying is that when you rely on statistics, sometimes bad things happen. You can come to erroneous conclusions.

Is it important? Even if the conclusion of this study is true, we should ask if it is important. If there had been widespread claims that supplements make you live longer, this would be an important finding. However, nobody I know is making that claim. This study simply reaffirms what most people assumed anyway. There is no fountain of youth.

By the way, the situation is similar for diets. There have been a few claims in the past that healthy diets will help you live longer. However, when those claims have been rigorously evaluated, there is very little effect of diet on lifespan. There have been some studies that have reported a decrease in premature death due to heart disease or cancer. However, death from all causes usually remains unchanged. Once again, the fountain of youth has eluded us.

You may be asking, if supplements don’t increase lifespan, what good are they? The answer is simple. They increase healthspan. Simply put, that means you spend a greater portion of your lifespan in good health.

Of course, now you are probably really confused. You’ve read all those headlines saying that supplements don’t have any effect on your health. The problem is that the studies generating those headlines are flawed. They aren’t asking the right questions. When you look at populations with poor diets, increased needs, genetic predisposition, and/or pre-existing disease, supplementation is often beneficial. I cover this in the second half of my book, “Slaying the Supplement Myths.” That section is called “The Myths Of The Naysayers.”

The Bottom Line

A recent study reported that supplements do not reduce mortality. They won’t make you live longer. In this article I provide a detailed analysis of that article. The two important take-aways are:

There are several weaknesses in the study. The conclusion may not be accurate.
Even if it is accurate, it may not be important. If there had been widespread claims that supplements make you live longer, this would be an important finding. However, nobody I know is making that claim. This study simply reaffirms what most people assumed anyway. There is no fountain of youth. Could it be that the study generating the recent headlines was designed to disprove a claim nobody was making?

The real benefit of supplementation isn’t in increasing your lifespan. It is increasing your healthspan. I cover that in my book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths.”

For more details read the article above.

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

Reversing Fatty Liver Disease

June 4, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Sodas Damaging Your Child’s Liver?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Is reversing fatty liver disease possible?

Years ago, fatty liver disease was unheard of in children. Chronic liver disease in children was almost always caused by rare gene mutations. That was before the obesity epidemic. Obesity and overweight have increased two- to three-fold in our children and adolescents over the last two decades, and the incidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has skyrocketed along with it.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in children and adolescents in the United States. It was found in 9.6% of all our children, 17.3% of our adolescents ages 15-19, and 38% of our children who are overweight or obese (JB Schwimmer et al, Pediatrics, 118: 1388-1393, 2006).

This is alarming because fatty liver disease increases the risk of developing type-2 diabetes, heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, end stage liver disease, and liver cancer. If this epidemic of fatty liver disease in our adolescents is not reversed, we are condemning them to a lifetime of poor health.

Consumption of sodas and sugary processed foods is strongly associated with both obesity and fatty liver disease. That has led many experts to recommend we eliminate sodas, fruit juices, and sugary desserts and processed foods from our diet. However, associations do not prove cause and effect. Food manufacturers have claimed there was no proof these foods cause obesity and fatty liver disease.

That’s where a recent study performed at Emory University and the University of California at San Diego, (JB Schwimmer et al, JAMA, 321: 256-265, 2019) comes in. This study was a randomized clinical trial that asked whether elimination of soft drinks, fruit juices, and foods with added sugars from the diet of adolescents with fatty liver disease could reverse the disease.

This study has two important implications. If it showed that elimination of these foods can reverse fatty liver disease:

It provides a strategy for treatment of children and adults with fatty liver disease.
It strengthens the evidence that these foods cause fatty liver disease.

How Was The Study Done?

The study started with 40 adolescent boys, ages 11-16, who already had fatty liver disease. They averaged 21-25% liver fat, which is more than four times the normal limit.

The study only included boys, because the incidence of fatty liver disease is higher in males than in females. All the subjects were severely overweight or obese (average BMI was >30).
The subjects were primarily (90%) Hispanic, because the incidence of fatty liver disease is slightly higher for Hispanics than for other ethnic groups.

The study design was as follows:

Twenty of the subjects were randomly assigned to an 8-week intervention diet designed to decrease free sugars (defined as added sugars found in sodas and processed foods and naturally occurring sugars found in fruit juices) from 10% of calories to <3% of calories.
Use of artificial sweeteners was prohibited because studies suggest they are also highly correlated with obesity and insulin resistance, both of which increase the risk of fatty liver disease.
The whole family followed the intervention diet during the 8-week study. By including the whole family in the study, the adherence of the adolescent to the diet was significantly improved.
Prior to starting on the intervention diet, study staff inventoried all food items in the household. Sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods containing added sugar were removed and replaced with low or no-added-sugar food items.
A registered dietitian prepared weekly diet plans tailored to family food preferences and the habitual diet of the child without restricting calorie intake. In short, this was not designed as a weight loss diet. In fact, the children consumed on average an additional 291 calories per day on the intervention diet.
The diets were neither low carb nor low fat. They did not restrict any food groups. They did not restrict sugars found naturally in fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes. They were simply healthier versions of the diets the families were already eating without fruit juices and the added sugars found in sodas and processed foods.
Participants were instructed to avoid sugar-containing processed foods and drinks including fruit juice when not eating at home.
Food sufficient for the entire family was delivered to each participant’s home twice a week. Participants and their families were instructed not to purchase any food and to consume only the food provided by the study staff.
If the parents preferred to prepare their own meals, the ingredients for the meals were provided to ensure they met the free-sugar goal.
To increase dietary adherence, the study staff made twice-weekly calls to assess food satisfaction, cravings, and assist with special family events and holiday alternatives.
Each participant’s diet was evaluated based on 24-hour food recalls on 2 weekdays and 1 weekend at the beginning of the study and between weeks 3 and 8.
The other twenty subjects were told to continue with their present diet.
Participants in the control group were provided with a weekly food stipend to be used at the food stores of their choice.
Participants were told not to make any major changes to their physical activity for the duration of the study.

In short, this was a very well-designed study.

Reversing Fatty Liver Disease is Possible?

The results of the study were dramatic. For the intervention group:

Adherence to the diet was excellent. 18 of the 20 participants reduced free sugar intake to <3%. In fact, the average free sugar intake at week 8 was <1% of total calories.
The amount of fat in their livers was reduced from 25% to 17% in just 8 weeks.
Three markers of liver damage (ALT, aspartate aminotransferase, and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase) were also significantly reduced.
Participants lost an average of 3 pounds even though they were consuming an extra 291 calories per day. Forget calorie counting, low carb, and low fat. The best way to lose weight may be to cut out sodas and sugary junk foods. That’s everyone’s dream diet. Eat more and lose weight.

In the control group:

Free sugar intake decreased slightly to 10% of calories.
There was no significant change in the amount of fat in their livers.
ALT and aspartate aminotransferase decreased slightly.
Participants gained an average of 1.3 pounds during the 8-week study.

The authors concluded: “In this study of adolescent boys with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, 8 weeks of provision of a diet low in free sugar compared with the usual diet resulted in significant improvement of hepatic steatosis [fat in the liver]…further research is required to assess long-term and clinical outcomes.”

In short, this is a preliminary study, but it suggests that elimination of sodas, sugary processed foods and fruit juice is enough to substantially reverse fatty liver disease.

Are Sodas Damaging Your Child’s Liver?

This study also strengthens the argument that sodas, sugary processed foods, and fruit juices play a significant role in the origin of fatty liver disease.

Why are sodas and the other foods such a problem? To answer that question, we first need to eliminate the myths.

Sugar isn’t the problem. This study did not eliminate naturally occurring sugars from fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes. They aren’t the problem.
High fructose corn syrup isn’t the problem. High fructose corn syrup is a mixture of fructose and glucose and is chemically indistinguishable from sucrose (table sugar), honey, coconut sugar, and the fruit sugars used to sweeten “natural” processed foods. More to the point, an 8 oz soda contains the same amount and same kind of sugars as a medium apple. Apples are good for you, but sodas can give you fatty liver disease.
Fructose isn’t the problem. The name fructose is derived from fruit. It is the major sugar found in most fruits. Fruits are nutritional powerhouses and are an indispensable part of a healthy diet.
It’s sodas, sugary processed foods, and fruit juices that are the problem. That’s because our body was designed to handle the sugars found in fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes in a healthy manner. These sugars are packed into foods with lots of fiber and a cellular matrix that meters sugar into our bloodstream gradually.

When that happens, liver and muscle cells remove sugar from the bloodstream and store it as glycogen. Blood glucose and insulin levels never get very high. The liver converts fructose to glucose and releases it into the bloodstream slowly. Our metabolism is perfectly designed to handle foods in their natural form.

In contrast, sodas, sugary processed foods and fruit juices contain lots of sugar and very little fiber. The sugar rushes into our bloodstream and overwhelms our normal metabolic pathways. The excess glucose causes high blood sugar and insulin levels which increase inflammation and the risk of multiple diseases. The excess fructose is converted to fat in the liver. Some of that fat is released into the bloodstream as triglycerides, but much of it remains in the liver, where it can lead to fatty liver disease. For more details, read my book, Slaying The Food Myths.

In short, our body can metabolize naturally occurring sugars found in whole foods quite well. Those same sugars in sodas, sugary processed foods and fruit juices can destroy our health.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

The greatest strength of this study is also its greatest weakness.

The whole family went on the same diet. This was not just a diet for the children in the household.
The study staff inventoried all food items in the household. Sodas, sugary processed foods, and fruit juices were removed and replaced with healthier foods with low or no-added-sugar.
A dietitian designed the diets and families were provided with all the food they needed for the 8-week program.

Its weakness is obvious. If you think of this as a public health intervention, it would be impossible to implement it on a significant scale.

However, as a parent this is very doable. If you care about the health of your children, make a healthier change for the whole family.

Throw out the sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugars.
Replace them with whole unprocessed foods from all 5 food groups.
If you buy any processed foods, choose those with little or no added sugar.
Don’t replace them with artificially sweetened foods. Most recent studies suggest artificial sweeteners are just as bad for you as the sugars they replace. For more details, read my book, Slaying The Food Myths.

The Bottom Line

Fatty liver disease is increasing at an alarming rate in our children, especially our teenagers.

Sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugars have been implicated in obesity and fatty liver disease. It has been difficult, however, to prove cause and effect.

A recent clinical study showed that eliminating sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugar from the diet of obese, adolescent boys with fatty liver disease for just 8-weeks:

Significantly reversed fat accumulation in the liver (fatty liver disease) and markers of liver damage. This may be a promising approach for reversing fatty liver disease. It also strengthens the argument that sodas and processed foods with added sugar play an important role in causing fatty liver disease.
The boys lost an average of 3 pounds even though they were consuming an extra 291 calories per day. Forget calorie counting, low carb, and low fat. The best way to lose weight may be to cut out sodas and sugary junk foods. That’s everyone’s dream diet. Eat more and lose weight.

This was a very well controlled study.

The whole family followed the intervention diet during the 8-week study. By including the whole family in the study, the adherence of the adolescent to the diet was significantly improved.
Prior to starting on the intervention diet, study staff inventoried all food items in the household. Sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods containing added sugar were removed and replaced with low or no-added-sugar food items.
A registered dietitian prepared weekly diet plans tailored to family food preferences and the habitual diet of the child without restricting calorie intake. In short, this was not designed as a weight loss diet. In fact, the children consumed on average an additional 291 calories per day on the intervention diet.
The diets were neither low carb nor low fat. They did not restrict any food groups. They did not restrict sugars found naturally in fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes. They were simply healthier versions of the diets the families were already eating without fruit juices and the added sugars found in sodas and processed foods.
Food sufficient for the entire family was delivered to each participant’s home twice a week.
Adherence to the diet was strictly monitored.

If you think of this as a public health intervention, it would be impossible to implement it on a significant scale.

However, as a parent this is very doable. If you care about the health of your children, make a healthier change for the whole family.

Throw out the sodas, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugars.
Replace them with whole unprocessed foods from all 5 food groups.
If you buy any processed foods, choose those with little or no added sugar.
Don’t replace them with artificially sweetened foods. Most recent studies suggest artificial sweeteners are just as bad for you as the sugars they replace.

For more details read the article above.

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

Frozen Shoulder Treatment

May 28, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Regain a Full Range Of Motion

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

May Is A Beautiful Time Of Year

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

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

In some ways, life is beginning to slow down for us. With most of the snowbirds gone, driving is easier, the stores are less crowded, and we can park at the beach. The weather is still beautiful so we can still go outside to ride a bike, jog, or play the sports we enjoy. This leads me to talk about a new client who came in and needed frozen shoulder treatment.

What Is A Frozen Shoulder?

There are 15 muscles that insert into your shoulder, each pulling your arm in a different direction. The term “Frozen Shoulder” is used when a muscle gets so tight that it’s difficult, or impossible to move in the opposite direction. Since there are 15 muscles pulling your shoulder and arm, the possibility of several of them going into spasm and preventing your arm from moving is huge. In fact, it’s pretty amazing that it doesn’t happen more often!

Depending on how many muscles are involved, frozen shoulder can range from a minor inconvenience to the inability to move in any direction at all.

Pain Can Restrict Motion

Recently, a new client, Claire, came into my office with a frozen shoulder. Claire could only lift her arm to a point where it was horizontal to her shoulder, and she couldn’t bring it backward at all. She was in a lot of pain and nothing she tried had worked. Fortunately, I am an expert at teaching people how to treat frozen shoulders and regain a full range of motion.

I first learned how to treat a frozen shoulder when it happened to me in 1994. Every one of the muscles of my left shoulder went into a serious spasm/contraction at the same time. I couldn’t move my elbow more than 2” away from my waistline! The pain was excruciating! I went to every type of practitioner I could imagine: massage (of course), physical therapy, orthopedic physician, chiropractor…in fact I would have gone to a witch doctor if I could have found one. Nothing was working!

Finally, I decided I needed to figure out how to self-treat the muscles that I knew were knotted up and holding my shoulder and arm bound. It took me from September until February to work it out and get my arm back to 100% range-of-motion, but I did it. I was thrilled, and I knew I had to teach this to everyone who has any shoulder pain. If you have my book, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, every shoulder treatment in that book came from my journey through pain. I know they all work!

So, back to my new client. When I saw the movements Claire couldn’t make, I knew that the muscles in the front of her shoulder were pulling her arm forward, and her latissimus dorsi muscle was pulling her arm down. As a result, she couldn’t lift her arm or bring it back.

Frozen Shoulder Treatment

The next three pictures show you how to treat two of the most common muscles that cause shoulder pain. These are the muscles that were giving Claire so much trouble when she needed frozen shoulder treatment. You’ll be using the Perfect Ball so you can really get to the muscles that are deep in the joint.

If you are having trouble lifting your arm up, put the Perfect Ball into your opposite hand and following the picture, place it onto your shoulder blade. You need to move it so it’s on the part of the bone that is the back part of your armpit.

Move your body around until you hit a really tender point. That’s the spasm in the latissimus dorsi that is preventing you from lifting your arm up.

To treat the muscles (pectoralis minor and pectoralis major) that are preventing your arm from going back, you need to lean into the corner of a wall.

As the picture demonstrates, put the Perfect Ball onto the front of your shoulder and lean into a wall. You can move the ball up and down by bending your knees a bit.

If in either frozen shoulder treatment you want more pressure, move your feet further out from the wall. For less pressure have your feet closer to the wall.

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 . It 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

What Is The Planetary Diet?

May 21, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Earth Day has come and gone, but you are still committed to saving the planet. You save energy. You recycle. You drive an electric car. But is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor,” What Is The Flexitarian Diet , but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

Are they good for us?
Are they good for the planet?
Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.” It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The study (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

“Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
“Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pasture land required to raise cattle and sheep.
The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO₂, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO₂. The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]
In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
In terms of eutrophication, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.
In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.

What Is The Planetary Diet?

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

“This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.”
“In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
- In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
- In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer-friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time.” If you have read my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths,” you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

Are they good for us?
Are they good for the planet?
Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.” It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

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

Preventing Gestational Diabetes With Vitamin C

May 14, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How to Get More Vitamin C During Pregnancy

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Does the belief that some mothers are preventing gestational diabetes with vitamin C have any merit?

Each year about 280,000 women in the United States will develop gestational diabetes in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. Gestational diabetes has increased by 56% between 2000 and 2010 and now represents 7% of all pregnancies in the US.

These are alarming statistics because gestational diabetes can have devastating consequences for both the mom and the unborn baby. For example, gestational diabetes:

Can cause excessive birth weight that causes the baby to become stuck in the birth canal, which requires a C-section and/or may cause brain damage to the baby.
Can cause early (preterm) birth and/or respiratory distress symptom in the newborn infant.
Can lead to preeclampsia (high blood pressure), which causes several other problems.
Is associated with an increased risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life for both the mom and her baby.

Because of these risks it is of paramount importance that you get your blood sugar levels under control if you develop gestational diabetes. The first line of defense against gestational diabetes is diet, exercise, and weight management (more about that later). If that fails to get your blood sugar under control, your physician may recommend oral diabetes medications. However, the American Diabetes Association does not recommend their use during pregnancy because their safety has not been established in pregnant women. Instead, they recommend insulin because that does not cross the placenta.

So, what can you do? Gestational diabetes is like type 2 diabetes in that it is caused by insulin resistance. In last week’s issue of “Health Tips From the Professor,” I discussed two recent publications that suggest vitamin C improves blood sugar control in type 2 diabetics. Could vitamin C do the same thing for gestational diabetes? One recent study, (C. Liu et al, Clinical Nutrition), says the answer may be yes.

How Was The Study Done?

This study recruited 3,009 pregnant women from the ongoing Tongji Maternal and Child Heart Cohort study in the Wuhan region in China. Their average age was 28 and their average BMI was 20, which is in the healthy range. [Note: This is significantly different than in the United States, where a significant percentage of women enter pregnancy in the overweight or obese category.]

Gestational Diabetes was assessed by an oral glucose tolerance test (the most accurate method) during weeks 24-28 of pregnancy (third trimester). Of the participants, 344 (11.4%) developed gestational diabetes.

Diet and supplement use were assessed during their first prenatal care visit and at the beginning of each trimester. The assessment was conducted by a trained interviewer. The adequacy of vitamin C intake was based on Chinese standards and was divided into inadequate (<115 mg/day (range = 10-110), adequate (115-200 mg/day), and above adequate (greater than 200 mg/day (range = 200-567)).

In terms of supplementation:

44% of the population used supplements containing vitamin C.
6% of the population got their supplemental vitamin C from a multivitamin.
Not surprisingly, multivitamin use was much higher in the group with above adequate vitamin C intake.

Preventing Gestational Diabetes with Vitamin C

The major findings of this study were:

Dietary intake of vitamin C was inversely proportional to gestational diabetes.
Women with above average dietary vitamin C intake had a 26% lower risk of developing gestational diabetes.
The primary dietary sources of vitamin C in the Chinese population were, in descending order, green leafy vegetables, cabbage, citrus fruits, chili peppers, and berries. These 5 foods accounted for 80% of the vitamin C in their diet.
A multivitamin supplement had no effect on gestational diabetes.

The authors concluded: “Sufficient dietary vitamin C intake (more than 200 mg/day) may protect pregnant women from developing gestational diabetes. Therefore, sufficient vitamin C from fruits and vegetables should be recommended.” This means preventing gestational diabetes with vitamin C may be possible.

The authors pointed out that their data on multivitamin use was consistent with a recent US study (Y. Song et al, Diabetes Care, 34: 108-114, 201) showing that multivitamin use did not affect the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but vitamin C supplementation did decrease risk. The authors said: “Whether pure vitamin C supplements have an effect on gestational diabetes risk needs further research.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

A recent study conducted in China reported that >200 mg/day of dietary vitamin C reduced the risk of developing gestational diabetes during pregnancy by 26%.
The study found that multivitamin use did not affect the risk of developing gestational diabetes but did not assess the effect of vitamin C supplementation on the risk of developing gestational diabetes.
The Chinese consume a primarily plant-based diet. Fruit and vegetable consumption is much less in the US. Consequently, dietary vitamin C intake in the US is much less. For example:
The average dietary vitamin C intake in the Chinese study was 163 mg/day. In contrast, the average intake for women of childbearing age in the US is 91 mg/day.
In the US 12% of women of childbearing age are deficient in vitamin C and an additional 20% are getting less than the RDA of vitamin C from their diet.

This is a small study and needs to be confirmed by larger studies. However, the idea that vitamin C may help reduce the risk of developing gestational diabetes is consistent with recent studies suggesting vitamin C helps with blood sugar control in type 2 diabetes (see my recent issue of “Health Tips From The Professor:” Vitamin C and Diabetes).

So, what should you do to reduce the risk of gestational diabetes if you are pregnant or treat it if it develops when you are pregnant?

#1: Diet: Here is what the American Diabetes Association recommends:

Eliminate sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods from your diet. Also avoid alcohol and cigarette smoking.
Consume a variety of whole foods from all 5 food groups. This includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, low-fat dairy, and low-fat meats.
Practice portion control. You are not really eating for two. Frequent small meals are better than 2 or 3 large meals.
You may want to consider a moderately low carb diet, but this is not the time to be cutting out nutrient-rich food groups. If you wish to go this route, I would suggest the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet (minus the red wine, of course).

#2: Exercise: Exercise is a key component for controlling blood sugar levels. Consult with your physician about the best exercise program for you.

#3: Weight Management: The current recommendation for weight gain during pregnancy is between 25 to 35 pounds if you are at normal weight and 15-25 pounds if you are overweight. If you are gaining more than that, ask your physician for referral to a dietitian who can help you limit your weight gain. This is not the time to go on any extreme weight-loss diet.

For example, contrary to what you hear from keto advocates, this is not the time to go on the keto diet. Recent studies suggest that ketosis adversely affects brain development in the fetus. Until we know more, there is no reason to risk harm to your unborn baby.

#4: Diabetes Medications: The American Diabetes Association does not recommend diabetes medications if you develop gestational diabetes during pregnancy. They recommend insulin instead. However, some physicians still prescribe diabetes medications for women with gestational diabetes.

#5: Vitamin C: If you wish to avoid insulin or diabetes medications, you may want to try increasing your vitamin C intake first. Based on the current study and other recent studies, here are my recommendations:

Start with adding more vitamin C-rich fruits and vegetables to your diet. If your diet is like that of most US women of childbearing age, you will want to more than double your dietary vitamin C intake.
Consider adding a vitamin C supplement. In my previous “Health Tips From The Professor” I discussed a study showing that 1,000 mg/day improved blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes.
Don’t think of vitamin C as a “magic bullet.” It will not control gestational diabetes by itself. It should be thought of as part of a holistic program that includes diet, exercise, and weight management.
The only caution I am aware of for vitamin C supplementation during pregnancy is that the newborn baby may metabolize vitamin C more rapidly. You will want to continue vitamin C supplementation while you are breastfeeding as a precaution.

The Bottom Line

A recent study conducted in China reported that >200 mg/day of dietary vitamin C reduced the risk of developing gestational diabetes during pregnancy by 26%.
The study found that multivitamin use did not affect the risk of developing gestational diabetes but did not assess the effect of vitamin C supplementation on the risk of developing gestational diabetes.
The idea that vitamin C may help reduce the risk of developing gestational diabetes is consistent with recent studies suggesting vitamin C helps with blood sugar control in type 2 diabetes.
The Chinese consume a primarily plant-based diet. Fruit and vegetable consumption is much less in the US. Consequently, dietary vitamin C intake in the US is much less.

So, what should you do to reduce the risk of gestational diabetes if you are pregnant or treat it if it develops when you are pregnant?

#1: Diet: Here is what the American Diabetes Association recommends:

Eliminate sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods from your diet. Also avoid alcohol and cigarette smoking.
Consume a variety of whole foods from all 5 food groups. This includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, low-fat dairy, and low-fat meats.
You may want to consider a moderate low carb diet, but this is not the time to be cutting out nutrient-rich food groups. If you wish to go this route, I would suggest the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet (minus the red wine, of course).

#2: Exercise: Exercise is a key component for controlling blood sugar levels. Consult with your physician about the best exercise program for you.

For example, contrary to what you hear from keto advocates, this is not the time to go on the keto diet. Recent studies suggest that ketosis adversely affects brain development in the fetus. Until we know more, there is no reason to risk harm to your unborn baby.

Start with adding more vitamin C-rich fruits and vegetables to your diet. If your diet is like that of most US women of childbearing age, you will want to more than double your dietary vitamin C intake.
Consider adding a vitamin C supplement. Don’t think of vitamin C as a “magic bullet.” It will not control gestational diabetes by itself. Instead, it should be thought of as part of a holistic program that includes diet, exercise, and weight management.

For more details read the article above.

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

Vitamin C and Diabetes

May 7, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Type 2 diabetes is increasing at an alarming rate. Between 1990 and 2010, the number of people in the US living with diabetes has more than tripled. In 2017 the CDC reported that 30.3 million Americans (9.4% of the population) had diabetes. Another 84.1 million had pre-diabetes, a condition which, if left untreated, will develop into diabetes within 5 years.

That is concerning, because type 2 diabetes can have devastating health consequences. It increases inflammation and oxidative damage. It significantly increases your risk of heart disease, Alzheimer’s Disease and some cancers. Then there is kidney disease, nerve pain, and loss of limbs.

It is the hyperglycemia (high blood sugar levels) associated with diabetes that plays a major role in many of these poor health outcomes. That is why so much effort is focused on helping people with type 2 diabetes gain better control of their blood sugar. Management of blood sugar levels in people with diabetes involves both medications and a healthy lifestyle (weight control, a healthy diet, and exercise). Unfortunately, despite their best efforts and the best efforts of their doctors, millions of Americans with diabetes struggle to control their blood sugar levels.

Is there a positive relationship between vitamin C and diabetes?

What if there were a simple, inexpensive intervention that could help diabetics control their blood sugar levels? Recent research suggests that vitamin C might be that intervention. Nobody is claiming that vitamin C is THE solution to blood sugar control. However, the recent research suggests it may be a useful addition to diabetes drugs and a healthy lifestyle.

Does Vitamin C Improve Blood Sugar Control?

The idea that vitamin C may improve blood sugar control has been around for decades based on studies showing that vitamin C helps clear glucose from the circulation. Now, however, we are starting to understand how vitamin C does that.

But before I discuss how vitamin C may improve blood sugar control, the professor in me feels a need to explain what I call Diabetes 101. In type 1 diabetes the pancreas has become unable to produce insulin. In type 2 diabetes tissues have become resistant to the effects of insulin. I will focus on type 2 diabetes.

Glucose is the primary sugar in the bloodstream. Whenever blood sugar (glucose) increases, our pancreas responds by producing insulin. Insulin binds to receptors on our tissues and signals them to take up glucose and rapidly metabolize it. As a result, glucose is rapidly cleared from the circulation and blood sugar levels return to normal.

Type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. Simply put, our pancreas is still producing insulin, but our tissues have become less efficient at responding to it. Initially, the pancreas responds by overproducing insulin. A new homeostasis is achieved. Blood insulin levels are abnormally high, but glucose is still cleared from the circulation reasonably well. We call this pre-diabetes.

Eventually the pancreas loses the ability to overproduce insulin. Because our tissues are still insulin resistant, glucose is cleared from the circulation slowly. We now have trouble keeping blood sugar levels under control. We call this type 2 diabetes.

There are two major theories at present for why vitamin C may help diabetics control their blood sugar levels:

One theory holds that oxidative stress reduces the ability of the pancreas to release insulin. This theory suggests vitamin C improves insulin release from the pancreas, and the extra insulin overcomes insulin resistance and improves the ability of our tissues to clear glucose from the circulation.
The other theory holds that oxidative stress plays an important role in causing insulin resistance. This theory suggests vitamin C reduces insulin resistance and improves the clearance of glucose from the circulation by this mechanism.

There is some experimental evidence for both mechanisms. It may be that both play a role in vitamin C’s ability to improve blood sugar control.

How Were The Studies Done?

In terms of the effect of vitamin C on blood sugar control, there are two recent studies that have provided intriguing results.

The first study (Y. Song et al, Diabetes Care, 34: 108-114, 2011) was designed to see if supplementation with multivitamins or individual vitamin and mineral supplements affected the risk of developing diabetes among older US adults. It utilized data from the National Institutes of Health – American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study.

The study enrolled 566,402 AARP members ages 50-71 in 1995-1996. Upon entry into the program, participants filled out a dietary survey that included supplement usage. In 2004-2006 a follow-up survey was mailed out to surviving participants that asked about occurrences of major chronic diseases.

Because the onset of a major disease is known to affect supplement usage, all participants with pre-existing diabetes or who developed diabetes prior to 2,000 were excluded from this analysis. Of the remaining 232,007 participants, 217,877 did not have diabetes and 14,130 had developed diabetes between 2000 and the end of the study.

The second study (SA Mason et al, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 21: 674-682, 2019 ) was a double blind, placebo controlled study design to determine whether supplemental vitamin C improved blood sugar control in people who already had type 2 diabetes.

In this study 31 adults (average age 62 years) were enrolled in the study. All the subjects were borderline obese and had type 2 diabetes. Five of the patients were being managed with lifestyle changes only. The other 26 patients were on one or more diabetes medications to help control their blood sugar levels.

The subjects were advised to avoid supplementation prior to the study. They were then given either 1,000 mg of vitamin C (two 500 mg capsules) or a placebo to take for 4 months. After the first 4-month period they were put on a “washout” protocol with no supplementation. Then they were put on a second 4-month regimen in which they received the opposite tablets (Those who received vitamin C during the first 4 months received a placebo during the second 4 months and vice versa.) Compliance with the protocol was determined by measuring blood levels of vitamin C.

The subjects were outfitted with a continuous blood glucose monitor for a 48-hour period at the beginning and end of each 4-month regimen. They were given standardized meals during those 48-hour test intervals and their blood sugar response to the meals was continuously monitored over the next 48 hours.

Vitamin C and Diabetes

The results of the first study were:

Multivitamins and most of the individual supplements tested had no effect on the risk of developing diabetes over the next 10 years. The only supplements that reduced the risk of developing diabetes were vitamin C and calcium.
Vitamin C reduced the risk of developing diabetes by 9%.
The benefits of vitamin C appeared to be limited to individuals who did not use multivitamins and who had low dietary intake of vitamin C (No surprises there. Supplementation is usually most effective when it is filling in nutritional gaps).

This study has several obvious limitations:

It is an association study, so it does not prove cause and effect.
It does not tell us whether vitamin C prevents diabetes or simply improves blood sugar control in people who are borderline diabetic.
It did not measure how much supplemental vitamin C people were taking. However, based on what is available in the marketplace, it is probably safe to assume it was between 500 and 1,000 mg/day.

However, this study did lay the groundwork for the second study.

The results of the second study were that 4 months of vitamin C supplementation reduced:

The blood sugar response to standardized meals by 36%.
The duration of high blood sugar following a standardized meal by 1.7 hours.
The amount of time during the day with high blood sugar levels by 2.8 hours.

These are all important improvements for anyone with type 2 diabetes. In the words of the authors: “The improvement in total daily time spent with hyperglycemia [high blood sugar] is of potential clinical importance as the risk of complications in type 2 diabetes is strongly associated with previous hyperglycemia.”

The authors went on to say: “Compliance in the present study was high [people did not find it difficult to take 2 tablets a day] and the number of reported adverse effects was low, suggesting that vitamin C may be safely and consistently used in addition to [emphasis mine] primary diabetes treatment. Given the potential side effects with common anti-diabetic medications…, the idea that a relatively benign and inexpensive vitamin supplement might play a role in managing diabetes has particular appeal.”

Note: This was a very well-designed study. Its weakness is its small size. While it is consistent with other recent studies, larger clinical trials are needed to confirm this effect.

What Do These Studies Mean For You?

The idea that vitamin C may help with blood sugar control has been around for decades. These studies provide experimental support for that idea. While both studies have limitations, they are consistent with other recent studies. Much more research is needed, but it is good to finally see the hypothesis being rigorously tested.

So, what do these studies mean for you? Here is the take home message:

Although more studies are needed, vitamin C appears to help with blood sugar control.
We don’t know how much vitamin C is needed, but the most recent study was done with 1,000 mg/day. That is more than can be obtained from diet alone.
The improvement in blood sugar control was significant, but it was not huge. Vitamin C will not replace a healthier weight, a healthy lifestyle, and exercise.
You should think of vitamin C as something you add to the treatment plan your doctor recommends for type 2 diabetes. At best it may allow your doctor to reduce the amount of medication they prescribe.

If you have type diabetes, here are my recommendations:

If you are overweight, try to attain and maintain a healthier weight.
Eat a whole food, primarily plant-based diet. Avoid sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods. Eat a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans in their natural, unprocessed state. Include small amounts of meat, eggs, and dairy. Think of them as the garnish, not the main course.
Add a daily vitamin C supplement.
If that is not enough, ask your doctor what medications he or she recommends.

Other nutrients that may help are chromium, taurine and alpha lipoic acid. Herbs that may help are bitter melon and gymnema.

The Bottom Line

What is the association between vitamin C and diabetes? The idea that vitamin C may help with blood sugar control has been around for decades. Two recent studies provide experimental support for this idea. The second study showed that 4 months of 1,000 mg/day vitamin C supplementation reduced:

The blood sugar response to standardized meals by 36%.
The duration of high blood sugar following a standardized meal by 1.7 hours.
The duration of the day with high blood sugar levels by 2.8 hours.

While this study has limitations, it is consistent with other recent studies. Much more research is needed, but it is good to finally see the hypothesis that vitamin C improves blood sugar control being rigorously tested.

So, what do these studies mean for you? Here is the take home message:

Although more studies are needed, vitamin C appears to help with blood sugar control.
We don’t know how much vitamin C is needed, but the most recent study was done with 1,000 mg/day. That is more than can be obtained from diet alone.
The improvement in blood sugar control was significant, but it was not huge. Vitamin C will not replace a healthier weight, a healthy lifestyle, and exercise.
You should think of vitamin C as something you add to the treatment plan your doctor recommends for type 2 diabetes. At best it may allow your doctor to reduce the amount of medication they prescribe.

For more details and my recommendations read the article above.

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