Is Red Meat As Healthy As White Meat?

The Lies of the Beef Industry

Eating Red MeatLast week I wrote about a recent review claiming that the evidence for the health risks of red meat consumption was so weak that the best advice for the American public was to eat as much of it as they like. I pointed out the many flaws in that study.

  • One of the flaws was that the review discounted dozens of association studies showing a link between red meat consumption and disease and relied instead on randomized controlled trials. Normally, that would be a good thing, but…
  • The association studies looked at health outcomes and had hundreds of thousands of participants. They found clear links between red meat consumption and increased risk of heart disease and cancer.
  • The randomized controlled trials looked at blood parameters like LDL cholesterol and averaged less than 500 participants. These studies were too small to provide meaningful results, and, not surprisingly, the results were conflicting. Some linked red meat consumption to increased risk, while others did not.

Because they had discounted evidence from association studies, the authors of the review concluded that the overall evidence was weak.

This week I want to address why the evidence from randomized controlled trials for health risks of red meat is so weak. More importantly, I want to highlight the role of the beef industry in making sure the evidence on the health risks of red meat consumption is weak.

I will also point out the role of the media in this process because they are equally complicit in spreading misleading information about the health risks of red meat consumption.

You might be asking: “How does the beef industry influence clinical trials to produce outcomes supporting their message that red meat is perfectly healthy?” “Surely they can’t convince reputable scientists to falsify their results.”

  • The answer is they don’t need to convince scientists to falsify their results. They just need to influence the design of the experiments so the results will be to their liking.” I will give two examples of that in this article.

Next you might be wondering: “What is the role of the media in this? Surely they just report what the scientific publication says.” Don’t be deceived. The media isn’t interested in accuracy. They are interested in generating the largest possible audience. They know controversy attracts an audience. They are looking for “man bites dog” headlines even if it isn’t true.

  • If you actually read the studies, you discover that reputable scientists always discuss the weaknesses and flaws in their study. The media either doesn’t read the publication or ignores the weaknesses. Instead they focus on the most controversial headline they can craft. I will give some examples of that as well.

Is Red Meat As Healthy As White Meat?

Red Meat Vs White MeatFor years we have been told that red meat increases our risk of heart disease because it is high in saturated fats. We’ve been told that white meat and plant proteins are better alternatives.

But the latest headlines claim that red meat is just as heart healthy as white meat. You are probably wondering what to believe. Let’s examine the study behind the headline and ask two important questions?

  1. Did the beef industry influence the study?
  2. Did the media distort the study in their reporting?

I will start by reporting the study design and the results of the studies without comment. Then I will discuss how the beef industry influenced the design of the study to produce misleading results.

The Headlines Said: “Red Meat and White Meat Are Equally Heart Healthy.” The study behind the headlines was a 4-week study (N Bergeron et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110: 24-33, 2019) comparing equivalent amounts of red meat, white meat, and non-meat protein on LDL levels. It did report that red meat and white meat raised LDL cholesterol levels to the same extent, but here is what the headlines didn’t tell you:

  • The authors of this study are heavily funded by the dairy and beef industries. I will point out the implications of this funding below.
  • 4 weeks is a very short time. This study provides no information on the long-term effects of red meat versus white meat consumption.
  • The study only measured LDL and related lipoproteins. It did not measure heart disease outcomes. LDL and lipoprotein levels are only one indicator of heart disease risk. Thus, they are imperfect predictors of heart disease risk. I will point out why that is important below as well.
  • The study was performed at two levels of saturated fat – low (7% of calories) and high (14% of calories).

At the low level of saturated fat, only the leanest cuts of red meat (top round and top sirloin) were used to keep saturated fat low in the red meat group. High fat dairy foods were added to the non-meat protein group to increase saturated fat content. Thus, all 3 groups consumed the same amount of saturated fat.

At the high level of saturated fat, butter and high-fat dairy foods were added to the white meat and non-meat protein groups to increase saturated fat content. Once again, saturated fat content was identical in all 3 groups.

Here were the results:High Cholesterol

  • LDL and related lipoproteins were higher for the high saturated fat group than the low saturated fat group. Nothing new here. This is consistent with dozens of previous studies. We know that saturated fat increases LDL cholesterol levels when other aspects of the diet are kept constant.
  • In both the low and high saturated fat groups, red and white meat raised LDL cholesterol to the same extent. In other words, when saturated fat levels are held constant, red meat and white meat raise cholesterol levels to the same extent.

In interpreting that statement, you need to remember the study design.

    • In the low saturated fat group, only two cuts of red meat were low enough in saturated fat for a direct comparison to white meat.
    • In the high saturated fat group, butter and high fat dairy had to be added to white meat so it could be compared to red meat.

Obviously, this is not the real world. 95% of the red meat the average American consumes is higher in saturated fat than most white meat.

The authors concluded “The findings…based on lipid and lipoprotein effects, do not provide evidence for choosing white over red meat for reducing heart disease risk”. That conclusion is clearly inaccurate.

  • The study did not measure heart disease outcomes. It measured only LDL cholesterol and related lipoprotein levels. That is just one factor in determining heart disease risk. The significance of that statement will be explained below.
  • Red meat and white meat raised LDL cholesterol levels to the same extent only when saturated fat is held constant. We know that most red meat is higher in saturated fat than white meat and saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol levels. In fact, the study confirmed that the high-fat red meats most people consume raised LDL cholesterol more than white meats.
  • The accurate conclusion to this study would have been: “Most red meat raises LDL cholesterol more than white meat, which suggests red meat may increase heart disease risk compared to white meat.”
  • Did I mention that the authors are heavily funded by the beef industry?

What About TMAO And Heart Disease Risk?

heart diseaseInterestingly, the authors also looked at another risk factor for heart disease in the same study, something called TMAO. I have discussed the relationship between red meat, TMAO, and heart disease risk in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”).

Let me summarize briefly here:

  • Red meat has 10-50-fold higher concentrations of a compound called L-carnitine than white meat.
  • Meat eaters have a very different population of gut bacteria than people who eat a primarily plant-based diet. It is not clear whether that is due to the meat or the loss of plant foods that meat displaces from the diet.
  • The gut bacteria of meat eaters convert L-carnitine to trimethylamine (TMA), which the liver then converts to trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO).
  • The gut bacteria of people consuming a primarily plant-based do not convert L-carnitine to TMA, so no TMAO is formed. For example, in one study investigators fed an 8-ounce sirloin steak to meat eaters and to vegetarians. The meat eaters ended up with high levels of TMAO in their blood. The vegetarians had little or no TMAO in their blood.
  • High levels of TMAO are associated with atherosclerosis, increased risk of heart attacks, and death. Therefore, TMAO is considered an independent risk factor for heart disease.

The authors of the study comparing red meat and white meat also found that blood TMAO levels were two-fold higher in the red meat group than in the other two groups and this was independent of dietary saturated fat. However, rather than publishing this in the same paper where it might have interfered with their message that red and white meat affect heart disease risk to the same extent, the authors chose to publish these data in a separate paper (Z.Wang, European Heart Journal, 40: 7: 583-594, 2018).

Did I mention the authors are heavily funded by the beef industry?

Is Red Meat Healthy As Part Of A Mediterranean Diet?

Mediterranean Diet FoodsLet me briefly touch on one other study funded by the beef industry. The headlines said: “You may not have to give up red meat. It is healthy as part of a Mediterranean diet.”

The study (LE O’Connor et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 108: 33-40, 2018) behind the headlines did report that lean beef and pork did not raise LDL cholesterol levels when they were included in a Mediterranean diet. However, it is important to look at what the headlines didn’t tell you.

  • The red meat group consumed only 2.4 ounces of red meat a day. We aren’t talking about 8-ounce steaks or a rack of pork ribs here.
  • The red meat group ate only the very leanest (tenderloin) cuts of beef or pork.
  • On a positive note, while it wasn’t measured in this study, it is likely that TMAO levels would be relatively low because the subjects were consuming a primarily plant-based diet. They were consuming 7 servings of vegetables, 4 servings of fruit, and 4 servings of whole grains each day.
  • Similarly, red meat has several components that appear to increase cancer risk. However, they can be largely neutralized by various plant foods. This is something I have discussed in more detail in my book “Slaying The Food Myths”.

In summary, it would have been more accurate to conclude that very small, very lean servings of red meat may be healthy as part of a primarily plant-based diet like the Mediterranean diet.

The Lies Of The Beef Industry

LiesBoth these studies utilized the very leanest cuts of red meat so they could conclude that red meat is healthy. This is a common design of studies funded by the beef industry. Rather than looking at the health effects of the high fat red meats most people consume, the studies focus only on the leanest cuts of meat.

The studies appear to be designed to purposely mislead the American public. Let’s look at how that happens. When studies like these are incorporated into larger meta-analyses or reviews, investigators often look at the conclusions, not at the experimental design.

Meta-analyses and reviews are only as good as the studies they include, a concept referred to as “Garbage in – Garbage Out”. That is what happened with the review and recommendations I discussed last week. The review relied heavily on short-term randomized controlled trials.

However, this is problematic. Because of the way they are designed, industry funded studies tend to find no adverse effects of consuming red meat. Independently funded studies tend to find adverse health effects from red meat. If you throw them all together without considering how the experiments were designed, the studies cancel each other out.

On that basis the authors of the review concluded that the evidence for red meat adversely affecting health outcomes was weak and recommended that everyone could continue consuming red meat. (That is a recommendation that virtually every health organization and top expert in the field have rejected for the reasons I summarized last week).

The beef industry doesn’t have to influence the design of every study, just enough studies to confuse the science and confuse the media.

The Complicity Of The Media

newspaper heallinesUnfortunately, the media is equally guilty of misleading the public. As I said above, the media is interested in attracting an audience, not in accuracy. For example:

  • The headlines describing the first study should have said: “Saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol levels”. But everyone knows that. Headlines like that are non-controversial. They don’t attract readers.
  • The headlines describing that study could have said: “Very lean cuts of red meat don’t raise LDL levels any more than white meat”. That would have been accurate, but that wouldn’t attract readers either. Most Americans prefer high fat cuts of red meat. They aren’t interested in reading articles suggesting they should change what they are eating.
  • Similarly, the headlines describing the second study should have said: “Very small amounts of very lean red meat may be healthy as part of a Mediterranean diet.”
  • In fact, the authors of both studies admitted in their discussions that they could not extrapolate their findings to the effects of higher-fat red meats. The media ignored those statements. Presumably, they decided the American public didn’t want to hear that message.
  • The first study also found that LDL and related lipoprotein levels were lower for the non-meat protein group than the red and white meat groups at both saturated fat levels. In fact, the main conclusion of the authors was: “The findings are in keeping with recommendations promoting diets with a high proportion of plant foods.” Somehow the media completely ignored that finding.

When the media consistently misleads the public about what constitutes a healthy diet, it leads to confusion. Confusion leads to inaction. At a time when so many Americans are suffering from preventable diseases, this is inexcusable.

Is Red Meat Healthy?

red meat heart healthyLet’s return to the question I posed last week: “Is red meat healthy?” Most of what I say below is identical to what I said last week. However, with the information I provided in the article above it may be easier to understand.

  • The saturated fat in red meat is associated with increased heart disease risk.
  • Red meat increases blood levels of TMAO, which is associated with increased heart disease risk.
  • The heme iron in red meat can be converted in the gut to N-nitroso compounds, which are associated with increased risk of cancer.
  • Benzopyrene and heterocyclic amines are formed when red meat is cooked. And they are associated with increased risk of cancer.

As I said last week, “There are too many studies that show a strong association between red meat consumption and disease risk to give red meat a clean bill of health. We can’t say red meat is healthy with any confidence.”

However, that doesn’t mean we need to eliminate red meat from our diet. As described above, the health risks of red meat are determined by the type of red meat consumed, the amount of red meat consumed, and the overall composition of our diet. For example:

  • Very lean cuts of red meat contain no more saturated fat than white meat.
  • Primarily plant-based diets alter our gut bacteria in such a way that production of TMAO and N-nitroso compounds are decreased.
  • Diets high in plant fiber sweep benzopyrene and heterocyclic amines out of our intestine before they can cause much damage.

So, what does that mean to you?

  • If you are thinking in terms of a juicy 8-ounce steak with a baked potato and sour cream, red meat may increase your risk of disease.
  • However, if you are thinking of 2-3 ounces of very lean steak in a vegetable stir fry or a green salad, red meat is probably OK.
  • If you are thinking about the very leanest cuts of red meat, they are probably just as healthy as white meat.

What About Grass Fed Beef?

Of course, one question I am frequently asked is: “What about grass fed beef? Is it healthier than conventionally raised beef?” Grass fed beef does have a slightly healthier fat profile. It is modestly lower in saturated fat and modestly higher in omega-3 fats. However, grass feeding doesn’t affect TMAO, N-Nitroso, benzopyrene, and heterocyclic amine formation.

  • That means the 8-ounce steak is only slightly less unhealthy and the 2-3 ounces of steak in a green salad only slightly healthier when you substitute grass-fed for conventionally raised beef. It’s probably not worth the extra cost.

Next week I will return with the answer to another question I get a lot. “If plant protein is good for me, what about all those meatless burgers that are popping up in my favorite fast food restaurants. Are they healthy?”

The Bottom Line

Last week I wrote about a recent review claiming that the evidence for the health risks of red meat consumption was so weak that the best advice for the American public was to eat as much of it as they like. I pointed out the many flaws in that study.

This week I provided two examples of how the beef industry influences the design of clinical trials to minimize the health risks of red meat and the media misleads the public about what the studies showed.

The bottom line is that red meat likely has no adverse health effects only if you are consuming very small amounts of very lean red meat in the context of a primarily plant-based diet. Unfortunately, this is not the message you are getting from the media and from Dr. Strangelove’s health blog.

As for grass-fed beef, it is only modestly healthier than conventionally raised beef for reasons I have given in the article above. It’s probably not worth the extra cost.

Next week I will return with the answer to another question I get a lot. “If plant protein is good for me, what about all those plant-based burgers that are popping up in my favorite fast food restaurants. Are they healthy?” Stay tuned.

For more details, read the article above.

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

 

 

Is Red Meat Healthy For You?

Why Is Red Meat So Controversial?

fatty steakThe American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization and other organizations have been telling us for years that diets high in red meat are likely to increase our risk of chronic diseases. If you are like most Americans, you have been trying to cut back on red meat.

However, the latest headlines are saying things like: “Red meat is actually good for you” and “Most adults don’t need to cut back on red meat for their health”. Where did those headlines come from?

A group calling itself the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium (NutriRECS) has reviewed the scientific literature and said: “The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork.” They have issued guidelines (BC Johnston et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 171: 756-764, 2019) saying that adults really don’t need to change the amounts of red meat they are eating.

As you can imagine, that has proven to be a controversial recommendation. Many of the top experts in the field have questioned the validity of the study and have condemned the guidelines as misleading.

However, most of you don’t care about arguments between the experts. Your questions are: “What does this study mean to me?” Is everything I have been told about red meat wrong?” “Is red meat healthy after all? Can I really eat as much as I want?”

Why Is Red Meat So Controversial?

ArgumentIf you are confused by the latest headlines, it’s not your fault. Over the past few decades you have been bombarded by conflicting headlines about red meat. One month it is bad for you. The next month it is good for you. It is fair to ask: “Why is red meat so controversial? Why is it so confusing?”

Perhaps the best way to answer those questions is to review the scientific critique of the latest guidelines saying we can eat as much red meat as we want and then look at the authors’ rebuttal.

The best summary of the scientific critique of these guidelines is a WebMD Health News report. Let me cover a few of the most important criticisms:

#1: The NutriRECS group was not backed by any major health, government, or scientific organizations. The members of this group self-nominated themselves as gurus of nutritional recommendations. In an earlier publication they concluded that the evidence was too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less sugar. But in that review they stopped short of recommending that adults could eat as much sugar as they wanted.

#2: The review left out 15 important studies showing that diets high in red meat are associated with increased disease risk. If those studies had been included in the analysis, the link between meat consumption and disease would have been much stronger. Even worse, the omitted studies met the author’s stated criteria for inclusion in their analysis. No reason was given for omitting those studies. This suggests author bias.

#3: The authors used an assessment method that prioritizes evidence from randomized controlled trials and downgrades evidence from association studies. As a result, multiple association studies showing red and processed meat consumption increases disease risk were discounted, and a few randomized controlled clinical trials giving inconsistent results dominated their analysis.

Let me state for the record that my research career was devoted to cancer drug development. I am a big proponent of the value of randomized controlled trials when they are appropriate.

·       Randomized controlled trial are perfect for determining the effectiveness of new drugs. In this context it is appropriate. In a drug trial it is easy to design a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In addition, every participant already has the disease. If a drug has a benefit, it is apparent in a very short time.

·       However, randomized controlled trials are not optimal for dietary studies. In the first place, it is impossible to design a placebo or have a “blinded study”. People know what they are eating. In addition, diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes take decades to develop. You can’t keep people on specific diets for decades.

·       In addition, because randomized controlled trials are short, they can only measure the effect of diet on disease markers like LDL cholesterol. These disease markers are imperfect predictors of disease outcomes. I will discuss this in more detail next week.

·       Consequently, most of the major studies in nutrition research are “association studies” where the investigators ask people what they customarily eat and look at the association of those dietary practices with disease outcomes. These studies aren’t perfect, but they represent the best tool we have for determining the influence of diet on disease outcomes.

confusion#4: The authors included people’s attitudes about eating meat in their analysis. Because many meat eaters stated they would be unwilling to give up meat, the authors downgraded the association between meat consumption and disease risk.

·       That really had the outside experts scratching their heads. They agreed that people’s attitudes should be considered in discussions about how to implement health guidelines. However, they were unanimously opposed to the idea that people’s opinions should be a factor in crafting health guidelines.

#5: The authors ignored the environmental impact of meat consumption. As I indicated in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, this should be a major consideration when choosing your diet.

#6: The authors may have been influenced by the beef industry. The NutriRECS group stated that the Agriculture and Life Sciences (AgriLife) program at Texas A&M provided generous support for their study. While that sound innocuous, the AgriLife program receives financial support from the “Texas Beef Checkoff Program”, which is a meat industry marketing program paid for by cattle ranchers.

#7: The beef industry influenced the studies the authors relied on in their review. The beef industry supports randomized controlled clinical trials on red meat and influences the outcome of those studies in ways that minimize the health effects of red meat consumption. I will give some examples of this next week. Unfortunately, these are the studies the NutriRECS group relied on for their recommendations.

What Did The Authors Say About Their Guidelines?

balance scaleBecause I like to provide a balanced evaluation of nutrition controversies, it is only fair that I summarize the authors argument for their recommendations. However, I will add my commentary. Here is a summary of their arguments.

#1: Nutritional recommendations should be based on sound science. In principle, this is something that everyone agrees on. However, as I noted above randomized controlled trials are not always the best scientific approach for studying the health effects of diet.

My comment: In matters of public health it is better to be safe than sorry. Simply put, it is better to warn people about probable dangers to their health rather than waiting decades for certainty. Smoking is a perfect example. The Surgeon General warned the US public about the dangers of smoking long before the evidence was conclusive.

Smoking is also an example of how industry tries to influence scientific opinion. The tobacco industry supported and influenced research on smoking. Industry funded research tended to minimize the dangers of smoking. Next week I will show how the meat industry is doing the same concerning the dangers of red meat.

#2: It is difficult to get good dietary information in association studies. That is because most association studies ask people what they have eaten over the past few decades. There are two problems with that.

1)    Most people have enough trouble remembering what they ate yesterday. Remembering what they ate 10 or 20 years ago is problematic.

2)    People listen to the news and often change their diets based on what they hear. What they are eating today may not resemble what they ate 10 years ago.

My comment: That is a legitimate point. However, in recent years the best association studies have started collection dietary information at the start, the mid-point, and the end of the study. I agree we need more of those studies.

#3: The authors claim they found no statistically significant link between meat consumption and risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer in a dozen randomized controlled trials that had enrolled about 54 000 participants.

label deceptionMy comment: That statement is highly misleading. One of those studies had 48,835 participants. That study wasn’t even designed to measure the effect of red meat consumption. It was designed to measure the health effects of low fat versus high fat diets. The difference in red meat consumption between the two groups was only 1.4 servings per day, a 20% difference. Even with that small difference in red meat consumption, there was about a 2% reduction in some heart disease outcomes, which the authors considered insignificant.

That leaves 11 studies with only 5,165 participants, which averages out to 470 participants per study. Those studies had too few participants to provide any meaningful estimate of the effect of red meat on health outcomes.

In addition, the meat industry influenced the design of some of those studies to further minimize the effect of red meat on health outcomes, something I will discuss next week.

#4: The authors found a slight effect of red meat consumption on heart disease and cancer deaths in association studies, but said the decrease was too small to recommend that people change their diet.

My comment: This represents the folly of looking at any single food or single nutrient rather than the whole diet. We need to take a holistic approach and ask questions like: “What are they replacing red meat with? What does their overall diet look like?

For example, let’s look at what happens when you reduce saturated fats, something I discussed in a previous issue (https://chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-saturated-fats-bad-for-you/) of “Health Tips From the Professor”. When you replace saturated fats with:

·       Trans fats, your heart disease risk increases by 5%.

·       Refined carbohydrates and sugars (the kind of carbohydrates in the typical American diet), your heart disease risk increases slightly.

·       Complex carbohydrates (whole grains, fruits and vegetables), your heart disease risk decreases by 9%.

·       Monounsaturated fats (olive oil & peanut oil), your heart disease risk decreases by 15%.

·       Polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oil & fish oil), your heart disease risk decreases by 25%.

·       Unsaturated fats in the context of a primarily plant-based diet like the Mediterranean diet, your heart disease risk decreases by 47%.

While we don’t have such precise numbers for red meat, we do have enough evidence to know that the situation with red meat is similar.

·       Replacing high-fat red meat with low-fat red meat or white meat in the context of a typical American diet will probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

·       Replacing red meat with plant protein in the context of a typical American diet (think Impossible Burgers or the equivalent at your local Fast Food restaurant) will also probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

·       Replacing red meat with white meat or plant protein in the context of a primarily plant-based diet is likely to significantly reduce disease risk.

Is Red Meat Healthy For You?

Steak and PotatoesLet’s return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article: “Is red meat healthy for you?” In the context of headlines saying: “Red meat is actually good for you”, the answer is a clear No!

·       The saturated fat in red meat is associated with increased heart disease risk.

·       However, it’s not just saturated fat. Other components of red meat are associated with increased risk of heart disease and cancer. I will discuss those next week.

There are simply too many studies that show an association between red meat consumption and disease risk to give red meat a clean bill of health. We can’t say red meat is healthy with any confidence.

However, that doesn’t mean we need to eliminate red meat from our diet. The health risks of red meat are determined by the type of red meat consumed, the amount of red meat consumed, and the overall composition of our diet. So:Steak Salad

·       If you are thinking in terms of a juicy 8-ounce steak with a baked potato and sour cream, red meat is probably not healthy.

·       However, if you are thinking of 2-3 ounces of lean steak in a vegetable stir fry or a green salad, red meat may be healthy.

Of course, one question I am frequently asked is “What about grass fed beef? Is it healthier than conventionally raised beef?” I will answer that question next week.

The Bottom Line

A group calling itself the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium (NutriRECS) recently reviewed the scientific literature and said: “The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork.” They then issued guidelines saying that adults really don’t need to change the amounts of red meat they are eating.

As you can imagine, that has proven to be a controversial recommendation. Many of the top experts in the field have questioned the validity of the study and have condemned the guidelines as misleading.

When you examine the pros and cons carefully, it becomes clear that the NutriRECS group:

1)    Put too little emphasis on association studies with hundreds of thousands of participants showing a link between red meat consumption and increased risk of heart disease and cancer.

2)    Put too much emphasis on very small randomized controlled trials that had no possibility of evaluating the effect of red meat consumption on disease risk. In part, that is because many of the randomized controlled trials were funded and influenced by the meat industry, something I will discuss next week.

3)    Did not ask what the red meat was replaced with or look at red meat consumption in the context of the overall diet.

Based on what we currently know:

1)    Replacing high-fat red meat with low-fat red meat or white meat in the context of a typical American diet will probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

2)    Replacing red meat with plant protein in the context of a typical American diet (think Impossible Burgers or the equivalent at your local Fast Food restaurant) will also probably have only a minor effect on disease risk.

3)    Replacing red meat with white meat or plant protein in the context of a primarily plant-based diet is likely to significantly reduce disease risk.

That means:

1)    If you are thinking in terms of a juicy 8-ounce steak with a baked potato and sour cream, red meat is probably not healthy.

2)   However, if you are thinking of 2-3 ounces of lean steak in a vegetable stir fry or a green salad, red meat may be healthy.

Of course, one question I am frequently asked is “What about grass fed beef? Is it healthier than conventionally raised beef?” I will answer that question next week. Stay tuned.

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.

Relieve Stress Headaches Naturally

What Causes Stress Headaches?

Stress is an unfortunate byproduct of the festivities of the holiday season. The holidays are supposed to be fun. But you are adding all the festive gatherings, Christmas shopping, and family drama to an already crowded schedule.

Then the New Year comes. This should be a time you can relax. But no, the holiday bills start rolling in, and you have the stress of figuring out how to pay them. Then, there are New Year’s resolutions. You know you should be making resolutions, but you also know you’ve never successfully kept them in the past. Now, that is real stress.

 

 

 

 

 

That stress often shows up as tight muscles and muscle spasms that can cause headache pain. If you already have one of my books, especially either Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, or The Pain-Free Athlete, you have the tools necessary to get relief.  You can look at the colorful charts and find the area where you are feeling pain or stiffness. Then look for the muscle name that is in the same color as the shaded area of your discomfort. Then, follow the arrow and it will bring you directly to the spasm(s) that cause the pain. The figures above show some of the muscles that can cause headache pain when stress causes them to get tight and spasm.

Relief From Stress Headaches

As you see in the charts above there are multiple places where spasms will cause headaches.  Actually, there are a lot more than this, but that’s why I wrote my “Pain-Free Living” book. It’s just too much for a newsletter.

Each of the spasms noted in these two charts can be treated by applying direct pressure onto the spasm and then holding it for 15-30 seconds.  Use as much pressure as you can, but it must always be in the tolerable range, this is NOT a “no pain-no gain” situation.  It is going to hurt because you are forcing toxins out of the muscle fibers, and the toxin is an acid (from lactic acid) so it burns. However, you’ll find that as you continue holding the pressure it will lessen.

After 30 seconds, keep your fingers in the same place but take off the pressure. Wait for 5 seconds and then re-apply the pressure.  It won’t hurt as much this time because blood has filled the void and it’s already starting to heal the muscle.

Keep doing this until you don’t feel pain anymore, and then look for another point.  I call these points “hot spots” because that’s exactly what they remind me of.

Feel around your head, your neck, and your shoulders and apply pressure on each painful point.  You’ll be pleased when you feel the results! If it’s stress related, your headache pain will be gone.

What Supplements Help Mental Health?

Do Omega-3s Reduce Depression?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

depressionWe are in the midst of a mental health crisis. According to the latest statistics:

·       19% of adults in the United States have some form of mental illness.

·       16.5% of youth ages 6-17 have some form of mental illness.

·       The 5 most commonly diagnosed forms of mental illness are anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disease, and ADHD.

Even worse, mental illness appears to be increasing at an alarming rate among young people. For example:

·       Between 2005 and 2017 depression increased 52% among adolescents.

·       Between 2002 and 2017 depression increased 63% in young adults.

·       Between 1999 and 2014 suicides have increased 24% in young adults. In the past few years suicides have been increasing by 2% a year in this group.

Much has been written about the cause of this alarming increase in mental illness. The short answer is that we don’t really know. But the most pressing question is what do we do about it?

The medical profession relies on powerful drugs to treat the symptoms of mental illness. These drugs don’t cure drug side effectsthe illness. They simply keep the symptoms under control. Plus, if you have ever listened closely to the advertisements for these drugs on TV, you realize that they all have serious side effects that adversely affect your quality of life.

My “favorite” example is drugs for anxiety and depression. You are told that one of the side effects is “suicidal thoughts”. That means that the very drug someone could be prescribed to prevent suicides might actually increase their risk of suicide. Why would anyone take such a drug?

If drugs are so dangerous, what about supplements? Do they provide a safe, natural alternative for reducing the symptoms of mental illness? Some supplement companies claim their products cure mental illness. Are their claims true or are they just trying to empty your wallet?

How is a consumer to know which of these supplement claims are true and which are bogus? Fortunately, an international team of scientists has scoured the literature to find out which supplements have been proven to reduce mental health symptoms.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical-studyThis was a massive study (J. Firth et al, World Psychiatry, 18: 308-324, 2019.  It was a meta-review of 33 meta-analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a total of 10,951 subjects. The clinical trials included in this analysis analyzed the effect of 12 nutrients, either alone or in combination with standard drug treatment, on symptoms associated with 10 common mental disorders.

To help you understand the power of this meta-review, let me start by defining the term “meta-analysis”. A meta-analysis combines the data from multiple clinical studies to increase the statistical power of the data. Meta-analyses are considered to be the gold standard of evidence-based evidence.

However, not all meta-analyses are equally strong. They suffer from the “Garbage-In, Garbage-Out” phenomenon. Simply put, they are only as strong as the weakest clinical studies included in their analysis.

That is the strength of this meta-review. It did not simply combine the data from all 33 meta-analyses. It used stringent criteria to evaluate the quality of each meta-analysis and weighted the data appropriately.

What Supplements Help Mental Health?

omega-3 fish oil supplementThe strongest evidence was for omega-3 supplements. In the worlds of the authors:

·       “Across 13 independent randomized control clinical trials in 1,233 people with major depression, omega-3 supplements reduced depressive symptoms significantly.”

o   The average dose of omega-3s in these studies was 1,422 mg/day of EPA.

o   The effect was strongest for omega-3 supplements containing more EPA than DHA and for studies lasting longer than 12 weeks.

o   There was no evidence of publication bias in these studies. This is a very important consideration. Publication bias means that only studies with a positive effect were published while studies showing no effect were withheld from publication. That makes the effect look much more positive than it really is. The fact there was no evidence of publication bias strengthens this conclusion.

o   Omega-3 supplements were more effective when used in combination with antidepressant drugs, but there was some evidence of publication bias in those studies.

·       “Across 16 randomized control clinical trials reporting on ADHD symptom domains, significant benefits were observed for both hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention.”

·       Omega-3s had no significant effect on schizophrenia or bipolar disorder other than a mild reduction in depressive symptoms.

There was strong, but not definitive, evidence for folic acid and methylfolate supplements for depression.

·       When used in conjunction with antidepressants both folic acid and methylfolate supplements “…were associated with significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms compared to placebo, although there was large heterogeneity between trials.”

·       The largest effects were observed with high dose methylfolate. In the words of the authors: “Two randomized control clinical trials examining a high dose (15 mg/day) of methylfolate administered in combination with antidepressants found moderate-to-large benefits for depressive symptoms.” However, to put this into perspective:

o   15 mg/day is 3,750% of the RDA. This is a pharmacological dose and should only be administered under the care of a physician.

o   A smaller dose of 7.5 mg/day is ineffective.

o   No comparison was made with folic acid at this dose, so we do not know whether folic acid would be equally effective.

·       The authors concluded that there is emerging evidence for positive effects of vitamin D (>1,500 vitamin d supplementationIU/day) for major depressive disorders and N-acetylcysteine (2-3 gm/day) in combination with drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. The term “emerging evidence” means there have been several recent studies reporting positive results, but more research is needed.

·       The authors did not find evidence supporting the use of other vitamin and mineral supplements (E, C, zinc, magnesium, and inositol) for treating mental health disorders.

·       The authors did not find enough high-quality studies to support claims about the effects of prebiotics or probiotics on mental health disorders.

Do Omega-3s Reduce Depression?

Happy WomanThe evidence supporting the effectiveness of omega-3s in reducing symptoms of depression is strong. In the words of the authors: “The nutritional intervention with the strongest evidentiary support is omega-3, in particular EPA. Multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated that it has significant effects in people with depression, including high-quality meta-analyses with good confidence in findings…”

However, before you throw away your antidepressants and replace them with an omega-3 supplement, let me put this study into perspective for you.

·       Depression can be a serious disease. If you just feel a little blue from time to time, try increasing your omega-3 intake. However, if you have major depression, don’t make changes to your treatment plan without consulting your physician.

·       The best results were obtained when omega-3s were used in combination with antidepressants. This should be your starting point.

·       Ideally, adding omega-3s to your treatment plan will allow your doctor to reduce or eliminate the drugs you are taking. That would have the benefit of reducing side effects associated with the drugs. However, I would like to re-emphasize this is a decision to take in consultation with your doctor. [My only caveat is if your doctor is unwilling to even consider natural approaches like omega-3 supplementation, it might be time to find a new doctor.]

·       Finally, omega-3 supplementation is only one aspect of a holistic approach to good mental health. A healthy diet, exercise, supplementation, and stress reduction techniques all work together to keep your mind in tip-top shape.

The Bottom Line

There are lots of supplements on the market promising to cure depression and other serious mental health issues. Are they effective or are the claims bogus? Fortunately, a recent meta-review of 33 meta-analyses of high-quality clinical trials has answered that question. Here is their conclusion:

·       The evidence is strongest for omega-3s and depression.

o   The average dose of omega-3s in these studies was 1,422 mg/day of EPA.

o   The effect was strongest for omega-3 supplements containing more EPA than DHA and for studies lasting longer than 12 weeks.

·       There is fairly strong evidence for folate/folic acid supplements and depression, although there was large heterogeneity between trials.

·       There is emerging evidence for vitamin D (>1,500 IU/day) and depression and N-acetylcysteine (2-3 gm/day) for depression and schizophrenia.

·       Evidence for other supplements is currently inconclusive.

However, before you throw away your antidepressants and replace them with an omega-3 supplement, let me put this study into perspective for you.

·       Depression can be a serious disease. If you just feel a little blue from time to time, try increasing your omega-3 intake. However, if you have major depression, don’t make changes to your treatment plan without consulting your physician.

·       The best results were obtained when omega-3s were used in combination with antidepressants. That should be your starting point.

·       Ideally, adding omega-3s to your treatment plan will allow your doctor to reduce or eliminate the drugs you are taking. That would have the benefit of reducing side effects associated with the drugs.

·       Finally, omega-3 supplementation is only one aspect of a holistic approach to good mental health. A healthy diet, exercise, supplementation, and stress reduction techniques all work together to keep your mind in tip-top shape.

For more details, read the article above.

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

 

Does Intermittent Fasting Work?

Will Intermittent Fasting Help You Lose Weight?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

intermittent fastingIf you are like millions of Americans, one of your New Year’s resolutions is to lose weight. Now your dilemma is how to accomplish that. You have tried various diets before – Atkins, paleo, keto, Whole 30, etc. You lost some weight, but it came right back. You are looking for something new, something different from anything you have tried before.

What about intermittent fasting? It’s hot right now. It’s probably different from what you have tried in the past. It doesn’t require radical changes to what you eat. Some of your friends are singing its praises. Could this be the one that solves your weight problem forever?

A Primer On Intermittent Fasting

professor owlLet’s start by defining intermittent fasting and reviewing what we already know about it. There are several variations of what the mass media refers to as intermittent fasting, but the two most popular versions are:

  • Time-restricted fasting which limits daily intake of food to a 4 to 12-hour period. The most popular version of this restricts food intake to 8 hours followed by 16 hours of fasting.
  • Intermittent fasting in which there is a day or more of fasting or decreased food intake between periods of unrestricted eating. The most popular version of this allows 5 days of unrestricted eating followed by 2 days of fasting.

A major review (Di Francesco et al, Science, 362: 770-775, 2018) of time-restricted and intermittent fasting was published a little over a year ago. At the time that review was published, there were lots of studies comparing time-restricted fasting with continuous caloric restriction. I summarized those findings in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” last January.

Here is a brief summary of the key findings from that review:

  • If you read the blogs about time-restricted fasting, you will come across all sorts of metabolic mumbo-jumbo about ketone bodies, adiponectin, leptin, IGF-1, and blood glucose levels. It sounds so convincing. Don’t get sucked in by these pseudo-scientific explanations. At this point they are mostly speculation.
  • Although there is no conscious effort to control calories, time-restricted fasting result in an inadvertent reduction in food intake by restricting the time allowed for eating and by eliminating late night snacking. This reduction in caloric intake is likely responsible for most of the weight loss associated with intermittent fasting. When you control for calories, there is no difference in weight loss between time-restricted fasting and continuous caloric restriction (your typical reduced calorie diet).

However, at the time the review was published, far less was known about the relative benefits of intermittent fasting and simple caloric restriction. Since that time, two studies have rigorously compared the effectiveness of intermittent fasting and continuous caloric restriction on weight loss. I review those studies below

Will Intermittent Fasting Help You Lose Weight?

The first study (YM Roman et al, International Journal of Obesity, 43: 2017-2027, 2019) was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 clinical studies comparing intermittent fasting with continuous caloric restriction. Total caloric reduction was controlled and was the same for both intermittent fasting and continuous caloric reduction.

The studies ranged from 12 weeks to 52 weeks with most of them in the 20 to 30-week range. This meta-analysis found:

·       There was no difference between intermittent fasting and continuous caloric restriction in terms of weight loss, waist circumference, or body fat loss.

·       Loss of lean body mass, on the other hand, was greater for intermittent fasting than for continuous caloric restriction.

The authors concluded: “Since it is ultimately fat mass loss that improves health indices, and not the loss of muscle, the significantly greater loss of lean mass in the intermittent dieting group versus the continuous dieting group is concerning and needs to be further assessed.”

I would add, it is also concerning because lean mass muscle burns calories faster than fat mass. Loss of lean muscle mass could lead to a lower metabolic rate. That would make maintenance of the weight loss more difficult.

The second study (ML Headland et al, International Journal of Obesity, 43: 2028-2036) compared intermittent fasting versus continuous calorie restriction for 12 months in a group of 332 healthy overweight or obese adults. Again, total caloric reduction was the same for the two groups. In this study:

·       There was no significant difference between intermittent fasting and continuous caloric restriction for weight loss, body fat loss, and lean body mass loss. [Note: The retention of lean body mass in this study differs from the loss of lean body mass reported in the previous study. Additional studies will be required before we become overly concerned about potential loss of lean body mass with intermittent fasting.]

·       There were also no significant differences between the groups for blood levels of glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, and LDL.

Does Intermittent Fasting Work?

does intermittent fasting workThese studies make it clear there is no “magic” associated with either time-restricted or intermittent fasting.

·       If either time-restricted or intermittent fasting allows you to reduce your daily caloric intake by restricting the time that you are eating, you will lose weight and keep it off. However, if you compensate for the fasting periods by consuming additional calories when you are eating, all bets are off.

·       In clinical studies that restrict calories to the same extent in the various diets, neither time-restricted nor intermittent fasting results in greater weight loss than continuous caloric restriction (your typical reduced calorie diet).

o   In addition, neither time-restricted nor intermittent fasting results in better improvement in blood parameters (glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, and LDL) than continuous caloric restriction.

·       Intermittent fasting may result in greater loss of lean muscle mass than continuous caloric reduction. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this would be concerning.

This also means:

·       If you happen to read the blogs about time-restricted or intermittent fasting, you can forget all the metabolic mumbo-jumbo about ketone bodies, adiponectin, leptin, IGF-1, and blood glucose levels.

o   At this point this metabolic information comes mostly from animal studies. Its application to humans is purely speculation.

o   Since time-restricted and intermittent fasting offer no advantage over continuous caloric restriction, there is no evidence that changes in any of those metabolic markers has any effect on weight loss in humans.

Finally, you need to ask whether time-restricted and intermittent fasting are something you can maintain in the real world.

·       Your friends are unlikely to be on the same schedule. It won’t be easy to fit your diet around socializing, travel, and holidays.

The Bottom Line

There are several variations of what the mass media refers to as intermittent fasting, but the two most popular versions are:

  • Time-restricted fasting which limits daily intake of food to a 4 to 12-hour period. The most popular version of this restricts food intake to 8 hours followed by 16 hours of fasting.
  • Intermittent fasting in which there is a day or more of fasting or decreased food intake between periods of unrestricted eating. The most popular version of this allows 5 days of unrestricted eating followed by 2 days of fasting.

The latest studies make it clear there is no “magic” associated with either time-restricted or intermittent fasting.

·       If either time-restricted or intermittent fasting allows you to reduce your daily caloric intake by restricting the time that you are eating, you will lose weight and keep it off. However, if you compensate for the fasting periods by consuming additional calories when you are eating, all bets are off.

·       In clinical studies that restrict calories to the same extent in the various diets, neither time-restricted nor intermittent fasting results in greater weight loss than continuous caloric restriction (your typical reduced calorie diet).

o   In addition, neither time-restricted nor intermittent fasting results in better improvement in blood parameters (glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, and LDL) than continuous caloric restriction.

·       Intermittent fasting may result in greater loss of lean muscle mass than continuous caloric reduction. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this would be concerning.

Finally, you need to ask whether time-restricted and intermittent fasting are something you can maintain in the real world.

·       Your friends are unlikely to be on the same schedule. It won’t easy to fit your diet around socializing, travel, and holidays.

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.

Why Do Most Diets Fail?

How To Lose Weight And Keep It Off

New Year DietTomorrow is the official start of another dieting season. Millions of Americans will be making a New Year’s Resolution to lose weight. The top three reasons for these weight loss resolutions are:

1)    Reduce disease risk (73%). After all, we are being told those excess pounds increase our risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and just about every other disease known to man.

2)    Improve self-esteem (61%). Some of this may be due to the social stigma associated with obesity, but many people simply want to improve the image they see in the mirror every morning when they get out of the shower.

3)    Boost energy (49%).

Those are all good reasons for losing weight. But before you make your New Year’s resolution to embark on another weight loss journey, you should ask yourself “Do weight loss diets work?” If you look at the statistics, they aren’t very encouraging:

1)    45 million Americans go on a weight loss diet every year.

·       50% go on fad diets.

·       They spend $33 billion on weight loss products.

·       90% regain almost all the weight. That’s called the yo-yo effect.

·       On average, Americans gain 11 pounds on every diet yo-yo.

o   They might as well have thrown that $33 billion to the wind.

2)    228,000 Americans get gastric bypass surgery.

·       80% regain almost all the weight.

o   Their digestion and their health will never be the same.

As if those statistics weren’t bad enough, the obesity epidemic gets worse year after year (see the graphic on the Obesity Epidemicright). Americans keep getting fatter. What we are doing clearly isn’t working.

You are probably saying to yourself: “I know that, but this year I’m going to try a new diet.” As the saying goes “Hope springs eternal in the human breast”, but is it realistic to think this time will be different?

Let me share a quote from a book and TV series called “The Weight Of the Nation” by John Hoffman & Dr. Judith Salerno”:

“First we blamed fat – low fat diets didn’t work! Then we blamed carbs, eggs, red meat, dairy, white flour, sugar, juices, sodas, high-fructose corn syrup, & partially hydrogenated fats. One by one, we replaced the evil food du jour…and watched our collective waistlines grow.”

In other words, they are saying it’s not just low-fat diets that don’t work. None of the popular diets work long term. I come across lots of people who tell me the Atkins weight-loss diet works best for them. That would be convincing if they were slender, but they aren’t! They gained it all back and then some. Now that the keto diet has been around for a few years, I am starting to see the same pattern there as well.

Clearly, the problem isn’t losing the weight. Any diet can help you lose weight. The problem is keeping the weight off. Let’s look at why this is.

Why Do Most Diets Fail?

WhyTo understand the answer to this question, let’s start with another quote from “The Weight Of the Nation”: “Our bodies were designed to store fat in times of plenty and retain fat in times of famine”

Essentially, the authors were saying when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers, there were times when food was abundant, and times when food was scarce. In order to survive, our bodies had to store energy in its most efficient form when food was abundant and hold on to those energy stores as long as possible when food was scarce.

Fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram as either carbohydrate or protein. Additionally, our ability to store carbohydrate is limited. And we don’t really have protein stores. All the proteins in our body have essential functions. However, our ability to store fat is unlimited. Now you understand why fat is the preferred energy store in times of plenty and our bodies try to hold on to it as long as possible in times of famine.

With that perspective in mind, there are three reasons why most diets fail:

1)    Most dieters are looking for rapid weight loss (at least 2-5 pounds/week). That is a problem because “Our bodies were designed to…retain fat in times of famine”. When we lose weight quickly, our bodies interpret that as famine. Our bodies respond by decreasing our metabolic rate so we can hold on to those fat stores.

The solution to this problem is to set more reasonable weight loss goals. If we keep the rate of weight loss in the 1-2 pound/week range (0.5-1 pounds/week is even better), we can largely avoid this famine response. You should ask yourself, “What’s the rush?” After all, the average American only gains 1-2 pounds/year. Why do we need to get rid of that excess weight in just a few weeks?

2)    Most dieters are looking for significant weight loss (more than 20 pounds). That is a problem because our bodies are designed to retain fat stores, not protein stores. When our bodies sense a famine they burn our protein stores (lean muscle mass) to spare as much of our fat stores as possible. The longer the diet (famine) lasts, the more muscle mass we lose.

That’s a problem because muscle burns calories much faster than fat. The more muscle we lose, the more our metabolic rate decreases. It gets harder and harder to lose weight, and eventually we reach a plateau. Most people get discouraged at that point and go off their diet.

That’s where the other part of the quote from “The Weight Of The Nation” kicks in: “Our bodies are Yo-Yo with Boydesigned to store fat in times of plenty”. Once again, it is fat we store, not protein. Most people never regain the protein stores they lost, so their metabolic rate remains low. They regain most of the weight they lost, and then some. This is the origin of the yo-yo effect.

There are two solutions to this problem:

·       Increase your resistance exercise and your intake of protein with high levels of the essential amino acid leucine. I have covered this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

·       Set more reasonable weight loss goals. It is possible to lose more than 20 pounds without losing muscle mass. We just need to think in terms of reaching those weight loss goals in years rather than in months. Once again, remember it took us years to gain the weight. Why not think in terms of years to lose the weight?

3)    Most dieters think in terms of diets rather than lifestyle change. Diets have an expiration date. Then most people just drift back to “the way they really live”. Lifestyle change, on the other hand, is permanent. Once we change to a healthier lifestyle, we no longer need to focus on weight loss. The weight comes off automatically.

To better understand the power of lifestyle change let’s look at something called “The National Weight Control Registry”.

How To Lose Weight And Keep It Off

Happy woman on scaleRather than focus on the abysmal statistics for long-term weight loss, doctors Rena Hill and James O Wing decided to focus on the characteristic of people who manage to keep their weight off. They founded something called “The National Weight Control Registry” and invited people who were successful at keeping the weight off to participate in their program.

Currently, the National Weight Control Registry is tracking over 10,000 individuals who have lost 30 pounds or more and have kept it off for long periods of time. They use detailed questionnaires and annual follow-up surveys to study the behavioral and psychological characteristics and the strategies of weight loss maintainers.

When you look at how they lost weight, they are a very diverse group:

·       They lost weight on every possible diet – from vegan to keto to just plain crazy.

·       50% lost weight on commercial diet programs. 50% lost weight on their own.

·       Some lost weight quickly. Some lost weight slowly.

When you look at weight maintenance, you realize that the dismal weight maintenance statistics don’t have to apply to you. The good news is:

·       On average, people in The National Weight Control Registry have lost 66 pounds and have kept it off for 5 years or more.

·       12-14% of them have maintained a weight loss of 100 pounds or more for 5 or more years.

·       Even better, once they maintained their weight loss for 2-5 years, it became easy.

They no longer had to battle hunger and a sluggish metabolism. They no longer had to think about the lifestyle changes they were trying to maintain. Their new lifestyle became what they did automatically, without even thinking about it. Their weight loss had become permanent.

By now, you are probably wondering how they do it. Here are the top 7 characteristics of those who are successfulhealthy living at keeping the weight off:

1)    They consumed reduced calorie, low-fat, healthy diets.

2)    They had internalized their eating patterns. It had become how they ate every day without even thinking about it.

3)    They monitored their weight regularly. This allowed them to make adjustments whenever they saw their weight start to creep up.

4)    They ate breakfast on a regular basis.

5)    They got lots of exercise (on average, about 1 hour/day).

6)    They watched less than 10 hours of TV/week. If you were wondering where you would find the time to exercise an hour/day, this is probably your answer.

7)    They were consistent. They had no planned “cheat days”. This doesn’t mean they were purists. They still allowed themselves to eat some of their favorite unhealthy foods on an occasional basis. They just didn’t set aside regular times when they planned to “pig out”.

There was one other interesting observation from this study:

·       Those who used meal replacement shakes as part of their weight loss, focused more on diet and included meal replacement shakes as part of their maintenance program.

·       Those who lost weight on their own, also followed healthy eating habits, but put a bit more emphasis on exercise to keep themselves on track.

·       Both approaches were effective.

The take-home message of the National Weight Control Registry is clear. There is no magic diet that guarantees you will keep the weight off. The “secret” to keeping the weight off is a healthy eating pattern and a healthy lifestyle.

In short, if your resolution is to lose weight next year, don’t focus on the diet you will follow to lose the weight. Instead, focus on the healthy lifestyle you will follow to keep the weight off.

Of course, you will be most successful if the diet you are following to lose weight incorporates the healthy lifestyle you plan to follow to maintain your weight loss.

What Role Do Habits Play In Weight Loss?

Habits-Old-vs-NewFinally, I would like to share a recent study (G Cleo et al, International Journal of Obesity, 43: 374-383, 2019) that puts the whole issue of weight loss and weight maintenance in a different perspective. This study looked at the role that habits play in weight loss.

In short, the study enrolled 130 participants who wanted to lose weight. All the participants were told this was a weight loss study, but none of the participants were given detailed diet and exercise recommendations to follow. The study had a 12-week intervention phase followed by a 12-month follow-up phase. The participants were divided into three groups.

1)    Group 1 received no advice during the intervention phase. This was the control group.

2)    Group 2 focused on breaking old habits. During the intervention phase they were sent daily tests suggesting new habit patterns. These were suggestions like “Drive a different route to work today”. None of the texts had anything to do with diet or lifestyle.

3)    Group 3 focused on creating new healthy habits. They were given a list of 10 healthy habits. During the intervention phase they were asked to log how many of these habits they implemented each day. The 10 healthy habits were:

#1: Keep to a daily meal routine.

#2: Choose reduced fat versions of foods.

#3: Walk off the weight (aim for 10,000 steps/day).

#4: Pack a healthy snack (Choose healthy options such as fruits, nuts, or low-fat yogurt).

#5: Read labels.

#6: Be cautious with your portions.

#7: Break up your sitting time (Stand for 10 minutes every hour).

#8: Think about your drinks (Choose water instead of sodas and fruit juices).

#9: Focus on your food (Slow down. Don’t eat while watching TV).

#10: Don’t forget your 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

The results were:

·       People in both habit change groups lost significantly more weight than people in the control group.

·       People in the habit change groups continued to lose weight for 12 months after the intervention ended.

·       Weight loss was essentially identical in the two habit change groups.

The last observation is particularly interesting. Remember that one of the habit change groups was simply focused on breaking old habits, yet people in this group did just as well as people who were taught healthy lifestyle habits. This implies that people already know about healthy lifestyle habits. They just don’t know how to break their old habits. Once they become comfortable breaking old habits, they find it easy to adopt healthier lifestyle habits.

In short, change your habits, change your lifestyle. Change your lifestyle, control your weight.

What Does This Mean For You?

why-do-most-dirts-failI covered a lot of information in this article. Let me sum it up by giving you my top 10 tips for losing weight and keeping it off.

1)    You don’t need to achieve your “ideal weight”. Losing 5-10% of your body weight may be enough.

2)    Ditch diets. Focus on lifestyle change.

3)    Slow and steady wins the day.

4)    Change your habits, change your weight.

5)    Long-term weight loss is possible.

6)    Low-fat, healthy eating patterns are best.

7)    Once you have internalized healthy habits, they become automatic.

8)    If you stick with a healthy lifestyle long enough, keeping the weight off becomes easy.

9)    Focus on all the healthy food choices you have, not what you have to give up. There is a cornucopia of great tasting, healthy foods to choose from.

10)  Never say never. Allow yourself to enjoy your old favorite foods on occasion. Just don’t make it a habit.

The Bottom Line

I cover a lot of information in this article. Let me sum it up by giving you my top 10 tips for losing weight and keeping it off.

1)    You don’t need to achieve your “ideal weight”. Losing 5-10% of your body weight may be enough.

2)    Ditch diets. Focus on lifestyle change.

3)    Slow and steady wins the day.

4)    Change your habits, change your weight.

5)    Long-term weight loss is possible.

6)    Low-fat, healthy eating patterns are best.

7)    Once you have internalized healthy habits, they become automatic.

8)    If you stick with a healthy lifestyle long enough, keeping the weight off becomes easy.

9)    Focus on all the healthy food choices you have, not what you have to give up. There is a cornucopia of great tasting, healthy foods to choose from.

10)  Never say never. Allow yourself to enjoy your old favorite foods on occasion. Just don’t make it a habit.

For more details on how to lose weight and keep it off, read the article above. In fact, if you plan to lose weight in the coming year, you should really read this article first.

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.

 

 

Reduce Holiday Stress

Treat Yourself To A “Mental Massage” and Enjoy The Season

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Merry Christmas

Vegan FoodsI love the Christmas season. The colors, the smells, the sounds of music. I’m a vegan so turkey isn’t happening for me, but the array of deliciously prepared vegetables, and the variety of desserts always make me excited for this month to get underway!

We give so much to others, especially during this season, that I want to remind you to take care of yourself too.  Like they say on the airplane…”Put your own oxygen mask on first!”  One of the best gifts you can give to those you love, is a healthy and happy you!

Eliminate the aches and pains that can make you feel grumpy, and if you have someone who could benefit from eliminating pain, please feel free to send them my way.  That includes people who don’t live near me, we can meet on Zoom.us and work together to find, and stop, pain. I’ll be happy to help both of you.

I hope you have a wonderful, blessed Christmas!

P.S. Be sure to scroll down to the end, so you can claim my Christmas gift to you.

Reduce Holiday Stress

Beach At SunsetIsn’t it a shame that this beautiful time of year also brings an overload of stress to so many people?  Shopping, especially if finances are short, is a stress producer; large family gatherings can cause stress; and just the hustle and bustle of the season with so many parties and extra functions added to our daily schedule can also be stressful.

Many, if not most, of these stressful situations are meant to be happy, and often they are happy, but they put additional stress on our already busy lives.  What can we do?

Most likely you’ve already read articles that offer suggestions about limiting parties, inexpensive gifts that are thoughtful, and other great holiday ideas, and that’s all wonderful.  What I want to offer you is a holiday gift you can use all year, a gift that will enable you to lower your stress every day.

Back in 1990 I was the massage therapist on the S.S. Queen of Bermuda, a cruise ship that went out of New Orleans and traveled as far south as the Panama Canal, and as far north as Montreal and Quebec.  I LOVED it!  I was super-busy doing 6-7 hours of massage four out of seven days, and 4 hours on the other days.  It was while I was on the ship that I developed the foundation of the unique style of therapy that I do now…but that’s another story.

One of my jobs on the ship was to entertain the passengers for an hour at 9AM on Sunday morning.  I didn’t know what to do, so I decided to lead a relaxing visualization program.  I’d start by having everyone stand up and do a 5-minute self-applied Shiatsu (tapping) treatment on each other.  You can do it to yourself, but it’s better if you have someone do it for you, and then you repay the favor.  It’s a great way to relax, and when you come to the office, I’ll be happy to show it to you.  That left me fifty-five minutes to go…I needed something relaxing that would start their cruise off on a happy note.

Treat Yourself To A “Mental Massage” and Enjoy The Season

MeditationThat’s where my “Mental Massage” concept came about.

I had people relax in their chairs and I’d start talking – visualizing tension like a block of ice that was being melted with their thoughts. I’d gently lead them into relaxing their muscles from their forehead to their feet, watching the ice as it flowed out of their fingers and toes.

Then we’d go back up to their head and visualize fluffy blue mittens gently stroking their face, arms and legs, cradling and rocking their heart and stomach, and their muscles just totally relaxing while they felt heavy in their chairs.

Finally, we’d go back to their head again and visualize pure, positive energy, in the form of diamond dust, sparkling pink, blue and yellow crystals, filling their entire body and flowing out through their fingertips and toes.

Then they would sit there for 5 minutes just enjoying the feeling, knowing they could do this any time they wanted.

It was so relaxing that passengers would come to the massage room and ask me for a cassette tape of my visualization.  I didn’t have one, so I made one and would run off copies for anyone who asked.  The results were so good for so many people that it encouraged me to continue doing it when I was off the ship and started my therapy practice.

Here Is My Christmas Gift To You

Christmas GiftThere were a few of my clients who had serious conditions that caused them so much stress that they really needed to relax. One woman had Crohn’s disease, and a man had a heart condition. Another woman had an ulcer, and another man had PTSD.  I ended up making them special tapes that focused on each of the organs that needed attention.

Eventually I made a professional copy of the visualization, changing the title to “Relaxing into a Perfect Body” because it ended up combining the healing statements that helped my clients, covering organs throughout the body.  I’ve been giving it away ever since.

I want to give it to you so you can relax during this happy, but stressful, time of year. And then you’ll have it whenever you feel you want it. Just click here to listen to the recording: Relax into a Perfect Body!

Do Vegetarians Have A Higher Risk Of Stroke?

What Are The Benefits And Risks Of A Vegetarian Diet?

Vegetarian FoodsVegetarian diets are thought to be very healthy. Clinical studies show that vegetarian diets are associated with decreased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and much more. What’s not to like?

That’s why the recent headlines claiming that vegetarian diets may increase the risk of stroke were so surprising. Advocates of meat-heavy diets like the Paleo and Keto diets were overjoyed. These results fit in with their view that we should be eating more meat protein and less plant protein. Nutrition experts, on the other hand, were asking: “What’s going on?” “How can this be?”

Those of you who are regular readers of “Health Tips From the Professor” know that I am an advocate of primarily plant-based diets. Thus, I felt a responsibility to analyze the study (TYN Tong et al, British Medical Journal, 366: 14897, 2019) behind the headlines impartially and give you, my readers, clear guidelines for the healthiest possible diet.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical-studyLet’s start with some background:

·       A major study called the “European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition” (EPIC) has been underway since the early 90’s.

·       The British component of this study is known as the EPIC-Oxford study.

·       While the study has “cancer” in it’s title, it was designed to measure the impact of nutrition on many diseases. In this case, the study focused on heart disease and stroke.

·       Finally, enrollment in the EPIC-Oxford study was designed to give a high proportion of vegetarians in the study population.

The EPIC-Oxford study enrolled 48,188 participants with no previous history of heart disease, stroke, or angina between 1993 and 2001. A detailed diet analysis was performed upon enrollment and again in 2010. Based on these data, the participants were divided into three groups:

1)    Meat eaters (24,428 participants).

2)    Fish eaters (7,506 participants). This group consumed fish but no other meats. People with this eating style are often called pescatarians.

3)    Vegetarians (16, 254 participants). This group consumed dairy and eggs, but no meat. People with this eating style are often called lacto-ovo vegetarians.

4)    The diet analysis also identified participants who were vegans (no animal foods). However, this group was too small to obtain statistically significant comparisons, so they were included with the lacto-ovo vegetarians in the vegetarian group.

Data on heart disease and stroke were obtained from the UK’s health service records through March 31st, 2016. The average time of follow-up for participants in the study was 18.1 years.

Without going into greater detail, this was a very large, well-designed study.

How Did The Diets Of The Three Groups Compare?

balance scaleThe first step in analyzing this study is to ask how the diets of the three groups compared.

Compared to meat eaters, the fish eaters consumed:

·       No meat other than fish.

·       Slightly less milk and significantly more cheese.

·       Slightly more fruits & vegetables.

·       Significantly more legumes & soy foods, nuts & nut butter.

·       Slightly more carbohydrate and slightly less protein.

·       Slightly less saturated fat and slightly more polyunsaturated fat.

·       Around 260 fewer calories per day.

Compared to fish eaters, the vegetarians consumed:

·       No meat.

·       Slightly less milk & cheese.

·       About the same amount of fruits & vegetables.

·       Significantly more legumes & soy foods, nuts & nut butter.

·       Slightly more carbohydrate and slightly less protein.

·       About the same saturated and polyunsaturated fat.

·       Around 125 fewer calories per day.

On average, the vegetarians consumed about 1 cup of milk and one ounce of cheese per day. The fish eaters consumed 1.4 ounces of fish per day.

In terms of comparisons:

·       The biggest differences were between the fish eaters and the meat eaters. It would be fair to say that the fish eaters consumed a primarily plant-based diet with added fish and dairy.

·       The biggest differences between the vegetarians and fish eaters was that the fish eaters got a significant percentage of their protein from fish, while the vegetarians got a significant amount of their protein from plant sources. Otherwise, their diets were fairly comparable.

Finally, the 10-year follow-up diet analysis showed that most participants stuck with their initial diet.

Do Vegetarians Have A Higher Risk Of Stroke?

strokeNow, for the study results:

·       Compared to meat eaters, fish eaters had 13% lower risk of heart disease, and vegetarians had a 22% lower risk of heart disease.

o   For vegetarians this corresponds to 10 fewer cases of heart disease per 1,000 people over 10 years.

·       Compared to meat eaters, vegetarians had a 20% higher risk of stroke, mostly due to an increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke.

o   For vegetarians this corresponds to 3 additional cases of stroke per 1,000 people over 10 years.

·       The risk of stroke was essentially identical for fish eaters and meat eaters.

In many other aspects, vegetarians were healthier than meat-eaters. For example, they:

·       Weighed less.

·       Had lower blood pressure.

·       Had lower total and LDL cholesterol.

·       Were less likely to have developed diabetes during the study.

·       Were less likely to have required long-term treatment for other illnesses.

What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Study?

strengths-weaknessesThe strength of this study is obvious. It was a very large, well-designed study. The study also lasted a long time. Participants in the study were followed for almost 20 years.

There are two clear weaknesses, however:

1)    Numerous previous studies have confirmed that vegetarian diets decrease heart disease risk by about 20%. However, none of those previous studies have reported an increase in stroke risk. This study is an outlier.

2)    There is no clear mechanism that explains why a vegetarian diet might increase stroke risk. Based on previous observations that statin drugs increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, the authors suggested the increased stroke risk might be due to lowered LDL cholesterol levels.

This mechanism is speculative at present. Furthermore, if true, it would suggest that any intervention (drug or nutritional) that lowers LDL cholesterol would increase stroke risk.

In the words of the authors:

·       “The present study has shown that British adults who were fish eaters or vegetarians had lower risks of heart disease than meat eaters, but that vegetarians had higher risks of stroke.

·       Future work should include further measurements…to identify which factors may cause the observed associations. [In plain English: We need to understand how vegetarian diets might increase stroke risk before we put too much weight on the results of this study.]

·       Additional studies in other large-scale cohorts with a high proportion of non-meat eaters are needed to confirm the generalizability of these results and assess their relevance for clinical practice and general health.” [In plain English: More studies are needed to confirm this observation before we start changing our recommendations about what constitutes a healthy diet.]

What Are The Benefits And Risks Of A Vegetarian Diet?

benefits-risksLet’s assume for a minute that the results of this study are accurate and take a closer look at the benefits and risks of a vegetarian diet. Here is my assessment:

1)    This report is troubling, but it may not be correct. The association of vegetarian diets with a slight increase in stroke risk has only been seen in a single study. This study needs to be confirmed before we become too concerned about vegetarianism increasing stroke risk.

2)    On the balance, vegetarian diets should still be considered very healthy. They lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, some cancers, inflammatory diseases and possibly even Alzheimer’s disease.

3)    However, I have often said that we have 5 food groups for a reason, and it is not a good idea to eliminate whole food groups. In the past, I have used that statement to critique diets that leave out important plant food groups like fruit, whole grains, and legumes.

If the data on stroke risk in this study are true, it suggests it might also not be a good idea to leave out meat. However, you don’t need a lot of meat. The fish eaters in this study were consuming 1.4 ounces of fish per day. That was enough to eliminate the increased risk of stroke.

4)    In addition, you don’t have to be a vegan purist to enjoy the health benefits of a primarily plant-based diet. As I describe in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”, primarily plant-based diets ranging from vegan through pescatarian and semi-vegetarian to Mediterranean and DASH are all incredibly healthy.

I personally follow a semi-vegetarian diet but often recommend Mediterranean and DASH diets to others because they are the easiest primarily plant-based diets for the average American to follow.

5)    Finally, if you have a family history, or are at high risk, of stroke, I recommend prudence until we know more. You may wish to adopt a version of primarily plant-based diets that incorporates some meat (That would be in the pescatarian to DASH range of primarily plant-based diets). Your heart will thank you, and you won’t increase your risk of stroke.

The Bottom Line

A recent study enrolled 48,188 British adults; divided them into meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians; followed them for 18.1 years; and looked at their risk for heart disease and stroke. The results were:

·       Compared to meat eaters, fish eaters had 13% lower risk of heart disease, and vegetarians had a 22% lower risk of heart disease.

o   For vegetarians this corresponds to 10 fewer cases of heart disease per 1,000 people over 10 years.

·       Compared to meat eaters, vegetarians had a 20% higher risk of stroke, mostly due to an increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke.

o   For vegetarians this corresponds to 3 additional cases of stroke per 1,000 people over 10 years.

·       The risk of stroke was essentially identical for fish eaters and meat eaters.

Here is my perspective:

1)    This report is troubling, but it may not be correct. The association of vegetarian diets with a slight increase in stroke risk has only been seen in a single study. This study needs to be confirmed before we become too concerned about vegetarianism increasing stroke risk.

2)    On the balance, vegetarian diets should still be considered very healthy. They lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, some cancers, inflammatory diseases and possibly even Alzheimer’s disease.

3)    However, I have often said that we have 5 food groups for a reason, and it is not a good idea to eliminate whole food groups. In the past, I have used that statement to critique diets that leave out important plant food groups like fruit, whole grains, and legumes.

If the data on stroke risk in this study are true, it suggests it might also not be a good idea to leave out meat. However, you don’t need a lot of meat. The fish eaters in this study were consuming 1.4 ounces of fish per day. That was enough to eliminate the increased risk of stroke.

4)    In addition, you don’t have to be a vegan purist to enjoy the health benefits of a primarily plant-based diet. As I describe in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths” (https://slayingthefoodmyths.com), primarily plant-based diets ranging from vegan through pescatarian (the fish eaters in this study) and semi-vegetarian to Mediterranean and DASH are all incredibly healthy.

I personally follow a semi-vegetarian diet but often recommend Mediterranean and DASH diets to others because they are the easiest primarily plant-based diets for the average American to follow.

5)    Finally, if you have a family history, or are at high risk, of stroke, I recommend prudence until we know more. You may wish to adopt a version of primarily plant-based diets that incorporates some meat (That would be in the pescatarian to DASH range of primarily plant-based diets). Your heart will thank you, and you won’t increase your risk of stroke.

For more details on the study and what it means for you, read the article above.

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

Do Omega-3 Supplements Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

Will The Omega-3 Controversy Continue?

adhd symptoms childrenThe prevalence of ADHD has increased dramatically in the last couple of decades. One study reported that the percentage of children diagnosed with ADHD has increased by 42% 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 ADHD, at a cost to taxpayers of over $45 billion.

An estimated 65% of children with ADHD are taking medications to control their symptoms. Unfortunately, those medications don’t work for 20-40% of patients with ADHD. Even worse, ADHD medications come with serious side effects like loss of appetite and delayed growth, sleep disorders, nausea & stomach pains, headaches, moodiness and irritability.

Even more worrisome is that many children say they “just don’t feel right” while they are on the drugs. Finally, there is the unintended message we are sending our children that drugs are the solution to their problems.

It is no wonder that millions of parents are looking for more natural solutions for their child’s ADHD. One of the most popular natural approaches is supplementation with omega-3s. But do omega-3 supplements work, or is this just another myth created by supplement companies to lighten your wallet?

The scientific evidence is conflicting. Some clinical studies support the efficacy of omega-3 supplements for reducing ADHD symptoms. Other studies claim they have no benefit.

In today’s issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, I review a recent meta-analysis (JP-C Chang et al, Neuropsychopharmacology, 43: 534-545, 2018) that attempts to provide a definitive answer to this question.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was designed to answer three questions:

1)    Does omega-3 supplementation reduce ADHD symptoms?

2)    Does omega-3 supplementation improve cognitive skills in children with ADHD?

3)    Is there an association between omega-3 status and ADHD?

Previous meta-analyses on these topics had design flaws such as:

·       Including both children and adult subjects.

·       Including subjects with diagnosis other than ADHD.

·       Including trials that supplemented with vitamins and other nutrients in addition to omega-3s.

The authors of this study tried to avoid these limitations by using the following criteria for the studies that were included in their meta-analysis.

1)    The studies were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of omega-3 supplementation with DHA and EPA alone or in combination.

2)    The participants were school-aged children (4-12 years) and adolescents (13-17 years) who had a diagnosis of ADHD.

3)    The study measured the effect of omega-3 supplementation on clinical symptoms of ADHD or measures of cognitive performance (omission errors, commission errors, forward memory, backward memory, and information processing).

4)    The studies were large enough to measure statistically significant differences.

5)    The studies were published in peer-reviewed journals.

With these criteria there were:

·       Seven studies with 534 children looking at the effect of omega-3 supplementation on ADHD symptoms.

·       Three studies with 214 children looking at the effect of omega-3 supplementation on cognitive performance.

·       Twenty studies with 1276 children looking at the association between omega-3 status and ADHD.

Do Omega-3 Supplements Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

adhd symptoms omega-3sThe results of this meta-analysis were as follows:

1)    Omega-3 supplementation significantly reduced ADHD symptoms reported by parents.

2)    Omega-3 supplementation significantly improved cognitive measures associated with attention span (omission and commission errors). [Note: Omission errors consist of leaving important information out of an answer. Commission errors consist of including incorrect information in an answer.]

·       Omega-3 supplementation did not improve cognitive measures associated with memory and information processing. This has also been reported in most previous studies.

·       The best way to think of this is that children with ADHD are fully capable of learning their schoolwork. However, they may have trouble demonstrating what they have learned on exams because of omission and commission errors.

·       In this context, omega-3 supplementation may help them perform better on exams and reduce test-taking anxiety.

3)    For hyperactivity, only studies with EPA dosages of 500 mg per day or greater showed a significant reduction in symptoms.

4)    Children diagnosed with ADHD have lower levels of DHA, EPA, and total omega-3s.

The authors concluded: “In summary, there is evidence that omega-3 supplementation … improves clinical symptoms and cognitive performances in children and adolescents with ADHD, and that these youth have a deficiency in omega-3 levels. Our findings provide further support to the rationale for using omega-3s as a treatment option for ADHD.”

They also said: “Our paper shows that EPA supplementation dosage >500 mg should be considered when treating youth with ADHD, especially those with predominantly hyperactivity/impulsivity presentation.”

Will The Omega-3 Controversy Continue?

ArgumentThis is an excellent study, but it is unlikely to be the final word on this subject. That is because there is a fundamental flaw in all previous studies on this important subject, including the ones included in this meta-analysis.

In the words of the authors: “In terms of ‘personalized medicine’, it is tempting to speculate that a subpopulation of youth with ADHD and low levels of omega-3s may respond better to omega-3 supplementation, but there are no studies to date attempting this approach.”

Until studies of omega-3 supplementation and ADHD symptoms include measures of omega-3 status before and after supplementation, those studies are likely to continue giving conflicting results. That is because:

·       If most of the children in the study have low omega-3 status, we are likely to see a positive effect of omega-3 supplementation on ADHD symptoms.

·       If most of the children in the study have high omega-3 status, we are likely to see a negative effect of omega-3 supplementation on ADHD symptoms.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

confusionWhile this study is unlikely to end the omega-3 controversy, it is a very well-designed study that combines the results of multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. In short, it is a very strong study.

Omega-3s have no side effects and multiple health benefits. If your child suffers from ADHD, omega-3 supplementation is worth a try.

However, we need to keep omega-3 supplementation in perspective:

·       Not every child with ADHD will respond to omega-3 supplementation.

·       Omega-3s alone are likely to reduce, but not eliminate, the symptoms.

·       There are other natural approaches that should be considered.

You will find details on omega-3s and other natural approaches for reducing ADHD symptoms in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

The Bottom Line

A recent meta-analysis looked at the effect of omega-3 supplementatation on ADHD symptoms. Here is a brief summary of the data:

1)    Omega-3 supplementation significantly reduced ADHD symptoms reported by parents.

2)    Omega-3 supplementation significantly improved cognitive measures associated with attention span (omission and commission errors). [Note: Omission errors consist of leaving important information out of an answer. Commission errors consist of including incorrect information in an answer.]

·       Omega-3 supplementation did not improve cognitive measures associated with memory and information processing. This has also been reported in most previous studies.

·       The best way to think of this is that children with ADHD are fully capable of learning their schoolwork. However, they may have trouble demonstrating what they have learned on exams because of omission and commission errors.

·       In this context, omega-3 supplementation may help them perform better on exams and reduce test-taking anxiety.

3)    For hyperactivity, only studies with EPA dosages of 500 mg per day or greater showed a significant reduction in symptoms.

4)    Children diagnosed with ADHD have lower levels of DHA, EPA, and total omega-3s.

The authors concluded: “In summary, there is evidence that omega-3 supplementation … improves clinical symptoms and cognitive performances in children and adolescents with ADHD, and that these youth have a deficiency in omega-3 levels. Our findings provide further support to the rationale for using omega-3s as a treatment option for ADHD.”

They also said: “Our paper shows that EPA supplementation dosage >500 mg should be considered when treating youth with ADHD, especially those with predominantly hyperactivity/impulsivity presentation.”

For more details on the study and a perspective on omega-3 supplementation compared to other natural approaches for reducing ADHD symptoms, 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.

Healthy Thanksgiving

The Holidays Don’t Have To Be Unhealthy

Thanksgiving TurkeyWhile “Healthy Thanksgiving” doesn’t quite have the appeal of the more familiar “Happy Thanksgiving” greeting, I used it here to make the point that Thanksgiving dinner (and many other holiday meals) doesn’t have to be an unhealthy affair.

After all, there is a lot to like about the ingredients in Thanksgiving dinner.  Turkey can be a healthy, low- fat meat, if prepared correctly.  Sweet potatoes, yams, winter squash and pumpkin are all loaded with vitamin A and other important nutrients.  And cranberries are a nutrition powerhouse.

Healthy Thanksgiving

Healthy Thanksgiving DinnerHere are some tips to make your Thanksgiving meal one that contributes to your health:

1) Skip the basting.  Choose a plain bird and cook in a bag to seal in the moisture.  Remove the skin before serving.

2) Refrigerate the turkey juices and skim off the hardened fat before making gravy and use a gravy cup that pours from the bottom to minimize fat.

3) Use ingredients like whole wheat bread, vegetables, fruits (cranberries, raisins, dates or apples), nuts and your favorite spices for the stuffing and bake it in the oven rather than in the turkey.

4) Serve your sweet potatoes or yams baked rather than candied and let your guests add butter and nutmeg to taste.

5) Use skim milk or buttermilk rather than whole milk and skip the butter for your mashed potatoes.

6) Give your meal gourmet appeal by cooking your green vegetables with garlic, nuts and herbs rather than creamy or fat-laden sauces.

7) Don’t serve the meal on your largest plates. By using smaller plates, you ensure smaller portion size and even that second helping isn’t quite so damaging.

8) Consider something like a cranberry, walnut, Greek yogurt parfait for dessert. However, if everyone is expecting grandma’s chocolate pound cake recipe, use small dessert dishes. Of course, you can also experiment with using less fat or sugar when you make the cake.

9) Use a low calorie, plant-based protein shake for one or more meals the day before and/or after Thanksgiving so that your total fat, cholesterol, and caloric intake over the three-day period is not excessive.

By now you have the idea.  There are lots of little things that you can do to make your Thanksgiving dinner one that your waist and your heart will thank you for. Bon Appetit and have a Happy, Healthy Thanksgiving!

The Bottom Line

If you make healthy food choices and choose your portion sizes wisely, you can make this a Healthy Thanksgiving as well as a Happy Thanksgiving.

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 NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!