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

How Does Fast Food Affect Children’s Health?

June 5, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Fast Foods Killing Our Kids?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

How does fast food affect children’s health?

Fast foods are everywhere. They are advertised on radio, TV, and the internet. Our kids crave them. Busy moms rely on them as they ferry their children to all their different activities.

Fast food restaurants surround every school. Fast foods are even on the lunch menu at many schools.

It’s no wonder that one third of US children eat fast foods every day. What are the consequences of this fast food consumption? Previous studies have shown that fast food consumption is associated with obesity and diabetes in teens.

But, what about younger children? We know that obesity and diabetes is on the rise among younger children, but nobody has looked at the health consequences of fast food consumption in younger children – until now. The study I will talk about today was designed to look at the association between fast food consumption and risk markers for obesity, heart disease, and diabetes in children who were only 9-10 years old.

How Was The Study Done?

This study (AG Donin et al, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 103: 431-436, 2018) was actually performed in England where the consumption of fast foods (They call them takeaway meals) is not quite as pervasive as it is in the US. But, fast food consumption is increasing rapidly. According to the authors, fast food consumption had increased by more than 25% between 1996 and 2006 and is continuing to increase.

This study was part of a larger Child Heart And Health Study in England (CHASE), which was designed to measure markers of heart disease and diabetes in a multiethnic population of children aged 9-10 years. The study enrolled 1948 primary school children in grade 5 from 85 primary schools across London, Birmingham, and Leicester.

The students were asked about their eating patterns by trained dietitians. Memory cues were used to add recall and photographs were used to help them estimate portion sizes. Fast food consumption broke down as follows:

26% of the children never or hardly ever consumed fast food meals.
46% of the children consumed fast food meals less than once a week.
28% of the children consumed fast food meals once a week or more.

How Does Fast Food Affect Children’s Health

When the investigators compared data from the children consuming one or more fast food meals a week with the data from children who never or hardly ever ate fast food meals:

#1: Diet quality was poorer:

Total calories consumed, fat, saturate fat, and caloric density of foods consumed were all significantly higher.
Consumption of complex carbohydrates and protein was significantly less. In contrast, sugar consumption was unchanged.
Intakes of vitamin C, iron, calcium, and folate were significantly less.

#2: Markers of health outcomes were poorer:

Fat mass and skinfold thickness (a measure of obesity) were significantly greater.
Total and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher. The authors estimated that if these levels were maintained over a lifetime, long-term cardiovascular risk would be increased by approximately 10%.

The authors concluded:

“Our study suggests that children who regularly eat takeaway (fast food) meals have adverse lipid profiles, higher body fat, and poorer diet quality.
Efforts to reduce takeaway meal consumption in children could have both short-term and long-term health benefits.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

So, how does fast food affect children’s health? This study is consistent with multiple other studies looking at the effect of consumption of fast food meals on diet quality, obesity, and markers of future disease outcomes in teens and young adults. This study simply showed that the adverse effects of fast food meals are apparent even in younger children.

Clearly, fast foods should be avoided. One needs to go no further than the film “Supersize Me” to understand the dangers of excessive fast food consumption.

But, fast foods are just the tip of the iceberg. This study did not look at fast foods purchased by the parents and eaten at home. Nor did it look at sodas, junk foods, and convenience foods consumed at home.

Finally, while things are probably changing, the English diet, like the American diet, is not known as a particularly healthy diet. In fact, both English and American diets are the worst of all possible worlds. They are high in fat, saturated fat, sugars, and refined carbohydrates. They are meat heavy and light on fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Eliminating fast foods from your child’s diet is just the first step towards a healthy diet. We should be focusing on a holistic approach to a healthier diet, such as I have outlined in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of fast food consumption on diet quality, obesity, and markers of disease risk in English schoolchildren ages 9-10 years. When the investigators compared data from the children consuming one or more fast food meals a week with the data from children who never or hardly ever ate fast food meals:

#1: Diet quality was poorer:

Total calories consumed, fat, saturate fat, and caloric density of foods consumed were all significantly higher.
Consumption of complex carbohydrates and protein was significantly less. In contrast, sugar consumption was unchanged.
Intakes of vitamin C, iron, calcium, and folate were significantly less.

#2: Markers of health outcomes were poorer:

Fat mass and skinfold thickness (a measure of obesity) were significantly greater.
Total and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher. The authors estimated that if these levels were maintained over a lifetime, long-term cardiovascular risk would be increased by approximately 10%.

Clearly, fast foods are to be avoided. But, eliminating fast foods from your child’s diet is just the first step towards a healthy diet. We should be focusing on a holistic approach to a healthier diet, such as I have outlined in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

For more details, read the article above:

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

Best Diet To Prevent Prostate Cancer

May 29, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Reducing Your Risk Of Developing Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Is there a best diet to prevent prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer is like a tale of two entirely different cancers. For most men, prostate cancer is both inevitable and relatively benign. For example, in one study scientists performed a histological examination of the prostate in men who had died of other causes. They reported detecting prostate cancer in 28% of men who died at age 30-39 and 75% of men who died at age 85. That has lead to the oft-quoted saying: “Most men die with prostate cancer rather than from prostate cancer.”

However, in a small percentage of cases, the prostate cancer turns aggressive and becomes a killer. And, there is some evidence that the incidence of aggressive prostate cancer is increasing. It is this aggressive form of prostate cancer that we want to avoid.

The prevention of aggressive prostate cancer has been controversial. The clinical studies have been conflicting. In part, that is because many of the previous studies did not distinguish between benign and aggressive prostate cancer.

More recent studies have focused specifically on the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer. These studies have provided greater clarity. I will summarize the American Cancer Society’s recommendations of foods to eat and foods to avoid below.

However, while the American Cancer Society’s recommendations are helpful, it is more useful to focus on the overall diet rather than individual foods. The current study (A. Castello et al, The Journal Of Urology, 199: 430-437, 2018) does just that. It compares the effect of the Western Diet, a Prudent Diet, and the Mediterranean diet on the risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer.

What is the best diet to prevent prostate cancer?

How Was The Study Done?

This study was part of the Multicase-Controlled Study On Common Tumors in Spain (MCC-Spain) program. MCC-Spain was conducted in 7 Spanish provinces between September 2008 and December 2013. From this larger population base the authors selected 754 subjects with histologically confirmed prostate cancer and 1,277 matched controls. The ages of men included in this study ranged from 38 to 85 years old.

All the participants in this study participated in an extensive computerized questionnaire to gather information on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, personal and family medical history, height and weight. The questionnaire included a detailed food frequency questionnaire to assess their diet over the previous year. These questionnaires were administered by trained personnel in face-to-face interviews to assure accuracy.

The authors used a program they had developed previously to analyze the food frequency information and calculate the subject’s adherence to 3 different diets. These diets were:

The Western Diet: This diet is characterized by a high intake of high-fat dairy products, refined grains, processed and red meats, caloric drinks, sweets, convenience foods and sauces, and by a low intake of low-fat dairy products, whole grains, vegetables and fruits.
The Prudent Diet: This diet is characterized by low-fat dairy products, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and juices. This is essentially a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, which has been shown to reduce the risk of some cancers.
The Mediterranean Diet: This diet is characterized by a high intake of fish, boiled potatoes, vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, vegetable oil and olives.

The study compared the adherence to each of these diets to the risk of developing an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Two independent assays were used to identify aggressive tumors.

Best Diet To Prevent Prostate Cancer

The results of the study were as follows:

High adherence to the Western diet tended to increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. However, the results were not statistically significant, possibly due to the small number of participants with high adherence to a Western diet in this population.
High adherence to the Prudent diet had no effect on aggressive prostate cancer risk, although it does decrease the risk of some cancers.
High adherence to the Mediterranean diet decreased the risk of aggressive prostate cancer between 32% and 51% depending on the assay used to identify aggressive tumors.

While the authors preferred to focus on whole diets rather than individual foods, they pointed out that the biggest differences between the Mediterranean diet and the Prudent diet were increased consumption of fish and olives and decreased consumption of dairy. They considered the difference in fish consumption to be the most significant difference.

The authors cited previous studies showing that while fish consumption had no effect on prostate cancer incidence, it did significantly decrease prostate cancer mortality. This suggests that fish and fish oil may reduce the progression of benign prostate tumors into more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.

The authors concluded: “If other researchers confirm these results, the promotion of the Mediterranean dietary pattern might be an efficient way of reducing the risk of developing advanced prostate cancer. Dietary recommendations should consider whole patterns instead of focusing on individual foods.”

Of the 3 diets above, the Mediterranean Diet certainly seems to be the best diet to prevent prostate cancer.

What Does The American Cancer Society Say About Diet And Prostate Cancer?

Based on the best available data, the American Cancer Society has made some very specific recommendations for reducing the risk of prostate cancer. They are:

#1: Control Weight.

#2: Be More Active.

#3: Eat Healthy. By that they mean:

Choose foods and drinks in amounts that help you get to and maintain a healthy weight.

Read food labels to become more aware of portion sizes and calories. Be aware that “low-fat” or “non-fat” does not necessarily mean “low-calorie.”
Eat smaller portions when eating high-calorie foods.
Choose vegetables, whole fruit, legumes such as peas and beans, and other low-calorie foods instead of calorie-dense foods such as French fries, potato chips and other chips, ice cream, donuts, and other sweets.
Limit your intake of sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks, sports drinks, and fruit-flavored drinks.
When you eat away from home, be especially mindful to choose food low in calories, fat, and added sugar, and avoid eating large portion sizes.

Limit how much processed meat and red meat you eat.

Minimize your intake of processed meats such as bacon, sausage, lunch meats, and hot dogs.
Choose fish, poultry, or beans instead of red meat (beef, pork, and lamb).

Eat at least 2½ cups of vegetables and fruits each day.

Include vegetables and fruits at every meal and snack.
Eat a variety of vegetables and fruits each day.
Emphasize whole fruits and vegetables; choose 100% juice if you drink vegetable or fruit juices.
Limit your use of creamy sauces, dressings, and dips with fruits and vegetables.

Choose whole grains instead of refined grain products.

Choose whole-grain breads, pasta, and cereals (such as barley and oats) instead of breads, cereals, and pasta made from refined grains, and brown rice instead of white rice.
Limit your intake of refined carbohydrate foods, including pastries, candy, sugar-sweetened breakfast cereals, and other high-sugar foods.

While these recommendations focus on foods rather than diets, they sound a lot like the Mediterranean diet. The only thing that is missing from the American Cancer Society recommendations is olives and olive oil.

Final Thoughts

The American Cancer Society and this study agree that red and processed meats should be minimized in our diet. There is evidence from previous studies that both increase the risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. The American Cancer Society replaces red and processed meat with fish and poultry. The Mediterranean diet replaces them with fish and legumes. I would be leery of any diet that places a heavy emphasis on red meat consumption.

Don’t think these dietary recommendations are just important for men. In a previous study the same authors reported that adherence to a Western diet increased the risk of developing breast cancer and adherence to the Mediterranean diet reduced risk. In addition, previous studies suggest that red meat consumption also increases the risk of breast cancer.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of adherence to a Western Diet, a Prudent Diet, and a Mediterranean diet on the risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. The study found:

High adherence to the Western diet tended to increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
High adherence to the Prudent diet had no effect on aggressive prostate cancer risk.
High adherence to the Mediterranean diet decrease the risk of aggressive prostate cancer between 32% and 51% depending on the assay used to identify aggressive tumors.
Based on their study and previous studies, the authors suggested that fish and fish oil may reduce the progression of benign prostate tumors into more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.

The authors concluded: “If other researchers confirm these results, the promotion of the Mediterranean dietary pattern might be an efficient way of reducing the risk of developing advanced prostate cancer. Dietary recommendations should consider whole patterns instead of focusing on individual foods.”

The authors have also reported similar results for the effects of these 3 diets on the risk of developing breast cancer in women.

For the American Cancer Society recommendations on reducing prostate cancer risk and other 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.

Sleeping On Your Stomach – Pain Reduction

May 22, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Right Pillow Can Make All The Difference

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Sleeping on your stomach has several negative outcomes, which fortunately can be overcome. As your spine is twisting to enable you to turn your head, you are impinging on nerves, disks, and veins.

The pressure causes a long list of aches and pains, often far from the source of the problem.

Why Sleeping on Your Stomach is Bad for Your Neck

As you look at the healthy spine graphic, consider what happens to the neck bones when the head is turned. The cervical vertebrae are twisted, which puts a strain on your spinal cord, at the base of your brain. Plus, your carotid artery is potentially being squeezed, and your nerves are being pressed on by the bones.

If your head is turned to the left, your neck and shoulder muscles on the left are being held tight. Meanwhile, the muscles on your right are being overstretched, and then held that way for hours. This puts great pressure on all the structures of your neck.

While prevention is optimal, you can learn how to treat each of the muscles that are being strained as you sleep on your stomach. Releasing tight muscles every day will help avoid some of the damage that is done by having your head twisted.

Why Sleeping on Your Stomach is Bad for Your Lower Back

Your spinal cord runs from your brain all the way to your feet. As your nerves break off to every area of your body, an impingement causes pain, numbness and tingling

When you are sleeping on your stomach, your lower back (lumbar) vertebrae will drop forward. This causes your lumbar vertebrae to press into your spinal cord.

The muscles of your lower back; psoas, quadratus lumborum and erector spinae, are affected while sleeping on your stomach.

You can learn how to do simple self-treatments to eliminate lower back pain in my book “The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution.” This is a step-by-step program that treats each muscle involved in lower back pain, sciatica, and more.

How to Reduce Pain From Sleeping on Your Stomach

It’s best to stop sleeping on your stomach, but habits are a challenge to break. While you’re working to change this habit, here are a few tips to help relieve muscle tension and pain now.

In my therapy practice I have used a cushion that holds the body in a perfect face down position. A cushion holds the clients head, which is face down, and their abdomen is supported to prevent the lumbar curve. Some of my clients who sleep on their stomach feel it’s so comfortable they have bought it for their home. Here’s how you can create the same effect without the expense of buying the cushions.

Click on the link above to see how the Body Support cushion works, and then follow along with me.

Begin to change the way you sleep by buying a very dense king-size pillow. Lie on top of the pillow with your trunk and have your knees on the bed. Put pillows under your ankles, which will help support the curve of your lower back.

It’s challenging to re-create the face cradle, and the odds of sleeping with your face down are slim. However, if the pillow under your trunk comes all the way up to your chin, you can have your head bent forward and only slightly turned. The idea is to have as little of a twist as possible in your neck.

You also want to avoid having your lower back collapse into the mattress. The dense pillow under your trunk will support your lumbar vertebrae and prevent low back pain.

Whenever possible, try to start to sleep on your side, supporting your head to keep your spine straight. It’s a challenge, but it’s worth the effort.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

About The Author

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

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

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 Protein Supplement Timing Matter?

May 15, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Do You Gain Muscle Mass & Lose Fat Mass?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Most of what you read about protein supplements on the internet is wrong. That is because most published studies on protein supplements:

Are very small
Are not double blinded.
- Both the subjects and the investigators knew who got the protein supplement.
Are done by individual companies with their product.
- You have no idea which ingredients are in their product are responsible for the effects they report.
- You have no idea how their product compares with other protein products.
- There is no standardization with respect to the amount or type of protein or the addition of non-protein ingredients.

Because of these limitations there is a lot of misleading information on the benefits of protein supplements timing and maximal benefit. Let’s start by looking at why people use protein supplements. Let’s also look at what is generally accepted as true with respect to the best supplement timing.

There are 4 major reasons people consume protein supplements:

Enhance the muscle gain associated with resistance training: In this case, protein supplements are customarily consumed concurrently with the workout.
Preserve muscle and accelerate fat loss while on a weight loss diet: In this case, protein supplements are customarily consumed with meals or as meal replacements.
Provide a healthier protein source. In this case, protein supplements are customarily consumed with meals in place of meat protein.
Prevent muscle loss associated with aging or illness. There is no customary pattern associated with this use of protein supplements.

How good are the data supporting the customary timing of protein supplementation? The answer is: Not very good. The timing is based on a collection of weak studies which do not always agree with each other.

The current study (J.L. Hudson et al, Nutrition Reviews, 76: 461-468, 2018 ) was designed to fill this void in our knowledge. It is a meta-analysis that compares all reasonably good studies that have looked at the effect of protein supplement timing on weight gain or loss, lean muscle mass gain, fat loss, and the ratio of lean muscle mass to fat mass.

How Was The Study Done?

The authors started by doing a literature search of all studies that met the following criteria:

The study was a randomized control trial with parallel design. This means that study contained a control group. It does not mean that the investigators or subjects were blinded with respect to which subjects used a protein supplement and which did not.
The subjects were engaged in resistance training.
The study lasted 6 weeks or longer.
Reliable methods were used to measure body composition (lean muscle mass and fat mass).
The subjects were healthy and at least 19 years old.
There was no restriction on the food the subjects consumed.

The authors started with 2074 published studies and ended up with 34 that met all their criteria. They then separated the studies into two groups – those in which the protein supplements were used with meals and those in which the protein supplements were used between meals.

Both groups were diverse.

Group 1 included subjects who consumed their protein supplement with their meal and those who consumed their protein supplement as a meal replacement.
Group 2 included subjects who consumed their protein supplement concurrent with exercise (usually immediately after exercise) and those who consumed their protein supplement at a fixed time of day not associated with exercise.

Does Protein Supplement Timing Matter?

Because the individual studies were very diverse in the way they were designed, the authors could not calculate a reliable estimate of how much lean muscle mass was increased or fat mass was decreased. Instead, they calculated the percentage of studies showing an increase in lean muscle mass or a decrease in fat mass.

When the authors compared protein supplements consumed with meals versus protein supplements consumed between meals:

Weight gain was observed in 56% of the studies of protein supplementation with meals compared to 72% of the studies of protein supplementation between meals. In other words, protein supplements consumed with meals were less likely to lead to weight gain than protein supplements consumed between meals.
An increase in lean muscle mass was observed in 94% of the studies of protein supplementation with meals compared to 90% of the studies of protein supplementation between meals. In other words, timing of protein supplementation did not matter with respect to increase in muscle mass.
A loss of fat mass was observed in 87% of the studies of protein supplementation with meals compared to 59% of the studies of protein supplementation between meals. In other words, protein supplements consumed with meals were more likely to lead to loss of fat mass.
An increase in the ratio of lean muscle mass to fat mass was observed in 100% of the studies of protein supplementation with meals compared to 87% of the studies of protein supplementation between meals. In short, protein supplements consumed with meals were slightly more likely to lead to an increase in the ratio of lean muscle mass to fat mass.

The following seem to suggest protein supplement timing matters:

The authors pointed out that their findings were consistent with previous studies showing that when protein supplements are consumed with a meal they displace some of the calories that otherwise would have been consumed. Simply put, people naturally compensate by eating less of other foods.

In contrast, the authors stated that previous studies have shown that when foods, especially liquid foods, are consumed as snacks (between meals), people are less likely to compensate by reducing the calories consumed in the next meal.

The others concluded: “Concurrently with resistance training, consuming protein supplements with meals, rather than between meals, may more effectively promote weight control and reduce fat mass without influencing improvements in lean [muscle] mass.”

What Are The Limitations Of The Study?

Meta-analyses such as this one, are only as good as the studies included in the meta-analysis. Unfortunately, most sports nutrition studies are very weak studies. Thus, this meta-analysis is a perfect example of the “Garbage In: Garbage Out (GI:GO)” phenomenon.

For example, let’s start by looking at what the term “protein supplement” meant.

Because the studies were done by individual companies with their product, the protein supplements in this meta-analysis:
- Included whey, casein, soy, bovine colostrum, rice or combinations of protein sources.
- Were isolates, concentrates, or hydrolysates.
- Contained various additions like creatine, amino acids, and carbohydrate.
As I discuss in my book, Slaying the Food Myths, previous studies have shown that optimal protein and leucine levels are needed to maximize the increase in muscle mass and decrease in fat mass associated with resistance exercise. However, neither protein nor leucine levels were standardized in the protein supplements included in this meta-analysis.
Previous studies have shown that protein supplements that have little effect on blood sugar levels (have a low glycemic index) are more likely to curb appetite. However, glycemic index was not standardized for the protein supplements included in this meta-analysis.

In short, the conclusions of this study might be true for some protein supplements, but not for others. We have no way of knowing.

We also need to consider the composition of the two groups.

Protein supplements used as meal replacements are more likely to decrease weight and fat mass than protein supplements consumed with meals. Yet, both were included in group 1.
Some studies suggest that protein supplements consumed concurrent with resistance exercise are more likely to increase muscle mass than protein supplements consumed another time of day. Yet, both are included in group 2. We also have no idea whether the meals with protein supplements in group 1 were consumed shortly after exercise or at an entirely different time of day.

This was the most glaring weakness of the study because it was completely avoidable. The authors could have grouped the studies into categories that made more sense.

In other words, there are multiple weaknesses that limit the predictive power of this study.

What Can We Learn From This Study?

Despite its many limitations, this study does remind us that protein supplements do have calories. This is of relatively little importance for people whose primary goal is to increase lean muscle mass.

However, most of us are using protein supplements to lose weight or to increase our lean mass to fat mass ratio. Simply put, we are either trying to lean out (shape up) or lose weight. And, we want to lose that weight primarily by getting rid of excess fat. For us, calories do matter. With that in mind:

If we are consuming a protein supplement immediately after exercise or between meals we probably should make a conscious effort to reduce our daily caloric intake elsewhere in our diet.
Alternatively, we could consume the protein supplement with a meal, but time the meal so it occurs shortly after exercise.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the optimal timing of protein supplements consumed by subjects who were engaged in resistance exercise. Specifically, the study compared protein supplements consumed with meals versus protein supplements consumed between meals on weight, lean muscle mass, fat mass, and the ratio of lean muscle mass to fat mass. The study reported:

Protein supplements consumed with meals were less likely to lead to weight gain than protein supplements consumed between meals.
Timing of protein supplementation did not matter with respect to increase in muscle mass.
Protein supplements consumed with meals were more likely to lead to loss of fat mass.
Protein supplements consumed with meals were slightly more likely to lead to an increase in the ratio of lean mass to fat mass.

The authors pointed out that their findings were consistent with previous studies showing that when a protein supplement was consumed with a meal it displaces some of the calories that would have been otherwise consumed. Simply put, people naturally compensate by eating less of other foods.

In contrast, the authors said that previous studies have shown that when foods, especially liquid foods, are consumed as snacks (between meals), people are less likely to compensate by reducing the calories consumed in the next meal.

As discussed in the article above, the study has major weaknesses. However, despite its many weaknesses, this study does remind us that protein supplements do have calories. This is of relatively little importance for people whose primary goal is to increase lean muscle mass.

However, for those of us who are using protein supplements to lose weight or to increase our lean mass to fat mass ratio, calories do matter. With that in mind:

If we are consuming a protein supplement immediately after exercise or between meals we probably should make a conscious effort to reduce our daily caloric intake elsewhere in our diet.
Alternatively, we could consume the protein supplement with a meal, but time the meal so it occurs shortly after exercise.

For more details, read the article above:

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

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk?

May 8, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Vitamin D Reduce Cancer Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The relationship between vitamin D and cancer risk is controversial. Some studies suggest that vitamin D reduces cancer risk. In those studies, the risk reduction was strongest for colon cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer. However, other studies have found no association between vitamin D status and cancer risk.

Most previous studies have been conducted in European and American populations. Very few of the studies have been done in Asian populations. So, the authors of the current study (S. Budhathoki et al, BMJ 2018; 360:k671, doi: 10.1136/bmj.k671 ) focused their attention on the Japanese population.

How Was The Study Done?

The data for this study were drawn from the much larger Japanese Public Health Center (JPHC) Study. THE JPHC Study is an ongoing study investigating the role of lifestyle and other factors on the risk of cancer and other diseases. The study began in 1990 and enrolled 140, 420 participants aged 40-59.

All participants in the JPHC study filled out a detailed food frequency questionnaire at the time of entry into the study. A subset of participants also donated blood upon entry into the study for determination of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (the most reliable measurement of vitamin D status). It is this subset of participants who formed the basis of the current study.

There were 33,736 participants in this study. Based on plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at entry into the study, the participants were divided into four groups of around 1000 participants.

Group 1 had a median serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 36.9 nmol/L.
Group 2 had a median serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level 48.4 nmol/L.
Group 3 had a median serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 56.9 nmol/L.
Group 4 had a median serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 72.6 nmol/L.

For reference, the NIH considers < 30 nmol/L to be deficient, 30 to < 50 nmol/L to be insufficient for bone and overall health, > 50 nmol/L to be sufficient, and > 150 nmol/L to be potentially associated with adverse effects. By these criteria, group 1 had insufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, group 2 was borderline, and groups 3 and 4 had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

The participants were followed for a total of 19 years. During this time 3301 participants developed cancer. The cancer incidence in groups 2, 3 and 4 were compared to the cancer incidence in group 1 to determine the effect of vitamin D status on cancer risk.

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

The results of the Vitamin D and cancer risk study were:

Vitamin D reduced total cancer risk by up to 25%.
Vitamin D reduced the risk of liver cancer by up to 55%.
Vitamin D reduced the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer by up to 44%.
There was a trend towards reduction of colon, liver, and prostate cancer by vitamin D, but the results did not quite reach significance.
There were too few cases for most other cancers to assess whether vitamin D status had any effect.
Risk reduction was not linear. Except for liver cancer, risk reduction for group 4 (72.6 nmol/L) was not greater than the risk reduction for group 3 (56.9 nmol/L). The significance of this observation will be discussed below.

The authors concluded: “Our findings support the hypothesis that vitamin D may confer protection against cancer. Nevertheless, the lower risk associated with higher circulating vitamin D concentrations seemed to show a ceiling effect, which may suggest that although maintaining an optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is important for prevention of cancer, having a concentration beyond this optimal level may provide no further benefit.”

Why Is The Association of Vitamin D And Cancer Risk So Confusing?

So why do some studies demonstrate confusing data on Vitamin D and cancer risk? The “ceiling effect” mentioned by the authors of this study may explain much of the variation in results from previous trials. As I say in my upcoming book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths” , supplementation is most likely to be effective when the subjects are deficient in that nutrient at the beginning of the study. If they are starting with adequate levels of the nutrient, supplementation is unlikely to provide additional benefit.

While that statement seems to be obvious, many previous studies have ignored the beginning nutritional status. Some have not measured 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at the beginning of the study. Others have measured starting 25-hydroxyvitamin levels but have not considered the starting levels in interpretation of their data.

Group 1 in the current study clearly had inadequate 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. That may be why the groups with sufficient 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels showed a reduction in risk. The low baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D is logical because most of Japan lies north of the United States, so sun exposure is less. In addition, the authors stated that food fortification and supplementation with vitamin D is much less in Japan than the US. In contrast, the baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D status in many US studies is significantly higher.

The authors did a thorough analysis of previous studies. In general, studies with a low baseline level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D showed a reduction in cancer risk by vitamin D. Studies with a higher baseline level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D showed no effect.

This analysis does not permit a definitive conclusion, but it clearly defines how future studies should be designed. Simply put, to reliably test whether vitamin D reduces cancer risk, the experiment must be designed in such a way that the baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level is in the inadequate range. Otherwise, there is no reason to expect that higher levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D will confer any benefit.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitaminD levels) on cancer risk. The study reported:

Vitamin D reduced total cancer risk by up to 25%.
Vitamin D reduced the risk of liver cancer by up to 55%.
Vitamin D reduced the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer by up to 44%.
There was a trend towards reduction of colon, liver, and prostate cancer by vitamin D, but the results did not quite reach significance.
There were too few cases for most other cancers to assess whether vitamin D status had any effect.
Risk reduction was not linear. Except for liver cancer, risk reduction for group 4 (72.6 nmol/L) was not greater than the risk reduction for group 3 (56.9 nmol/L).

The “ceiling effect” mentioned by the authors of this study may explain much of the variation in results from previous trials.

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.

Protein and Heart Disease: Meat vs Plant-Based

May 1, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Meat Protein Increase Heart Disease Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Is a plant-based diet better than eating meat when it comes to protein and heart disease?

There are a multitude of studies showing the long-term health benefits of plant-based diets. Among the best of these studies are the Seventh-Day Adventist Studies. That’s because the Adventist church advocates a vegan diet but allows personal choice. This means Seventh-Day Adventists eat a more plant-based diet than most Americans. However, there is also significant variation in the diet of Adventists.

Not all Adventists are vegans. Significant numbers of Adventists choose lacto-ovo-vegetarian (dairy, eggs & vegetarian), pesco-vegetarian (fish & vegetarian), and semi-vegetarian (meat & vegetarian).

Because of this variation, Adventists provide a rich database for clinical studies. You can compare health outcomes of a vegetarian diet to the standard American diet by comparing Adventists to the non-Adventist population living in the same area. You can also use the Adventist population to compare the health outcomes of the various types of vegetarian diets.

I have described the Adventist Health Studies in detail in my new book, Slaying The Food Myths. Let me briefly summarize the results with an emphasis on heart disease risk:

Compared to the standard American Diet, vegetarian diets decrease cardiovascular deaths by 41% in men and 51% in women.
The reduction in cardiovascular death is greater for vegans than for lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
If we look at the average of multiple studies, the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is less for vegans than for lacto-ovo-vegetarians, which is less than the risk for pesco-vegetarians, which is less than the risk for semi-vegetarians, which is much less than the risk for people consuming the standard American diet.

There are multiple reasons why vegetarian diets decrease the risk of heart disease compared to the standard American diet. These will be discussed below. The current study was designed to look at the proteins found in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets and ask what effect these proteins had on heart disease. This was a good study of protein and heart disease.

How Was The Study Done?

This study (M. Tharrey et al, International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018, 1-10 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy030 ) utilized a database of 81,337 men and women over age 25 who were enrolled in the Adventist Health Study-2 between 2002 and 2007.

At the time of enrollment, a very detailed food frequency questionnaire was administered. The participants were divided into groups based on the most prevalent protein source in their diet as follows:

Grains: This group averaged 44% of their protein intake from grains.
Processed foods: This category included protein from cheese, eggs, and milk. However, it also included processed plant proteins and protein from cold breakfast cereals.
Meats: The largest protein contributors to this category were red meat, processed meat, and poultry. Fish made only a minor contribution.
LFV (Legumes, fruits & vegetables): Legumes were the biggest protein contributors in this category.
Nuts and seeds: This included peanuts, tree nuts and seeds.

The participants in the study were followed for an average of 9.4 years during which there were 2276 cardiovascular deaths. The study then asked what effect protein intake from each of these food groups had on cardiovascular risk.

Meat Protein and Heart Disease?

Some of the findings from this study were expected, but some were surprising. When studying protein and heart disease for example:

When they compared people getting the most protein from meat with those getting the least (24% versus 1% of their protein intake from meat), the risk of cardiovascular death was increased by 61%. This is consistent with several previous studies suggesting that meat, particularly red meat, increases the risk of heart disease.
When they compared people getting the most protein from nuts and seeds with those getting the least (18% versus 2%), the risk of cardiovascular death was decreased by 40%. Again, this is consistent with previous studies suggesting that nuts and seeds reduce the risk of heart disease.
They found no significant effect of protein intake from grains on cardiovascular death. This could be considered as surprising because whole grains are an excellent source of fiber, which reduces the risk of heart disease. However, the difference in protein intake between the groups getting the most protein from grains versus the least was relatively small (34% versus 19%). In addition, the study did not differentiate between whole grains and refined grains.
There was a slight, but non-significant, increased risk of cardiovascular death for people getting the highest amount of protein from processed foods. This is also a bit surprising. It may be because the survey included both meat-based and vegetarian processed foods in the processed foods classification, and there are many processed foods that are marketed specifically to vegetarians.
There was also no significant effect of protein from legumes, fruits and vegetables on cardiovascular death. This is also surprising and will be discussed below.

The authors concluded “Our results suggest that healthy choices can be advocated based on protein sources, specifically preferring diets low in meat intake and with a higher intake of plant proteins from nuts and seeds.”

What Does This Mean For You?

This study does not fundamentally alter what we know about diet and heart disease risk. That is because this study focused solely on the protein and heart disease not on the foods and heart disease. The data were statistically corrected for every other beneficial and detrimental effect of those foods. For example:

The people in this study with the highest intake of processed foods were more likely to be overweight and physically inactive. They were also more likely to be smokers. These factors increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the data were statistically adjusted to remove these considerations from the analysis.
The people in this study with the highest intake of whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables also had the highest intake of fiber, antioxidants, and B vitamins. These factors decrease the risk of heart disease. However, the data were statistically adjusted to remove these considerations from the analysis.

In short, processed foods are still probably bad for the heart, but that is not due to the protein component of processed foods. Similarly, whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables are still good for the heart, but it is not the protein component of these foods that conveys the heart-healthy benefits.

Where the study breaks new ground and leaves some unanswered questions is with the effect of meat, nuts, and seeds on heart disease risk. For example:

The American Heart Association has recently released a Presidential Advisory statement warning that the saturated fat in meats increases heart disease risk. However, the data in the present study were statistically adjusted to remove the effect of saturated fat from the analysis. Thus, this study suggests that the protein in red meat also contributes to heart disease risk. If this is confirmed by subsequent studies, it is an important advance. It might mean, for example, that grass-fed beef is no healthier than conventionally raised beef.

However, it is unclear why meat protein increases heart disease risk. One recent study has suggested that meat-based diets favor a population of gut bacteria that metabolize a compound called carnitine, also found in meat, into a metabolite that increases heart disease risk. However, this mechanism has not yet been confirmed.

[Note: The effects of saturated fats and carnitine on heart disease risk are covered in detail in my new book “Slaying the Food Myths.” In my book I carefully analyze the arguments of saturated fat proponents as well as saturated fat opponents.]

Conventional wisdom has attributed the heart health benefits of nuts and seeds to their omega-3 fatty acids. However, the data in this study were statistically adjusted to remove the effect of omega-3 fatty acids from the analysis. Thus, this study suggests that the protein in nuts and seeds decreases heart disease risk.

Once again, the mechanism of this effect is unclear. The authors suggest it might be due to higher levels of the amino acids glutamate and arginine in seed and nut protein. However, these two amino acids are abundant in a variety of plant-based proteins. Their presence in nut and seed proteins would not appear to be sufficient to confer a special heart health benefit.

In short, this is the first study of this kind and the mechanisms of the effects described are unclear. Thus, one cannot yet definitively claim that meat protein is bad for the heart and nut and seed proteins are good for the heart.

Whether it is the protein component of these foods that affects heart health is relatively unimportant. It does not change what we know about diet and heart health. As discussed in “Slaying The Food Myths,” multiple studies show that meat-based diets increase heart disease risk and primarily plant-based diets decrease heart disease risk. Multiple studies also show that nuts and seeds decrease heart disease risk.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of the protein content of various foods on heart disease risk. The study reported:

Meat protein increased the risk of cardiovascular deaths by 61%.
Proteins from nuts and seeds decreased the risk of heart disease deaths by 40%.
Proteins from processed foods, grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables had no effect on cardiovascular deaths.

This study does not fundamentally alter what we know about diet and heart disease risk. That is because this study focused solely on the protein component of various foods rather than the foods themselves. The data were statistically corrected for every other beneficial and detrimental effect of those foods. Because of that:

Processed foods are still probably bad for the heart
Whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are still good for the heart.
Meat, especially red meat, is probably bad for the heart, while nuts and seeds are good for the heart.

The major new information provided by this study is that:

The increased risk of heart disease associated with meats is not just due to their saturated fat content. Meat protein may also increase heart disease risk. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this is an important finding because it suggests that lean cuts of meat and grass-fed beef may not eliminate heart disease risk.
The decreased risk of heart disease associated with nuts and seeds is not just due to their omega-3 content. Nut and seed proteins may also decrease heart disease risk.

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.

The Economic Benefits of Plant-Based Diets

April 24, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Could Plant-Based Diets Cut Healthcare Costs?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Could saving the healthcare system be one of the economic benefits of plant-based diets?

I don’t need to tell you that our healthcare system is in crisis. Costs are out of control. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that healthcare costs will account for 25% of the gross domestic product by 2025. They also predict that 47% of that spending will be financed by federal. State, and local governments. That is unsustainable.

Our politicians have no answer. Neither political party has a viable plan to cut costs. Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands. What if there were a way to improve our own health and the viability of our healthcare system? A recent study suggests there may be a way to accomplish both goals.

How Was The Study Done?

In a recent study (L. Annemans and J. Schepers, Nutrition, 48: 24-32, 2018 ) scientist at Ghent university in Belgium set out to investigate the effect on public health and healthcare costs if just 10% of the population of Belgium and England switched to a primarily plant-based diet. They started with two diets for which the health benefits have been well established by multiple studies. These diets are:

#1: A Soy-Containing Diet: This is defined as a diet in which soy protein foods were consumed in place of animal protein foods more than 5 times per week. The soy foods included in their study were soybeans, tofu, miso, soy protein drinks, and soy yoghurt.

The soy-containing diet was chosen because previous studies have shown it protects against obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and breast, colon, stomach, lung, and prostate cancer. (Yes. In spite of the erroneous information you find on the internet, soy foods decrease cancer risk.)

#2: The Mediterranean Diet: This is defined as a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds and large amounts of olive oil. It includes a moderate to high consumption of fish and other seafood and a low intake of meat and dairy products.

The Mediterranean diet was chosen because previous studies have shown it protects against heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and breast cancer. I have documented these health benefits in more detail in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

This study did not look at the benefits of other plant-based diets. For example, as discussed in “Slaying The Food Myths,” the Seventh-Day Adventist studies have shown comparable health benefit for a variety of vegetarian diets.

This study looked at the prevalence of each of these diseases in Belgium and England and estimated what the effect would be if the prevalence of these diseases were reduced by the amounts reported in previous studies of soy-based and Mediterranean diets.

The study reported two outcomes: the increase in Quality of Life Years (QALYs) and the decrease in healthcare costs. Increased Quality of Life Years simply means the increase in disease-free years. That is the outcome most important to each of us personally. However, we should be equally interested in the decreased healthcare costs. The dollars our government spends on healthcare don’t grow on trees. They come out of our pockets.

Economic Benefits of Plant-Based Diets: Decreasing Healthcare Costs?

With that buildup, you are probably wondering what the outcome of the study was. The news was good:

If 10% of the population switched to a soy-based diet there would be:

An increase of 154 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $1.9 billion/20 years in Belgium.
An increase of 130 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $10.7 billion/20 years in England.

If 10% of the population switched to a Mediterranean diet there would be:

An increase of 166 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $1.6 billion/20 years in Belgium.
An increase of 116 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $7.4 billion/20 years in England.

[Note: In case you were wondering, the authors said the reason why plant-based diets had less of an effect on Quality of Life Years in England than in Belgium is because public health interventions have already significantly decreased the incidence of heart attack and stroke in England. Conversely, the reason healthcare savings are higher in England is because healthcare costs are higher there.]

Finally, if one were to extrapolate the British healthcare savings to the costs of the US healthcare system, one would predict:

If 10% of the US population were to switch to a soy-based diet, healthcare savings might amount to $17 billion/20 years.
If 10% of the US population were to switch to a Mediterranean diet, healthcare savings might amount to $12 billion/20 years.

The authors concluded: “The result of the present analysis suggests that both a soy-containing diet and the Mediterranean diet could contribute to health promotion because they are predicted to lead to substantial health benefits and societal savings.”

How Accurate Are These Estimates?

The benefits of soy-based and Mediterranean diets on which these estimates are based are very solid. The benefits are based on association studies, but the studies are very well done and are remarkably consistent.

The major weakness of these estimates is the benefits of these diets have been demonstrated in other parts of the world and are being extrapolated to a region of the world where neither of those diets are commonly followed. The authors tried very hard to control for all confounding variables, but the possibility remains that lifestyle differences unique to those geographic regions also contributed to the health benefits of soy-based and Mediterranean diets.

The authors acknowledged that some of the foods that are normally part of soy-based and Mediterranean diets were not as readily available in Belgium and England. They raised the possibility that something like the “New Nordic Diet”, which is also primarily plant-based but incorporates more familiar foods, might be equally effective. The equivalent diet in the US might be the DASH diet.

The economic benefits of plant-based diets may not depend so much on the diet, as long as it is plant-based and those foods are readily available.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of a plant-based diet on Quality Of Life Years (disease free years) and healthcare costs in Belgium and England. The study estimated:

If 10% of the population switched to a soy-based diet there would be:

An increase of 154 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $1.9 billion/20 years in Belgium.
An increase of 130 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $10.7 billion/20 years in England.

If 10% of the population switched to a Mediterranean diet there would be:

An increase of 166 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $1.6 billion/20 years in Belgium.
An increase of 116 Quality of Life Years/1,000 people and a decrease in healthcare costs of $7.4 billion/20 years in England.

If one were to extrapolate the British healthcare savings to the costs of the US healthcare system, one would predict:

If 10% of the US population were to switch to a soy-based diet, healthcare savings might amount to $17 billion/20 years.
If 10% of the US population were to switch to a Mediterranean diet, healthcare savings might amount to $12 billion/20 years.

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.

How to Choose the Right Pillow

April 17, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Wake Up Each Morning Pain Free

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

The way you sleep is often a key to discovering the cause of headaches and more. If you wake up with neck pain, a headache, or you suffer from ringing in your ears, dizziness, or ear pain, there is a good possibility that it may be caused by the way you are sleeping. Your pillow may be the culprit. But if you need to know how to choose the right pillow for you, it’s easy. It just takes a little “investigation.”

How to Choose the Right Pillow if You Sleep On Your Side

Your head, neck, and spine need to always stay in a nice straight line, just as it is when you are standing up, but that takes a little thought and understanding of the way you sleep. So, get comfy in your bed and then notice how your head is resting.

If you sleep on your side, your pillow needs to be just the right size, so your head doesn’t point down toward the mattress (your pillow is too soft) or up to the ceiling (your pillow is too thick). Either of these positions will make the muscles on the side of your neck stay in the contracted position for hours and pull your vertebrae in that direction, especially when you try to turn over to your other side.

Your SCM Muscle May Cause Serious Problems

You also need to notice if you turn your head a bit, especially if you are turning into your pillow or turning your head up toward away from your pillow. In either of these two cases you will be causing your sternocleidomastoid (SCM for short) to be held shortened for hours.

Your SCM originates on your collarbone and inserts into the bone behind your ear. When it contracts you turn your head to the opposite side. However, if the muscle is tight (for example, when you’ve held your head turned toward one side for an extended period of time) and then you bring your head back so you are facing forward, the tight muscle will pull on the bone behind your ear and cause havoc.

The symptoms for a tight SCM are tinnitus (ringing in the ear), dizziness, loss of equilibrium, ear pain, headaches, pain in the eye and around the skull, pain at the top of the head, and even pain in the throat. Amazing! What’s even more amazing is that it’s rare that this muscle is considered when a medical professional is searching for the cause of your symptoms.

These are the things to know when considering how to choose the right pillow if you sleep on your side.

How To Choose The Right Pillow If You Sleep On Your Back

If you sleep on your back, your head should be on the mattress (not propped up with a pillow) and you should have a tiny support (like a folded washcloth) under your neck. Or, you can have a wedge pillow that starts at your mid-back and gently raises your entire trunk and head up while still allowing your head and back to be in a straight line.

It’s always a challenge for people who toss and turn during the night, sometimes on their side and sometimes on their back. The best thing I’ve found for this situation is to have the pillow below shoulder level so when you turn on your side your shoulder will automatically slide to the edge of the pillow while still supporting your head properly, and when you turn onto your back, the pillow will start at shoulder level so your head and neck are supported, but your head is being pushed in a way that causes your chin to move down to your chest.

It’s tricky, but I can personally attest to the fact that it will work. I can always tell when I’ve had my head tilted (I toss and turn during the night) because I will wake with a headache. When that happens I’m grateful that I know how to self-treat the muscles of my neck and shoulders so the headache is eliminated quickly. If you already have Treat Yourself to Pain Free Living, you can self-treat all your neck and shoulder muscles to release the tension.

How To Choose The Right Pillow If You Sleep On Your Stomach

If you sleep on your stomach, this is the one position that is so bad that it behooves you to force yourself to change your position. Your head is turned to the side and held still for hours, putting a severe strain on all your cervical and upper thoracic vertebrae. Not only will this cause headaches, tinnitus, and a list of other pains, but it can cause problems down your entire spine. It can also impinge on the nerves that pass through the vertebrae on their way to your organs.

If you do sleep that way, let me know and I’ll give you some suggestions that work to change your habit of sleeping. It takes time and energy, but the results are worth the effort.

In every case, the way you sleep may cause neck pain that won’t go away until the pillow situation is resolved.

Now you should know how to choose the right pillow for the way you sleep.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

About The Author

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 Processed Food Cause Cancer?

April 10, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Are Processed Foods Doing To Your Health?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Does processed food cause cancer?

We Americans have a love, hate relationship with processed foods. We love how they taste. We love the convenience. All our friends eat them, so it is the socially acceptable thing to do. But, we also worry about them. We know they aren’t good for us.

We know they increase our risk of becoming obese. We have been warned that they may increase our risk of heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. But, what if they also increased our risk of cancer? A new study strongly suggests that ultra-processed foods significantly increase our cancer risk.

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

Until recently it had been very difficult to determine the effect of processed foods on our health because there was no uniform system for classifying the processed food content of our diet. With no consistent classification system, the outcomes varied from one study to the next. That changed around 2016 with the development of the NOVA food classification system. The NOVA system divides foods into four categories:

Ultra-processed foods.
- These are foods most Americans would consider junk foods.

Commercially Processed foods.
- These are commercially processed foods using natural ingredients like salt, sugar, and fats. For example, frozen peas would be considered a minimally processed food (category 4). Frozen peas with added salt or frozen creamed peas would be considered a commercially process food.

Restaurant Foods.
- These are foods processed in a kitchen (either in people’s homes or a restaurant) using salt, sugar, and/or fats to produce a culinary masterpiece (As you might suspect from the emphasis on culinary masterpiece, this is a European classification system).

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
- These are foods that most Americans would consider whole foods. They are either raw or minimally processed.

Intuitively, you have probably already guessed that foods in category 1 are likely to be bad for us and foods in category 4 are likely to be good for us. Categories 2 and 3 start with healthy foods but often end up with foods that are higher in salt, sugar, and/or fat than most experts would consider to be healthy.

With this classification system in mind, the next step was to classify every food in large food databases into one of these four categories. In this case the 3,300 item French NutriNet-Santé food composition database was used.

How Was The Study Performed?

This study (T. Fiolet et al, British Medical Journal, 2018;360:k322 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k322) was performed as part of the 8-year NutriNet-Santé web-based program launched in France in 2009 with the objective of studying the associations between nutrition and health. This study enrolled 104,980 participants who were 18 or older. The average age of participants was 42.8 years. There were 82% women and 18% men enrolled in the study.

Dietary intake was assessed using an online 24-hour dietary recall survey administered every 6 months over a two-year period. The survey was administered on random days so that every day of the week was covered in the survey. On average, participants completed 5 diet surveys during the study. The validity of these dietary surveys has been established in other studies that were part of this project.

Over an average 5-year follow-up, cancer incidence was assessed via a check-up questionnaire for health events that was administered every three months. Participants were also encouraged to self-report health events at any time. Any time a cancer diagnosis was received, a physician from the study team contacted the participant and requested their medical records, which were provided in 80% of the cases. Finally, French death records were also screened to identify any study participants who died from cancer during the study.

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

Does Processed Food Cause Cancer?

Using the NOVA classification system, this question is concerning ultra-processed food.

Here is what the study showed:

Every 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods (junk foods) in the diet was associated with a 12% increase in overall cancer and a 11% increase in breast cancer.
No association was seen between commercially processed foods or restaurant foods in the diet and cancer.
Every 10% increase in the proportion of unprocessed foods in the diet was associated with a 9% decrease in overall cancer and a 58% decrease in breast cancer.

Just in case you might be tempted to say that a 12% increase in cancer risk is insignificant, remember it is the cancer risk associated with just a 10% increase in ultra-processed foods in the diet. Recent studies have suggested that ultra-processed foods contribute from 25% to 50% of the calories consumed by most Americans.

The authors concluded “[The] rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increased burden of cancer and other non-communicable disease.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Because the NOVA classification system for identifying the processed food composition of the diet is a recent introduction, this is the first study of its kind. While it is a very good study, it needs to be confirmed by further studies in different population groups.

It would be tempting to ascribe the higher cancer incidence to secondary consequences of ultra-processed food consumption. For example, consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with:

Obesity which, in turn, is associated with increased cancer risk.
Increased intake of fat, saturated and trans fats, and sugar and decreased intake of fiber and essential nutrients. The effect of these dietary changes is uncertain but could be associated with higher cancer risk.
Decreased intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains which would result in increased cancer risk.
Increased intake of neoformed contaminants (a fancy term for contaminants formed during processing such as acrylamide, heterocyclic amines, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons). These are all carcinogenic compounds. They are usually present in very small amounts, so their effect on cancer risk is uncertain.
Increased consumption of food additives of uncertain safety.

While this is an interesting area for future research, it represents a danger and shows that we will try to “have our cake and eat it too.” Let me explain what I mean by that.

We love our junk foods. Food manufacturers will be only too happy to provide us with “healthier junk foods” by removing salt, sugar, and/or fat and replacing them with a chemical smorgasbord of artificial ingredients. They will reduce calories (again by adding artificial ingredients) so they can claim their junk foods won’t make us fat. They can reduce neoformed contaminants like acrylamide and claim their junk foods are now healthy. But, are they really any healthier? Not necessarily, according to this study.
The investigators performed a very sophisticated statistical analysis. The 12% increase in cancer they reported had already been adjusted for differences in age, sex, BMI (a measure of obesity), physical activity, smoking habits, alcohol intake, family history of cancer, and educational level. They also adjusted for fat, salt, and sugar content of the diet.
Some supplement companies may tell you that it’s OK to eat junk foods as long as you take the supplements they are trying to sell you. I have head dietitians say it’s OK to eat junk foods as long as you “balance” your diet with lots of fruits and vegetables. The results of this study suggest those approaches won’t be much help either.
Further analysis of their data by the investigators showed that the 12% increase in cancer risk was independent of overall fruit and vegetable consumption and supplement use.

The only variables left were increased intake of food additives and neoformed contaminants, and it is unlikely that those would have been sufficient to cause a 12% increase in cancer.

So, does processed food cause cancer?

Once again it appears to be the foods we eat rather than the individual components in those foods that are either good for us or bad for us. The inescapable conclusion from this study is that we are more likely to be healthy if we eat fewer processed foods and more unprocessed foods. Who would have guessed?

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of ultra-processed foods (otherwise known as junk foods) on cancer risk. This was a very well-designed study, and it showed.

Every 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a 12% increase in overall cancer and a 11% increase in breast cancer.
Every 10% increase in the proportion of unprocessed foods in the diet was associated with a 9% decrease in overall cancer and a 58% decrease in breast cancer.

This is the first study of its kind. While it is a very good study, it needs to be confirmed by further studies in different population groups.

When you look at the details of this study it appears to be the foods we eat rather than the individual components in those foods that are either good for us or bad for us. The inescapable conclusion from this study is that we are more likely to be healthy if we eat fewer processed foods and more unprocessed foods. Who would have guessed?

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.

Can a Holistic Approach to Diabetes Reduce Risk?

April 3, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Role of Supplementation In Reducing Diabetes Risk

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Doctors usually discuss a holistic approach to diabetes with their patients. But, that often isn’t the case for other diseases. Why do doctors recommend drugs rather than natural approaches for controlling and treating other diseases? In part, it’s because so many Americans would rather take a pill than change their diet or lifestyle. Many of our doctors have become so conditioned to that expectation from their patients they don’t even suggest diet and lifestyle changes.

That is our fault. We need to take responsibility for our health. Rather than just accepting whatever treatment our doctors suggest, we should partner with our doctors in designing the best treatment plan for us.

The other reason doctors often recommend drugs is that they are trained to base their decisions on evidence-based medicine. The Gold Standard for evidence-based medicine is, of course, a double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. In those studies, a single component is compared to the placebo. That is easy to do when you are comparing a drug to a placebo. The drug either works better than the placebo, or it doesn’t.

Do Natural Remedies for Diabetes Work?

Of course, many of you are more interested in knowing whether holistic, natural approaches also work. That is a much more difficult question to answer.

Double blind, placebo controlled clinical studies are much more difficult to perform when you are looking at foods or nutrients. That’s because foods and nutrients are seldom effective by themselves. They interact with each other. It is the whole, rather than the individual components, that reduce the risk of diabetes and other diseases. Even worse, when you want to test the effectiveness of a holistic change in diet and lifestyle, how do you design a placebo?

It reminds me of an international cancer symposium I attended over 30 years ago as a young Assistant Professor. A world-renowned cancer expert gave a talk from main stage and concluded by saying “I can show you, unequivocally, that colon cancer risk is significantly decreased by a lifestyle that includes a high-fiber diet, a low-fat diet, adequate calcium, adequate B vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, exercise, and weight control. But, I can’t show you that any one of them, by themselves, is effective.”

The question that came to me as I heard him speak was: “What’s the message that a responsible scientist or responsible health professional should be giving to their patients or the people that they are advising?” You’ve heard experts saying: “Don’t worry about the fat.” “Don’t worry about calcium.” “Don’t worry about B vitamins.” “Don’t worry about ﬁber.” “None of them can be shown to decrease the risk of colon cancer.”

Is that the message we should be giving people? Or should we really be saying what that doctor said many years ago – that a lifestyle that includes all those things signiﬁcantly decreases the risk of colon cancer?

The problem is the negative studies you hear about, and your doctor hears about, are usually studies done with individual foods or individual nutrients. Those studies leave the impression that natural approaches don’t work. However, when you look at a holistic approach to diabetes, the answers are often much different.

Can a Holistic Approach to Diabetes Reduce Risk?

I created the diagram on the left for my book “Slaying the Food Myths” to represent holistic approaches to health. Simply put, diet, weight control, exercise, and supplementation all play a role in improving our health. It is that sweet spot in the middle of the diagram where we receive the optimal benefit. Finally, both diet and supplementation should also be holistic. No one food or nutrient will be effective by itself.

This is perfectly illustrated by a recent study (S.M. Kimball et al, Journal of Clinical & Translational Endocrinology, doi: 10.1016/j.jcte.2017.11.002 eCollection Dec 2017 ). If you just read the headlines, you would conclude the study was just about the effect of supplementation on the risk of developing diabetes. However, when you read the publication, you realized the study involves a lot more than supplementation.

The study was conducted by a non-profit wellness organization called Pure North S’Energy Foundation located in Calgary, Canada. They enrolled 188 middle-aged adults (ages 25-54 years) in the studies. Based on BMI measurements the participants were overweight, but not obese. They were followed for a two-year period.

Each of the participants met regularly with a health care professional who provided them with lifestyle advice. Specifically:

They were advised to increase fruit and vegetable intake and reduce processed foods.
If they had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension or hyperlipidemia, they were advised to go on the DASH diet.
They were advised to follow an exercise routine that was appropriate for their health status.

In addition, the subjects were divided into two groups:

Group 1 received a liquid vitamin D3 supplement consisting of 1,000 IU of vitamin D/drop. The dosage they received was individualized so that each subject received enough vitamin D to bring their blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D to an optimal level of >100 nmole/L.
Group 2 received the vitamin D plus 600 mg of EPA and EPA, plus a very comprehensive multivitamin. In addition to the nutrients found in most multivitamins, their formulation contained carotenoids such as lutein and lycopene, polyphenols from wine grapes, N-acetyl cysteine, coenzyme Q10 and a host of other phytonutrients.

[Note: This supplement is not commercially available. However, I would not recommend it if it were. There appears to be little scientific rationale for the amounts of some ingredients.]

In short, all the subjects were put on a holistic diet and lifestyle program ( a holistic approach to diabetes ). Groupe 2 also received what I would consider a holistic supplement. Here were the results of the study.

Neither group had significant weight loss or weight gain.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased significantly in both groups (the vitamin D supplementation was effective).
HbA1c levels (a measure of blood sugar control) worsened slightly in Group 1 and improved slightly in Group 2.

However, those were average values. Individual subjects had much more significant changes in HbA1c. In fact, based on changes in HbA1c levels:

16% of Group 1 participants and only 8% of Group 2 participants progressed from normal blood sugar control to either prediabetes or diabetes.
8% of Group1 participants and 44% of Group 2 participants improved from prediabetes or diabetes to normal blood sugar control.

The authors of the study concluded: “The results suggest that nutrient supplementation may provide a safe, economical, and effective means for lowering diabetes risk. Further examination of this potential via randomized controlled trials is warranted.”

The Role of Supplementation In Reducing Diabetes Risk

This is a single study and needs to be confirmed by future studies. However, if this study is confirmed, it has some interesting implications:

It suggests a holistic approach to supplementation may be effective at decreasing diabetes risk.
The holistic approach to supplementation was coupled with a holistic diet and lifestyle change in this study. We cannot assume that supplementation alone would have been effective in reducing diabetes risk.
Since both Groups 1 and Group 2 included diet and lifestyle changes, we can conclude that the holistic diet and lifestyle changes in this study were not sufficient to reduce diabetes risk. Holistic supplementation was also required.
The reason that diet and lifestyle changes did not affect diabetes risk in this study was most likely the failure to include a weight loss component. Multiple studies have shown that weight loss reduces diabetes risk.

The Bottom Line:

A recent study looked at the effect of a holistic diet, lifestyle and supplementation intervention on diabetes risk.

All participants in the study met regularly with a health care professional who provided them with lifestyle advice. Specifically:

They were advised to increase fruit and vegetable intake and reduce processed foods.
If they had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension or hyperlipidemia, they were advised to go on the DASH diet.
They were advised to follow an exercise routine that was appropriate for their health status.

The subjects were divided into two groups:

Group 1 received a liquid vitamin D3 supplement consisting of 1,000 IU of vitamin D.
Group 2 received the vitamin D plus 600 mg of EPA and EPA, plus a very comprehensive multivitamin containing carotenoids such as lutein and lycopene, polyphenols from wine grapes, N-acetyl cysteine, coenzyme Q10 and a host of other phytonutrients.

Over a two-year period:

16% of Group 1 participants and only 8% of Group 2 progressed from normal blood sugar control to either prediabetes or diabetes.
8% of Group1 participants and 44% of Group 2 participants improved from prediabetes or diabetes to normal blood sugar control.

This is a single study and needs to be confirmed by future studies. However, if this study is confirmed, it has some interesting implications:

It suggests a holistic approach to supplementation may be effective at decreasing diabetes risk.
The holistic approach to supplementation was coupled with a holistic diet and lifestyle change in this study. We cannot assume that supplementation alone would have been effective in reducing diabetes risk.
Since both Groups 1 and Group 2 included diet and lifestyle changes, we know that the holistic diet and lifestyle changes in this study were not sufficient to reduce diabetes risk. Holistic supplementation was also required.
The reason that diet and lifestyle change did not affect diabetes risk was most likely the failure to include a weight loss component. Multiple studies have shown that weight loss reduces diabetes risk.

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.