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

Diet and Chronic Disease: Type 2 Diabetes and Heart Disease

January 30, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can You Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease And Diabetes In Half?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It is no secret that heart disease and diabetes are among the top two causes of death in this country. They are killers. Even worse, they can affect your quality of life for years before they kill you. Finally, they are bankrupting our health care system. Anything we can do to reduce the toll of these diseases would be of great benefit.

Is there a connection between diet and chronic disease, specifically type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart disease?

That is why recent headlines suggesting that deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes could be cut almost in half simply by changing our diet caught my attention. Of course, those headlines came as no surprise. It almost seems like the American diet is designed to make us fat and unhealthy. It seems designed to make us die prematurely from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

How Was The Study Done?

This was a major study (R. Micha et al, JAMA, 317: 912-924, 2017 ). They started by using something called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is a major survey conducted approximately every 10 years by the US government to collect data on demographics, disease, and diet from a cross section of the US population. They used this database to determine how frequently Americans consumed various heart-healthy and heart-unhealthy foods. They collected data from two surveys conducted in 1999-2002 and 2009-2012 to determine how consumption of those foods had changed over that 10-year period.

The heart-healthy foods they included in their study were fruits, vegetables, nuts & seeds, whole grains, and seafood omega-3s (long chain omega-3s).
The heart-unhealthy foods they included in their study were red meats, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sodium.

They then did a meta-analysis of high quality clinical studies measuring the effects of those foods on deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. They combined the data from all these studies to calculate the deaths due to all three causes combined, something they called deaths due to cardiometabolic disease.

Diet and Chronic Disease, Preventing Type 2 Diabetes and Heart Disease

When the investigators combined all the data, they estimated that changing one’s diet from heart-unhealthy foods to heart-healthy foods would reduce cardiometabolic deaths (deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes) by 45.4%. That is an almost 50% reduction just by eating a healthier diet.

This probably underestimates the benefit of eating a healthier diet because they did not include the effects of reducing saturated fats, sweets, and refined carbohydrates on cardiometabolic deaths.
The reduction in cardiometabolic deaths was consistent across all demographic groups. It ranged from 40% to 60% when they considered gender, age, or ethnicity.
The 45.4% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths represents a holistic change to a healthier diet. When you consider the individual components of the standard American diet:
Decreasing sodium intake gives a 9.5% reduction in deaths.
Increasing intake of nuts and seeds gives an 8.5% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Decreasing intake of processed meats gives an 8.2% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Increasing intake of vegetables gives a 7.6% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Increasing intake of fruits gives a 7.5% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Decreasing intake of sugar-sweetened beverages gives a 7.4% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Increasing intake of whole grains gives a 5.9% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
Decreasing red meat consumption gives a 4.2% decease in diabetes deaths. They did not include the effect of red meat consumption on heart disease or stroke deaths in their calculation.

Holistic changes are best: It would be easy to look at each of those individual changes and conclude that the change is so small that it isn’t worth the effort. That would be totally missing the point. These data clearly show a relationship between diet and chronic disease:

A holistic change in diet that includes all these individual changes can make a huge difference in your risk of dying from heart disease, stroke, or diabetes.
Even if you are not prepared to make this many changes at once, each individual change gets you one step closer to a longer, healthier life. In fact, if you make just one or two of these changes you have reduced your risk of dying more than if you were taking a statin drug – and with no side effects.

The good news is that Americans have made some positive changes in their diet between the first and second NHANES survey, and, as a result, cardiometabolic deaths declined by 26.5%. The biggest contributors to this improvement were:

Increased polyunsaturated fat consumption (-20.8%).
Increased nut and seed consumption (-18%).
Decreased sugar sweetened beverage consumption (-14.5%).
This was partially offset by increased processed meat consumption (+14.4%)

The authors concluded: “Dietary factors were estimated to be associated with a substantial proportion of deaths from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. These results should help identify priorities, guide public health planning, and inform strategies to alter dietary habits and improve health.” Below is a summary of the relationship between diet and chronic disease (specifically type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart disease).

The Bottom Line

It almost seems like the American diet is designed to make us fat and unhealthy. It seems designed to make us die prematurely from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. A recent study looked at the effect of a healthier diet on what they called cardiometabolic deaths (deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes). They concluded:

changing one’s diet from heart-unhealthy foods to heart-healthy foods would reduce cardiometabolic deaths by 45.4%. That is an almost 50% reduction just by eating a healthier diet.
This probably underestimates the benefit of eating a healthier diet because they did not include the effects of reducing saturated fats, sugary foods, and refined carbohydrates on cardiometabolic deaths.
The reduction in cardiometabolic deaths was consistent across all demographic groups. It ranged from 40% to 60% when they considered gender, age, or ethnicity.
The 45.4% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths represents a holistic change to a healthier diet. When you consider the individual components of the standard American diet:
- Decreasing sodium intake gives a 9.5% reduction in deaths.
- Increasing intake of nuts and seeds gives an 8.5% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Decreasing intake of processed meats gives an 8.2% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Increasing intake of vegetables gives a 7.6% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Increasing intake of fruits gives a 7.5% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Decreasing intake of sugar-sweetened beverages gives a 7.4% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Increasing intake of whole grains gives a 5.9% reduction in cardiometabolic deaths.
- Decreasing red meat consumption gives a 4.2% reduction in diabetes deaths. They did not include the effect of red meat consumption on heart disease or stroke deaths in their calculation.

It would be easy to look at each of those individual changes and conclude that the change is so small that it isn’t worth the effort. That would be totally missing the point. These data clearly show:

A holistic change in diet that includes all these individual changes can make a huge difference in your risk of dying from heart disease, stroke, or diabetes.
Even if you are not prepared to make this many changes at once, each individual change gets you one step closer to a longer, healthier life. In fact, if you make just one or two of these changes you have reduced your risk of dying more than if you were taking a statin drug – and with no side effects.

The authors concluded: “Dietary factors were estimated to be associated with a substantial proportion of deaths from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. These results should help identify priorities, guide public health planning, and inform strategies to alter dietary habits and improve health.”

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 K And Heart Disease Deaths

January 23, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Vitamin K Reduce Heart Disease Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You are trying to live a heart healthy lifestyle, but it is so confusing. It seems like there are new heart healthy diets, foods, and nutrients each week. How can you possibly keep up?

Some of those “heart healthy” recommendations contradict each other. They can’t all be true. Which should you believe? I will answer that question in my new books “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths.”

Today, however, I am going to add to your confusion by adding another nutrient, vitamin K, to your “heart healthy” list. When it comes to heart health, vitamin K is a neglected nutrient. Most people think it is just needed for blood clotting. It doesn’t have the recognition and glamor of omega-3s, antioxidants, and polyphenols for heart health. However, recent research suggests it may play a crucial role in protecting your heart. So, I will explain how vitamin K and heart disease are related.

Before, I go into today’s study, let me give you some background information on vitamin K metabolism and heart health.

Metabolism 101: Vitamin K and Heart Disease

Vitamin K is a coenzyme for enzymes that add carboxyl groups to proteins. Without going into a lot of boring detail, carboxylated proteins:

Are more water soluble. That makes them more efficient at catalyzing metabolic reactions in our cells.
Chelate calcium. That allows them to catalyze calcium-dependent reactions.

For this discussion there are 3 kinds of calcium-dependent reactions catalyzed by carboxylated proteins that are important to know:

Reactions involved in blood clotting. Hence, vitamin K is essential for blood clotting.
Reactions involved in depositing calcium in our bones. Hence, vitamin K is essential for bone formation.
Reactions involved in removing calcium deposits from soft tissues. Hence, vitamin K is essential for keeping our arteries clear of calcium deposits.

If you think about those last two reactions, vitamin K deficiency is the worst of all possible worlds. Calcium in our bloodstream is less likely to be deposited in our bones and more likely to be deposited in our arteries. Vitamin K deficiency is bad for bone health and bad for heart health.

There is only one other factoid you need to know to understand the study I will discuss below. Because vitamin K is essential for the carboxylation of certain proteins, the uncarboxylated level of those proteins in the bloodstream can be used as an indirect assay for vitamin K deficiency. That is the assay that was used in this study.

How Was The Study Performed?

In this study (I.J. Riphagen et al, Nutrients, 9, 1334; doi: 10.3390/nu9121334, 2017 ) the investigators studied 4275 subjects enrolled in a clinical trial called PREVEND (Prevention of Renal and Vascular End-Stage Disease). The study population was recruited from the city of Groningen in the Netherlands.

In terms of study population characteristics, the average age was 53, the population was 46% male, 94% Caucasian, and 60% of the population already had renal disease at the time of enrollment (The significance of this will be discussed later).

Study participants were followed for 10 years. By then 279 had died, with 74 deaths attributable to heart disease. Here are the results of the study:

30% of the population was vitamin K deficient.
Vitamin K deficiency was close to 50% for the elderly and for subjects with hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease.
Vitamin K deficiency was significantly correlated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

The authors concluded: “Importantly, a low vitamin K status is not only a clinically relevant risk factor for adverse health outcomes, but it may be a modifiable risk factor. Given the availability of vitamin K supplements, vitamin K insufficiency seems an attractive target for preventative intervention. Future prospective clinical trials are needed to investigate whether correction of low vitamin K status can indeed improve health outcomes.”

Pros and Cons of This Study

Cons:

This is an association study. It showed that vitamin K deficiency was associated with cardiovascular mortality, but it didn’t show that vitamin K deficiency caused cardiovascular mortality.
Kidney disease reduces the efficiency of vitamin K-dependent carboxylation of proteins. This study relied on levels of uncarboxylated protein for determining vitamin K status, and 60% of the subjects had kidney disease. The study might have overestimated the prevalence of vitamin K deficiency.
The population of the study were primarily Caucasian from one city in the Netherlands. It is not clear whether these findings would be equally true for other population groups.

Pros:

This study is consistent with previous studies. Several other studies have reported a correlation between vitamin K deficiency and either arterial calcification or heart disease risk. At least one study has shown that vitamin K supplementation can reverse arterial calcification.
The levels of vitamin K deficiency seen in this study are consistent with previous studies that have measured blood levels of vitamin K directly.

Vitamin K1 Versus K2: What Happens Naturally?

There are two forms of vitamin K, vitamin K1 and vitamin K2. Vitamin K1 is used for the blood clotting reactions. Vitamin K2 is used for the reactions involving bone formation and removal of calcium from soft tissues. That has led to a vigorous debate about whether vitamin K1 or K2 supplements are better. I won’t get into that debate, because the data aren’t conclusive yet. However, I will point out that there is a natural relationship between vitamin K1 and K2 that has existed for thousands of years.

Vitamin K1 is the primary dietary form of vitamin K. It is found in heart-healthy foods like green leafy vegetables; cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, Brussels sprouts and cabbage; and other healthy foods like carrots, blueberries, and asparagus. It is converted to vitamin K2 by our intestinal bacteria. Small amounts of vitamin K2 can also be found in less heart-healthy foods like cheeses, egg yolks, butter, chicken liver, and salami.

Simply put, if we eat healthy foods and have healthy gut bacteria, we get vitamin K1 from our diet, and our gut bacteria make all the vitamin K2 we need. This is a system that has worked well for humankind since the dawn of time. It’s only when we start messing up our diet and our gut bacteria that we need to start arguing about whether vitamin K1 or K2 supplements are better. It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

The Bottom Line

A recent study in the Netherlands found that:

30% of the population was vitamin K deficient.
Vitamin K deficiency was close to 50% for the elderly and for subjects with hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease.
Vitamin K deficiency was significantly correlated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

The authors concluded: “…a low vitamin K status is not only a clinically relevant risk factor for adverse health outcomes, but it may be a modifiable risk factor. Given the availability of vitamin K supplements, vitamin K insufficiency seems an attractive target for preventative intervention.”

For more details about vitamin K and heart disease and a brief discussion of vitamin K1 and vitamin K2, 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.

Shermer’s Neck Pain Relief

January 16, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Shermer’s Neck Is An Ultra-Cyclist’s Nightmare

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Shermer’s Neck is a condition where the muscles of the back of your neck become so tight that they lose the ability to hold your head up. It is a condition most frequently associated with ultracycling.

Do you love to cycle? Perhaps you’re an ultracyclist and ride for many hours every week. If you are, you may already know about Shermer’s Neck.

As you are well-aware, an ultracyclist leans forward. This is called the “aerodynamic position.” When you do that, you are slicing through the wind, and you aren’t losing speed when the wind hits your chest. However, you need to hold your head up to see where you are going and maintain that position for several hours. That is what causes Shermer’s Neck.

Shermer’s Neck And The Non-Athlete

You don’t have to be an ultracyclist to suffer from Shermer’s Neck. Do you do anything that has you look up for hours, such as being a house painter? Even something as simple as having your computer screen too high can force you to have your head tilted up for long periods of time while working.

If so, Shermer’s Neck can still affect you, and seriously impact your life. Fortunately, non-athletes don’t usually have as severe a problem as the ultracyclists.

Why Does Looking Up Cause Shermer’s Neck?

Your posterior neck muscles primarily originate at the middle of your back, along your spine. They go up your back and neck, and insert into either your cervical spine, or the bottom of your skull. When these muscles contract, they pull your head back. When the muscles of the posterior neck contract, if you are standing, you’ll be looking at the ceiling. If you’re a cyclist, your posterior neck muscles contract in order for you to look forward.

How To Treat The Muscles That Cause Shermer’s Neck

The primary muscles that cause Shermer’s Neck are:

Trapezius
Splenius Capitis
Splenius Cervicis
Erector Spinae

To treat the muscles that cause a repetitive strain injury in your neck, tilt your head back and pinch the muscle that is right next to your spine.

Next, press the three middle fingers of your opposite hand deeply into the muscle fibers, going from the base of your scalp to as far as you can reach down the center of your back, right alongside your spinal column.

While pressing deeply, slowly lower your chin toward your chest so you are stretching the muscle fibers. Don’t let your hand slide on your neck or you will miss the stretch.

Do both self-treatments on both sides of your neck.

You can find the full treatments for your entire neck and upper back by going to my book, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living . This book has treatments for your entire body, from your head to your feet. YOU are your own Best Therapist! Stop pain quickly and easily with self-treatments you can do anytime, anyplace. Get relief from Shermer’s Neck pain by following the steps above.

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.

Are Curcumin Benefits Bogus?

January 9, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Research Scientists Can Be Fooled

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Are curcumin benefits bogus?

Curcumin is considered the active ingredient of turmeric, which has been used as a traditional medicine on the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years.

I don’t need to tell you that curcumin and turmeric are hot right now. If you read the blogs and Facebook posts, you are led to believe that curcumin and/or turmeric will reduce inflammation; cure cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease; treat erectile disfunction, baldness, and hangovers; and even boost fertility. I haven’t come across any claims they will help you leap tall buildings with a single bound, but maybe I missed that Facebook post.

Where there is smoke, there is bound to be fire. There are dozens of curcumin and turmeric supplements and oils on the market. The companies selling them tell you their claims are based on published scientific studies. But, what if curcumin/turmeric research is bogus? What if the claims are false? What if the products don’t work?

How Supplement Companies Mislead You

Everyone claims that their products are backed by research studies proving they work, but many of those claims ring hollow. In past issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared the many ways in which supplement companies try to mislead you with bogus research claims. For example:

Some claims of “proof” are completely bogus. They are made up.
Some claims are based are what those in the supplement industry call “white papers.” Simply put, those are impressive looking studies appearing on their website or appearing in their ads that have never been peer-reviewed and published. If they have not gone through peer review and been accepted for publication, you have no idea whether they are valid or not.
Some claims are based on what I call “borrowed science.” Simply put, the company is simply quoting research done on ingredients in their product, not research done on their product. They have no evidence that their product works.
Some claims are based on studies published in what I call “advertising journals.” Simply put, an advertising journal does not submit the studies for peer review. If you are willing to pay their fee, they will publish your study. No questions asked! Again, without peer review you have no idea whether the study is valid.

I have advised you to look for studies done by reputable scientists and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In most cases, this is sufficient. But, what if even reputable scientists can be fooled? What if they misinterpreted the experiments they published?

How Research Scientists Can Be Fooled About Curcumin Benefits

It turns out that natural compounds like curcumin are very difficult to work with. They can be deceptive. The claims about the benefits of curcumin and turmeric are a perfect example of how even reputable scientists can be fooled into reporting misleading information. This was highlighted in a recent review, (K.M. Nelson et al, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 60: 1620-1637, 2017 ), of hundreds of scientific papers on curcumin.

Curcumin has recently been categorized by medicinal chemists as a natural compound that fits into both the PAINS and IMPS classifications. Before you say: “What are you talking about,” let me sort that statement out for you. Medicinal chemists specialize in studying the chemical and pharmacological properties of natural compounds and their derivatives. Basically, they start with a natural compound like curcumin and determine whether it might be useful as a drug or a supplement.

PAINS is an acronym for pan-assay interference compounds. In simple terms, this means the compound is a pain to work with (Who says scientists don’t have a sense of humor?) because it interferes with most of the assays used to determine whether it is beneficial or toxic. In the case of curcumin, it binds to proteins, chelates metals, and interferes with fluorescent assays. It causes protein aggregation, membrane disruption, and structural decomposition of cells.

Basically, the authors of the review are saying that most reports of curcumin benefits are based on assays that were inaccurate because the scientist conducting the studies were unaware that curcumin interfered with the assays they were using. They were fooled because they did not fully understand the compound they were working with. They did not know it was a PAINS. Since 2009, at least 15 articles on curcumin have been retracted and dozens have been revised after publication.

The authors said: “While these failures would normally end further research on its use as a therapeutic, they have apparently not deterred researchers [and I would add companies] interested in its development.” Over 100 clinical studies and millions of research dollars have been invested in testing the beneficial effects of curcumin in humans. However, in the words of the authors: ”To our knowledge, curcumin has not been shown to be conclusively effective in a randomized placebo-controlled trial for any indication.”

That has led to its second classification as an IMP (invalid metabolic panacea). Again, you have to love the sense of humor of the scientists who came up with these acronyms.

Are Curcumin Benefits Bogus?

According to this review, you can forget about the curcumin benefits you have been hearing about. It turns out that many of the research studies on which those claims have been based are misleading. The scientists who published the study were ethical. They did their best. They simply did not understand that curcumin was a PAINS to work with (pun intended).

Let me very briefly walk you through what the reviewers said about curcumin research.

In vitro and cell culture experiments produced misleading results because curcumin interferes with the assays used to gauge its biological activity.
Publication of these results led to a deluge of blogs and Facebook posts proclaiming the benefits of curcumin. These were repeated so often people started to believe they must be true. Another nutrition myth was born.
Unscrupulous manufacturers sensed money to be made. Soon a flood of supplements and oils containing curcumin or turmeric hit the market. Manufacturers claimed their products had miraculous benefits based on the published research (much of which was incorrect).
Meanwhile scientists started to meticulously evaluate the probability that curcumin might be a good drug or supplement candidate by looking at its bioavailability and stability. The results of those experiments were not promising.
Less than 1% of curcumin is absorbed into the bloodstream. The rest is excreted into the feces, and there is no evidence that it has any beneficial effects on gut microflora.
Once it enters the bloodstream, it has a half-life of less than 5 minutes.
The breakdown products of curcumin are also unstable and/or have low biological activity.
These results should have been enough to halt further interest in curcumin research. However, by that point the claims for curcumin benefits (based in misleading in vitro experiments) had taken on a life of their own. More than 120 clinical trials of curcumin have been conducted at a cost of over 150 million dollars.
No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful.

The authors concluded: “Unfortunately, no form of curcumin, or its closely related analogs, appears to posses the properties required for a good drug candidate…The in vitro interference properties of curcumin do, however, offer many traps that can trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations. With respect to curcumin/cucuminoids and in vitro studies and clinical trials, we believe there is rather ‘much ado about nothing’.”

The curcumin saga is a cautionary tale. The internet abounds with amazing claims about the benefits of other herbs and spices. Many of the active ingredients of those herbs and spices are also PAINS compounds that interfere with the very biological assays used to assess their benefits. My advice is to take the claims about the miraculous benefits of herbs and spices with “a grain of salt.” In fact, the most beneficial effect of those herbs and spices is probably the salt they replace in the foods you eat.

The Bottom Line

Curcumin and turmeric are “hot” right now. The internet is filled with claims about their amazing benefits. There is a flood of supplements and oils containing curcumin or turmeric on the market.

However, a recent review of curcumin has thrown cold water on its supposed benefits. According to the review:

Most of the benefit claims for curcumin are based on in vitro and cell culture assays. It turns out that curcumin interferes with these assays giving misleading results. In the words of the authors of the review: “The in vitro interference properties of curcumin offer many traps that can trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations.”
Curcumin is a very unlikely candidate for a beneficial drug or supplement because:
- Less than 1% of curcumin is absorbed into the bloodstream. The rest is excreted into the feces, and there is no evidence that it has any beneficial effects on gut microflora.
- Once it enters the bloodstream, it has a half-life of less than 5 minutes.
- The breakdown products of curcumin are also unstable and/or have low biological activity.
Curcumin has not been shown to be conclusively effective in a randomized placebo-controlled trial for any indication.
The reviewers concluded: “With respect to curcumin/cucuminoids and in vitro studies and clinical trials, we believe there is rather ‘much ado about nothing’.”

The curcumin saga is a cautionary tale. The internet abounds with amazing claims about the benefits of other herbs and spices. Many of the active ingredients of those herbs and spices are also compounds that interfere with the very biological assays used to assess their benefits. My advice is to take the claims about the miraculous benefits of herbs and spices with “a grain of salt.” In fact, the most beneficial effect of those herbs and spices is probably the salt they replace in the foods you eat.

For more details about why the “benefit” of curcumin are likely bogus, 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 The Whole 30 Diet Right For You?

January 2, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Rules For Selecting A Healthy Diet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Recently, someone asked my opinion of the Whole 30 Diet. When you look at their web site, the claims are impressive:

Blood sugar swings disappear, energy levels improve, digestive issues and inflammation disappear.
Lose weight without counting calories.
Eliminate a long list of lifestyle-related diseases.

You probably want to know whether these claims are true. I do not have time to evaluate every diet, so let me evaluate the Whole 30 Diet in terms of principles you can use to evaluate any of the diets you will encounter in the new year.

What Is The Whole 30 Diet?

Basically, the Whole 30 Diet is a 30-day elimination diet designed to help you lose weight rapidly and change the way you eat.

The diet allows you to eat “moderate portions of meat, seafood, and eggs; lots of vegetables; some fruit; plenty of natural fats; and herbs, spices, and seasonings.” [You are instructed to] “eat foods with very few ingredients, all pronounceable ingredients, or better yet, no ingredients listed at all because they’re whole and unprocessed.”

Recommended meats are grass-fed beef, organic poultry, and wild-caught fish.
Recommended fats are coconut oil, olive oil, and ghee (clarified butter).

The diet forbids:

Added sugar, real or artificial, in any form.
Alcohol
Grains
Legumes
Dairy
The additives carrageenan, MSG, and sulfite.
Baked foods, junk foods, and treats (sweets).

Although, not explicitly stated, because this diet eliminates sugar, grains, legumes, and baked goods, it is essentially a low carb diet.

This diet prescription is absolute. According to the authors of the diet: “Just a small amount of any of these [forbidden] inflammatory foods could break the healing cycle; promoting cravings, messing with blood sugar, disrupting the integrity of your digestive tract, and (most important) firing up the immune system. One bite of pizza, one spoonful of ice cream, one lick of the spoon mixing the batter within the 30-day period and you’ve broken the “reset” button, requiring you to start over again on Day 1.”

My comment: This statement is not accurate, but I understand why they say it. They are simply trying to get you to adhere strictly to the diet. After all, it is the little “modifications” we make that doom most diets to failure. It’s when we say: “Surely, one ice cream sundae can’t hurt” or “I don’t have time to fix dinner. I’ll just pick up some fried chicken on the way home.”

Finally, the Whole 30 Diet:

Tells you not to count calories and not to step on the scale for 30 days. I consider this a plus. Successful diets should emphasize lifestyle change, not counting calories.
Says nothing about exercise. This is a glaring omission.

Does The Whole 30 Diet Uphold The Rules For Selecting A Healthy Diet

Here are my rules for evaluating healthy diets:

First, let’s look at the initial (short-term) weight loss:

Any diet that eliminates sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets will make you healthier and will help you lose weight. This is a big plus for the Whole 30 Diet.
Any diet that emphasizes whole foods over processed foods is likely to help you lose weight. This is also a plus for the Whole 30 Diet.
Both low carb and low-fat diets can help you lose weight. Let me be clear. I am talking about plant-based low-fat diets, not low-fat diets with a lot of sugars and simple carbohydrates. Low carb diets also result in water loss. This is also a plus for the Whole 30 Diet.
Diets that eliminate whole food groups tend to result in short-term weight loss. That’s because they eliminate some of your favorite foods, and it generally takes you a while to adjust. Since the Whole 30 Diet is focusing on the first 30 days, this is also likely to be a plus for the Whole 30 Diet.
Exercise is an essential component of healthy weight loss diets. The lack of a defined exercise component is a minus for the Whole 30 Diet.
On balance, the Whole 30 Diet is likely to be effective for short-term weight loss. However, this is true for most popular diets because they also eliminate sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets. I have heard of the “Meat Lovers Diet” (which I don’t recommend), but I have never heard of a “Junk Food Lovers Diet.” Many of the popular diets also favor whole foods and eliminate multiple food groups.
The main difference between the Whole 30 Diet and other popular diets is their absolute prohibition of any deviation from their diet plan. This makes the diet harder to follow, but it increases the probability of weight loss for those who do follow the plan.
Weight loss improves blood sugar control, energy levels, and inflammation. Thus, those claims are likely to be true, but not entirely for the reasons the diet proponents claim. The diet’s effect on digestive issues are likely to vary from one individual to another. However, if you have digestive issues to begin with, you probably have a problem with one or more of the foods you are currently eating. The elimination of multiple foods from your diet may help.
Weight loss can also reduce the severity of diabetes and other lifestyle diseases. This claim may also be true, but not for the reasons the diet proponents claim.

Next let’s look at long term weight loss. Here the Whole 30 Diet doesn’t look as promising. The Whole 30 Diet has only been around since 2009, so we have no long-term data comparing weight maintenance with other diets. However, here is what we do know.

Consumption of sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets is associated with weight gain. Elimination of these foods is a plus for the Whole 30 Diet.
The emphasis on whole foods rather than processed foods is also a plus because it is teaching healthier eating habits that are compatible with long-term weight maintenance. In contrast, I do not recommend most diets offering pre-packaged foods. If you are eating low calorie pizzas and brownies, you aren’t learning healthy eating habits.
However, plant-based diets are better at preventing weight gain long-term than meat-based diets. As I pointed out in a recent article in “Health Tips From the Professor”, vegans and people who consume primarily vegetarian diets weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts. The reliance on meats rather than legumes and other plant foods as the predominant protein source is a minus for the Whole 30 Diet.
A recent study showed that people consuming a meat-based low carb diet gained just as much weight over a 20-year period as people consuming a low-fat diet with lots of sugar and refined carbs. In contrast, people consuming a plant-based low carb diet gained significantly less weight over the same 20-year period. Again, this is a minus for the Whole 30 Diet.

Finally, let’s look at long term health. The information on the Whole 30 Diet’s web site does not make it clear what kind of diet they are recommending once you have completed your 30 days. However, if they are recommending a similar diet long-term, there are no long-term data showing it is healthy. The data we do have on that type of diet is mixed.

Consumption of sodas, junk foods, and fast foods is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. Thus, elimination of these foods is a plus for the Whole 30 Diet, as is the reliance on whole, unprocessed foods.
However, multiple studies have shown that primarily plant-based diets are associated with significantly lower long-term risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other lifestyle diseases than meat-based diets. I have covered these studies in several recent issues of “Health Tips From the Professor.” This is a minus for the Whole 30 Diet.
Diets that eliminate whole food groups are likely to result in nutritional deficiencies. For example, the Whole 30 Diet is similar to the paleo diet, and a recent study showed the paleo diet results in multiple nutritional deficiencies. This is also likely to be a minus for the Whole 30 Diet.

Other Comments:

All added sugar is not bad for you. I agree that added sugar in sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets should be avoided. However, for other foods the glycemic index is more important than whether the food contains added sugar. I covered this topic in detail in a recent article called “Is It The Sugar, Or Is It the Food?”
Red meat is considered a probable carcinogen. There is no evidence that grass-fed beef is any healthier with respect to cancer risk than conventionally raised meat. I covered this in detail in my recent article on the paleo diet.
Olive oil has been shown to be healthy in multiple studies. However, both coconut oil and ghee contain ~50% long-chain saturated fats and are problematic. I have covered this in detail in a previous article on coconut oil.
Whole grains and legumes are included in most anti-inflammation diets. Their exclusion from the Whole 30 Diet cannot be justified on the basis of inflammation.
I would be far more concerned about additives like artificial colors, flavors and preservatives than I would be about carrageenan, MSG, and sulfite. I have covered carrageenan in one recent article and MSG in a second article.

Is The Whole 30 Diet Right For You?

In summary, there is a lot to like about the Whole 30 Diet:

It eliminates sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets.
It focuses on whole foods rather than processed foods.
If followed exactly as described for 30 days, it is likely to result in successful short-term weight loss.
The weight loss is likely to be associated with health benefits.
However, these statements are equally true for most popular diets.

The web site for the Whole 30 Diet does not indicate what diet is recommended at the end of the 30-day period. However, if the Whole 30 Diet is continued, it is not clear whether it would be ideal for weight maintenance and health long-term.

The elimination of sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and the reliance on whole foods is a positive.
It’s reliance on meat rather than legumes and other plant protein sources is a negative.
It’s elimination of multiple food groups is likely to lead to nutritional deficiencies.

The Bottom Line

If you are primarily interested in an evaluation of the Whole 30 Diet, here is a summary:

There is a lot to like about the Whole 30 Diet:

It eliminates sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and sweets.
It focuses on whole foods rather than processed foods.
If followed exactly as described for 30 days, it is likely to result in successful short-term weight loss.
The weight loss is likely to be associated with health benefits.
However, these statements are equally true for most popular diets.

The web site for the Whole 30 Diet does not indicate what diet is recommended at the end of the 30-day period. However, if the Whole 30 Diet is continued, it is not at all clear whether it is ideal for weight maintenance and health long-term.

The elimination of sodas, junk foods, fast foods, and the reliance on whole foods is a positive.
It’s reliance on meat rather than legumes and other plant protein sources is a negative.
It’s elimination of multiple food groups is likely to lead to nutritional deficiencies.

If you would like to know the principles used to reach these conclusions (principles you can use to evaluate any diet), 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.

Choosing the Best Weight Loss Diet

December 26, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Calories Rule

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Choosing a weight loss diet?

Next week you’ll be making your annual New Year’s resolution that this will be the year that you finally lose those extra pounds and keep them off!

The good news is that you will have lots of choices for losing that weight. The bad news is that most of those choices are bogus!

You see each diet book and Internet marketer will have a “magic formula.”

Sometimes it will be a “magic” diet composition – low fat diets, low carb diets, high protein diets – or don’t eat protein and carbohydrates together.
Sometimes it will be a “magic” food – grapefruit, cabbage soup, acai berries or chocolate.
Sometimes it will be a villainous food or food group to avoid – sugar, grains, or dairy.

All these diets are hyped with a lot of scientific sounding mumbo jumbo and many of them have short term studies that seem to show that they work. But whenever well designed scientific studies have been performed that compare these diets at equal calorie levels and look at weight loss over two years or more, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between them.

With Weight Loss Diets, Calories Rule

Despite all the hype that you will hear, weight loss is dependent on the difference between calories in and calories out.

Don’t misunderstand me, I recognize that the calorie equation is not identical for everyone. For example, in a recent issue, “Does Genetics Determine Weight,” of “Health Tips From The Professor” I talked about a study that put all of the subjects in a metabolic ward where every aspect of calorie intake and calorie expenditure were controlled. They then restricted calories by the same percent for everyone for 6 weeks. The subjects with “thrifty genes” lost 5% of their body weight. Subjects with “spendthrift genes” lost 12% of their body weight.

The good news is that everyone lost weight. Calories rule!
The bad news is that some people lost weight more slowly than others. Life isn’t fair.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t live in a metabolic ward. We have trouble keeping track of the calories we eat and overestimate the calories we burn. That’s why fad diets are so popular. They promise you won’t have to track calories. You don’t have to watch what you eat. You won’t need to exercise. All you need to do is eat the foods they tell you are OK and avoid the foods they tell you are bad. This is not how to choose a weight loss diet.

I have a news bulletin: There is no “magic diet formula,” no “magic diet composition” and no “magic diet food.” Did you really think that someone had repealed the laws of thermodynamics?

Once you understand and accept that the difference between calories in and calories out is the most important determinant of successful weight loss, you can start to understand the key principles of successful weight loss.

Choosing The Best Weight Loss Diet

Here is a quick guide to choosing the best diet:

Principle #1: The diet doesn’t have to be weird to be successful.

In fact, the diet is most likely to succeed if it includes foods that are familiar to you.

If you’re a “meat and potatoes” guy, a vegetarian diet is not likely to be successful for you (Some of my friends refer to that kind of diet as “rabbit food”). If you are a vegetarian, a meat-based low-carb diet is not likely to be appealing.

More importantly, we are all different. Some of us will lose weight successfully on one diet. Other people will be more successful on a different diet. That means that the diet that worked so well for your friend might not work at all for you. You will need to experiment a bit to find the best diet for you.

And, before you ask me, your body type or blood type has absolutely nothing to do with which diet is going to work best for you.

Of course, you will need to make some changes to your diet. You will want to drop unhealthy foods from your diet and include some foods that are new to you. The first foods to go should be sodas (both sugar-sweetened and diet), junk foods, and fast foods. In their place add water or herbal tea, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. That change alone can be worth at least 2-5 pounds in your first month.

You will want to think about what you are eating and make conscious choices about which foods are helping you fulfill your goals of losing weight and which are not.

Principle #2: The diet should be one that is healthy in the long run.

I’m particularly talking about the popular high fat, low carbohydrate diets here. It is clear diets high in meat and fat – particularly saturated and trans fats – are associated with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and inflammatory diseases.

Plus, high fat diets just don’t work well for long term weight control. Fat has more calories than carbohydrate. This is not rocket science!

Just in case you don’t believe me, you just need to consult the National Weight Control Registry. The National Weight Control Registry was established in 1994 and has tracked the weight loss strategies of over 5000 people who have been successful at keeping their weight off long term.

While those people lost weight using every diet in the books, the vast majority of them who were successful at keeping their weight off long term followed a low calorie, low-fat diet to maintain their weight loss. Of course, I am not referring to a low-fat that contains a lot of sugar and refined carbohydrates. That kind of diet is part of the problem. I am referring to a plant-based low-fat diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains.

Principle #3. Don’t forget the other part of the calorie equation. That’s right, I’m talking about exercise.

While you burn some calories every time you exercise, the real value of exercise is that it increases lean muscle mass – and lean muscle mass burns more calories than fat.

Again, if you consult the National Weight Control Registry, you will find that virtually everyone who has been successful at keeping the weight off exercises on an almost daily basis.

Helpful hint: The handy exercise monitors on your Fit Bit, smart phone, and exercise machines overestimate energy expenditure by as much as 50%. Decrease those numbers accordingly when you are estimating your calorie balance for the day.

Principle #4: Don’t start if you don’t intend to finish. Once again, the National Weight Control Registry puts that in perfect perspective.

Almost everyone who was successful at keeping the weight off long term had stopped thinking of it as a diet. It had become a way of life. It was how they ate. It was the exercise that they liked to do on a daily basis. It no longer required any conscious effort. It no longer required any will power.

This is perhaps the most important weight control principle of all:

When you make your resolutions this New Year, don’t make a resolution to change your weight. Make a resolution to change your life.

The Bottom Line

Forget the hype. There is no “magic diet formula”, no “magic diet composition” and no “magic diet food.” While the calorie equation is different for each of us (see article above for details), weight loss always requires that calories out be greater than calories in. Calories rule!

Here are four simple principles to keep in mind when selecting the best diet to lose weight next year.

#1: The diet doesn’t have to be weird to be successful.

#2: The diet should be one that is healthy in the long run.

#3: Don’t forget the other part of the calorie equation, i.e. exercise.

#4: Don’t start if you don’t intend to finish.

For more details, read the article above.

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

Do You Need Supplements?

December 12, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Supplements As Part of a Holistic Lifestyle

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Do you need supplements?

The headlines about supplementation are so confusing. Are they useful, or are they a waste of money? Will they cure you, or will they kill you? I feel your pain.

I will answer these questions in depth in my upcoming book, but let me give you a quick overview today. I call it: “Do You Need Supplements?” I created the graphic on the left to illustrate why I feel responsible supplementation is important for most Americans. Let me give you specific examples for each of these categories.

Examples of Poor Diet

Do you need supplements if you have a poor diet? You have heard the saying that supplementation fills in the nutritional gaps in our diets. So what are the nutritional gaps? According to the USDA’s 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, many Americans are consuming too much fast and convenience foods. Consequently, we are getting inadequate amounts of calcium, magnesium, and vitamins A, D, E and C. Iron is also considered a nutrient of concern for young children and pregnant women. According to a recent study, regular use of a multivitamin is sufficient to eliminate all these deficiencies except for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D (J.B. Blumberg et al, Nutrients, 9(8): doi: 10.3390/nu9080849, 2017 ). A well-designed calcium, magnesium and vitamin D supplement may be needed to eliminate those deficiencies.

In addition, intake of omega-3 fatty acids from foods appears to be inadequate in this country. Recent studies have found that American’s blood levels of omega-3s are among the lowest in the world and only half of the recommended level for reducing the risk of heart disease (K.D. Stark et al, Progress In Lipid Research, 63: 132-152, 2016 ;S.V. Thuppal et al, Nutrients, 9, 930: doi: 10.3390/nu9090930, 2017 ). Therefore, omega-3 supplementation is often a good idea.

In previous editions of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have talked about our “mighty microbiome”, the bacteria and other microorganisms in our intestine. These intestinal bacteria can affect our tendency to gain weight, our immune system, inflammatory diseases, chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart diseases, our mood—the list goes on and on. This is an emerging science. We are learning more every day, but for now it appears our best chances for creating a health-enhancing microbiome are to consume a primarily plant-based diet and take a probiotic supplement.

Finally, diets that eliminate whole food groups create nutritional deficiencies. For example, vegan diets increase the risk of deficiencies in vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, zinc and long chain omega-3 fatty acids. A recent study reported that the Paleo diet increased the risk of calcium, magnesium, iodine, thiamin, riboflavin, folate and vitamin D deficiency (A. Genomi et al, Nutrients, 8, 314; doi: 10.3390/nu8050314, 2016. The Keto diet is even more restrictive and is likely to create additional deficiencies.

Examples of Increased Need

Do you need supplements if you have an increased need? We have known for years that pregnancy and lactation increase nutritional requirements. In addition, seniors have increased needs for protein, calcium, vitamin D and vitamin B12. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have also shared recent studies showing that protein requirements are increased with exercise.

Common medications also increase our need for specific nutrients. For example, seizure medications can increase your need for vitamin D and calcium. Drugs to treat diabetes and acid reflux can increase your need for vitamin B12. Other drugs increase your need for vitamin B6, folic acid, and vitamin K. Excess alcohol consumption increases your need for thiamin, folic acid, and vitamin B6. These are just a few examples.

Vitamin D is a special case. Many people with apparently adequate intake of vitamin D have low blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. It is a good idea to have your blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels measured on an annual basis and supplement with vitamin D if they are low.

More worrisome is the fact that we live in an increasing polluted world and some of these pollutants may increase our needs for certain nutrients. For example, in a recent edition of “Health Tips From the Professor” I shared a study reporting that exposure to pesticides during pregnancy increases the risk of giving birth to children who will develop autism, and that supplementation with folic acid during pregnancy reduces the effect of pesticides on autism risk. I do wish to acknowledge that this is a developing area of research. This and similar studies require confirmation. It is, however, a reminder that there may be factors beyond our control that have the potential to increase our nutritional needs.

Examples of Genetics Influencing Nutritional Needs

Do you need supplements if your genetics call for specific nutritional needs? The effect of genetic variation on nutritional needs is known as nutrigenomics. One of the best-known examples of nutrigenomics is genetic variation in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene. MTHFR gene mutations increase the risk of certain birth defects, such as neural tube defects. MTHFR mutations also slightly increase the requirement for folic acid. A combination of food fortification and supplementation with folic acid have substantially decreased the prevalence of neural tube defects in the US population. This is one of the great success stories of nutrigenomics. Parenthetically, there is no evidence that methylfolate decreases the risk of neural tube defects.

Let me give you a couple of additional examples:

One of them has to do with vitamin E and heart disease (A.P. Levy et al, Diabetes Care, 27: 2767, 2004 ). Like a lot of other studies, there was no significant effect of vitamin E on cardiovascular risk in the general population. But there is a genetic variation in the haptoglobin gene that influences cardiovascular risk. The haptoglobin 2-2 genotype increases oxidative damage to the arterial wall, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. When the authors of this study looked at the effect of vitamin E in people with this genotype, they found that it significantly decreased heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths.

This has been confirmed by a second study specifically designed to look at vitamin E supplementation in that population group (F. Micheletta et al, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, 24: 136, 2008 ). This is an example of a high-risk group benefiting from supplementation, but in this case the high risk is based on genetic variation.

Let’s look at soy and heart disease as a final example. There was a study called the ISOHEART study (W.L. Hall et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82: 1260-1268, 2005 ; W.L. Hall et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83: 592-600, 2006 ) that looked at a genetic variation in the estrogen receptor which increases inflammation and decreases levels of HDL. As you might expect, this genotype significantly increases cardiovascular risk.

Soy isoflavones significantly decrease inflammation and increase HDL levels in this population group. But they have no effect on inflammation or HDL levels in people with other genotypes affecting the estrogen reception. So, it turns out that soy has beneficial effects, but only in the population that’s at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease, and that increased risk is based on genetic variation.

These examples are just the “tip of the iceberg.” Nutrigenomics is an emerging science. New examples of genetic variations that affect the need for specific nutrients are being reported on a regular basis. We are not ready to start genotyping people yet. We don’t yet know enough to design a simple genetic test to predict our unique nutritional needs. That science is 10-20 years in the future, but this is something that’s coming down the road.

What the current studies tell us is that some people are high-risk because of their genetic makeup, and these are people for whom supplementation is going to make a significant difference. However, because genetic testing is not yet routine, most people are completely unaware that they might be at increased risk of disease or have increased nutritional requirements because of their genetic makeup.

Examples of Disease Influencing Nutritional Needs

Finally, let’s consider the effect of disease on our nutritional needs. Do you need supplements because of disease? If you look at the popular literature, much has been written about the effect of stress on our nutritional needs. In most cases, the authors are referring to psychological stress. In fact, psychological stress has relatively minor effects on our nutritional needs.

Metabolic stress, on the other hand, has major effects on our nutritional needs. Metabolic stress occurs when our body is struggling to overcome disease, recover from surgery, or recover from trauma. When your body is under metabolic stress, it is important to make sure your nutritional status is optimal.

The effects of surgery and trauma on nutritional needs are well documented. In my upcoming book, I will discuss the effects of disease on nutritional needs in some detail. Let me give you a brief overview here. It is very difficult to show beneficial effects of supplementation in a healthy population (primary prevention). However, when you look at populations that already have a disease, or are at high risk for disease, (secondary prevention), the benefits of supplementation are often evident.

For example, studies suggest that vitamin E, B vitamins, and omega-3s each may reduce heart disease risk, but only in high-risk populations. Similarly, B vitamins (folic acid, B6 and B12) appear to reduce breast cancer risk in high risk populations.

Do You Need Supplements?

With this information in mind, let’s return to the question: Do you need supplements? Here is my perspective.

The need for supplementation is greatest when these circles overlap, as they do for most Americans.
The problem is that while most of us are aware that our diets are not what they should be, we are unaware of our increased needs and/or genetic predisposition. We are also often unaware that we are at high risk of disease. For too many Americans the first indication they have heart disease is sudden death, the first indication of high blood pressure is a stroke, or the first indication of cancer is a diagnosis of stage 3 or 4 cancer.

So, let’s step back and view the whole picture. The overlapping circles are drawn that way to make a point. A poor diet doesn’t necessarily mean you have to supplement. However, when a poor diet overlaps with increased need, genetic predisposition, disease, or metabolic stress, supplementation is likely to be beneficial. The more overlapping circles you have, the greater the likely benefit you will derive from supplementation.

That is why I feel supplementation should be included along with diet, exercise, and weight control as part of a holistic approach to better health.

So, do you need supplements?

The Bottom Line

In this article I provide a perspective on who needs supplementation and why. There are four reasons to supplement.

Fill nutritional gaps in our diet
Meet increased nutritional needs due to pregnancy, lactation, age, exercise, many common medications, and environmental pollutants.
Compensate for genetic variations that affect nutritional needs.
Overcome needs imposed by metabolic stress due to trauma, surgery, or disease.

With this information in mind, let’s return to the question: “Do you need supplements? Here is my perspective.

A poor diet alone doesn’t necessarily mean you have to supplement. However, when a poor diet overlaps with increased need, genetic predisposition, or metabolic stress, supplementation is likely to be beneficial. The more overlap you have, the greater the likely benefit you will derive from supplementation.
The problem is that while most of us are aware that our diets are not what they should be, we are unaware of our increased needs and/or genetic predisposition. We are also often unaware that we are at high risk of disease. For too many Americans the first indication they have heart disease is sudden death, the first indication of high blood pressure is a stroke, or the first indication of cancer is a diagnosis of stage 3 or 4 cancer.

For more details, read the article above.

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

Do B Vitamins Cause Lung Cancer In Men

December 5, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do B Vitamins Cause Lung Cancer In Men?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Last week one of my readers contacted me and asked me to comment on an article in The Atlantic titled: “Vitamin B6 and B12 Supplements Appear to Cause Cancer in Men”. I did what any good scientist would do. I read the original study (T.M. Brasky et al, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 35: 3440-3448, 2017 ) and analyzed the data, so I could provide you with the truth behind the headlines. Continue reading to find the answer to “Do B vitamins cause lung cancer in men?”

I will give you my analysis in a minute. First, let me use the internet chatter about this study as a perfect example of how nutrition myths are born.

How Did Journalists Interpret The Clinical Study?

Journalists are not trained scientists. They seldom read the whole article. They rely on the abstract of the article and interpret it through their “filter” of reality. The author of The Atlantic article did a reasonably good job of reporting the information in the abstract. However, news articles need to be spectacular to attract readers, so the information was presented selectively.

The author was clearly trying to grab your attention by hyping the risk. For example, in page one of his article, he makes the claim that “taking vitamin B6 and B12 supplements in high doses (like those sold in many stores) appears to triple or almost quadruple some people’s risk of lung cancer.” That is enough to get your attention!

If you read to page 4 of his article, you discover that the 3-4-fold increase in risk only applies to smokers. If you read to page 5, you discover that this only applies to people taking 20 times the RDA of B6 or B12 from individual supplements.

However, in today’s world many readers have the attention span of gnats. They will read the headline and perhaps the first couple of paragraphs. Most readers of The Atlantic article will conclude that supplementation with B6 and B12 causes a 3-4-fold increase in lung cancer in men. A nutrition myth will be born!

The headlines were similar from other news sources: CNN led with “High Doses of Vitamin B Supplements Tied to Lung Cancer, Study Says”. Huffington Post said: “Men: Taking Vitamin B6 and B12 Could Increase Your Risk of Lung Cancer.” USA Today said: “Risk of Lung Cancer Increases with Vitamin B, Study Says.”

In all fairness, the articles themselves offered a more balanced interpretation of the study, but many people do not read beyond the headlines. The headlines alerted people to the potential of B6 and B12 supplementation to increase the risk of lung cancer, but readers may miss the fact that this risk is only seen in men, only associated with mega-doses of individual vitamins, and only seen in smokers.

How Will Bloggers Interpret The Clinical Study?

It is only a matter of time before the same headlines start appearing in your favorite nutrition blogs. Many bloggers like to create sensational headlines and hype the results of clinical studies. They don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Of course, once the claim that vitamins B6 and B12 increase the risk of lung cancer gets repeated often enough on the internet, people will start to believe it must be true. The food myth will become firmly established.

How Will The Medical Community Interpret The Clinical Study?

The medical community usually filters studies like this through a belief system that supplements do more harm than good. They tend to ignore dozens of studies showing the benefits of supplementation and focus on the one of two suggesting they might cause harm. I predict that doctors may start advising their male patients to avoid supplements with vitamins B6 and B12. I also suspect many doctors may start measuring your blood levels of B6 and B12 and warning you to cut back if they are above average.

How Does A Scientist Interpret The Clinical Study?

Do B vitamins cause lung cancer in men? For a scientifically accurate evaluation of a study like this, one needs to read the study carefully, analyze the data, and evaluate the statistics. Let me walk you through stepwise what I found when I did that.

The increased lung cancer risk was only seen in men, not in women. That would be the expected result for prostate cancer, but it is a bit unexpected for lung cancer. There is no apparent mechanism for explaining this effect.
There was no effect of folic acid on lung cancer risk.
Vitamins B6 and B12 were associated with a 30-40% increased risk of lung cancer in men. However, that statistic is misleading because:
- The increased risk of lung cancer was only seen when B6 or B12 were taken as individual supplements. There was no increased risk when B6 and B12 were in a multivitamin where all the B vitamins are in balance.
- The increased risk of lung cancer was only seen when B6 or B12 were taken as mega-doses greater than 20 times the RDA. There was no increased risk of lung cancer for doses of B6 or B12 that were less than 20 times the RDA.
Mega-doses (>20 times the RDA) of vitamins B6 or B12 were associated with a 2-fold increased risk of lung cancer in men. However, that statistic is misleading because:
- The increased risk of lung cancer in men taking mega-doses of B6 or B12 was only seen in smokers. In the words of the authors: “There were too few [lung cancer] patients among never smokers to evaluate associations [between B vitamins and lung cancer].”

Do B Vitamins Cause Lung Cancer In Men?

Much of what you read on the internet about this study is misleading. For example:

The claim that vitamins B6 and B12 increase lung cancer in men by 30% was entirely driven by men who were taking >20 times the RDA of B6 or B12 as individual supplements. The risk was zero for anyone taking lower doses B6 and B12.
The claim that mega-doses of B6 or B12 increase lung cancer risk in men by 2-fold was entirely driven by male smokers. The risk was zero for non-smokers, even non-smokers taking mega-doses of B6 or B12.
The only unambiguous conclusion from this study is that male smokers who take >20 times the RDA of either B6 or B12 as individual supplements have a 3-4-fold increased risk of lung cancer.

So, do B vitamins cause lung cancer in men?

What Does This Mean For You?

The take home lessons from this study are clear.

It is almost never a good idea to take mega-doses of individual vitamin and mineral supplements. The only exception is when they are prescribed for a specific medical condition by your health professional and that health professional is monitoring you for potential toxicity.
If you smoke, mega-doses of vitamins won’t protect you, and they may harm you. The best advice is to stop smoking.

Those are the scientifically based recommendations from the study. However, you are more likely to hear recommendations that you shouldn’t take B vitamins if you are a man. After all, nutrition myths don’t need to be based on science.

The Bottom Line

The internet is ablaze with claims that a recent study shows the vitamins B6 and B12 increase the risk of lung cancer in men. These claims are misleading because:

The claim that vitamins B6 and B12 increase lung cancer in men by 30% was entirely driven by men who were taking >20 times the RDA of B6 or B12 as individual supplements. The risk was zero for anyone taking lower doses B6 and B12.
The claim that mega-doses of B6 or B12 increase lung cancer risk in men by 2-fold was entirely driven by male smokers. The risk was zero for non-smokers, even non-smokers taking mega-doses of B6 or B12.
The only unambiguous conclusion from this study is that male smokers who take >20 times the RDA of either B6 or B12 as individual supplements have a 3-4-fold increased risk of lung cancer.

The take home lessons from this study are clear.

It is almost never a good idea to take mega-doses of individual vitamin and mineral supplements. The only exception is when they are prescribed for a specific medical condition by your health professional and that health professional is monitoring you for potential toxicity.
If you smoke, mega-doses of vitamins won’t protect you, and they may harm you. The best advice is to stop smoking.

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 Boost Your Immune System

November 28, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Get Ready, The Flu Is Coming

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Many of you have been asking me: “They are saying the flu is going to be bad this winter, but all I hear about in the news is shots and drugs. Is there a holistic approach for strengthening my immune system?” My answer is yes! If you want to know how to boost your immune system, here are my suggestions:

How to Boost Your Immune System

Start by eating a balanced diet composed of whole, unprocessed foods without a lot of fat and simple sugars. A great place to start designing a balanced diet that is perfect for your age, gender and activity level is https://choosemyplate.gov.
Get plenty of sleep. The experts recommend 8 hours of sleep a night, but most Americans get far less than that.
Exercise on a regular basis. Both too little and too much exercise can weaken the immune system (You might have guessed that the problem for most of us is the “too little,” not the “too much”). The experts recommend at least 30 minutes at least 5 days a week. Twice that amount is probably optimal unless you want to run marathons or become a “muscle man.”
Maintain ideal body weight. Those excess pounds really zap our immune system.
Minimize your reliance on medications. Many common medications weaken the immune system (Just listen to the disclaimers in the TV commercials for examples). But you must work with your physician on this. Once your physician knows that you are willing to take personal responsibility for your diet and lifestyle, they will generally be willing to minimize the number of medications that they prescribe.
Focus on the positive. Studies show that optimists are healthier and live longer than pessimists. And the good news is that anyone can cultivate an attitude of optimism. For most of us, it is a lifestyle choice – not something that we were born with.
Add a supplement program to assure that your immune system is functioning optimally. In the ideal world supplements wouldn’t be necessary, but there are very few “saints” who do a great job in all 6 of the areas that I mentioned.

Getting The Nutrients Your Immune System Needs

A well-designed supplement program fills in the “gaps.” .We want to make sure that we are getting adequate nutrition to keep our immune system healthy. What other knowledge do you need to know how to boost your immune system? Here are the nutrients you need:

B vitamins and protein because our immune cells need to divide very rapidly when we have immune challenges.
Antioxidants because our immune cells create lots of free radicals.
Trace minerals, especially iron and zinc, because they are required by important enzymes of the immune system.
Vitamin D because it is vitally important for a strong immune system and most of us are not getting enough.
Probiotics (healthy bacteria) because 70% of our immune system reside in the gut, and “bad” bacteria and yeast in our intestines can weaken the immune system.
Omega-3 fatty acids to modulate the immune system once it has taken care of the invading bacteria or viruses.

We don’t need mega-doses. We just need enough.

One final thought: A holistic approach to strengthening our immune system is not an “either – or” proposition. I’ve seen estimates that the flu shot is 66% effective in preventing the flu for people with a strong immune system and only 33% effective in preventing the flu for people with a weak immune system.

The Bottom Line

This week I shared tips on how to boost your immune system, so you can withstand the worst that winter brings.

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.

Epsom Salt Bath for Sore Muscles!

November 21, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Epsom Salt – An Inexpensive “Miracle Cure”

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

An Epsom Salt bath for sore muscles is an old remedy that until recently has been overlooked by modern medicine. For hundreds of years people have used Epsom salt baths for relieving sore muscles, healing cuts, drawing out inflammation, and treating colds. To many people this has long been a miracle cure, the first “go-to” for pain relief. Research has proven why Epsom Salt works so well, and how to use it so you benefit the most.

Why An Epsom Salt Bath for Sore Muscles Works

Epsom Salt is a combination of magnesium and sulfate. When you are under stress – and who doesn’t have stress in their life – your body becomes depleted in magnesium. Magnesium is a key component in a mood-elevating chemical of the brain called serotonin. Serotonin creates relaxation and a feeling of calm, so it reduces stress, helps you sleep better, improves your ability to concentrate, and lessens the tension of irritability. It is also a component in the production of ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which produces energy for the cells.

The magnesium in Epsom Salt regulates the activity of over 325 enzymes, helps prevent hardening of the arteries, and is beneficial for muscle and nerve function. Sulfates improve the absorption of nutrients and flushes toxins out of the body. All of this is why an Epsom salt bath for sore muscles works.

Massage and Epsom Salt – a “Marriage Made in Heaven!”

Every month I explain how massaging one area of your body will help eliminate or reduce pain. My book (see below) teaches many self-treatments for a long list of aches and pains. Massage has been proven to help with:

Joint pain
Stiffness
Muscle aches
Fibromyalgia
Insomnia
Sports injuries
TMJ
Headaches
and much, much more!

Massage will also force toxins out of your muscles and improve circulation. Epsom Salt baths are beneficial after a massage because it will remove the toxins out of the body. In the past I had heard that a 15-minute bath was sufficient, but that has changed. Recently I read an article that explained it takes 40 minutes of soaking to make the transfer complete. Toxins are drawn out and magnesium enters into the body

Self-Massage is Convenient and Easy-to-Do

It’s wonderful to go to a qualified massage therapist and relax while the spasms are worked out of your muscles. However, if you have a stressful job or you love to exercise, you can’t go to a therapist as frequently as you should. That’s where self-massage becomes a life-saver.

Before relaxing in your Epsom salt bath, do the techniques demonstrated in my book, “Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living” to release the spasms that are causing joint and muscle pain.

As you untie the “knots,” you are releasing toxins into your blood stream and lymphatic system. A relaxing, 40-minute soak in a tub of comfortably hot water and 2 cups of Epsom Salt will eliminate the toxins from your body.

Life is more stressful than ever before, and you deserve a relaxing break. Massage and Epsom Salt baths are the perfect beginning to a restful night’s sleep! Plus, the benefits of both massage and Epsom Salt will improve your health and vitality.

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.