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

Should You Get the Flu Shot This Year?

February 27, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Truth About The Flu Shot

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Should you get the flu shot this year?

It is the worst of times. The flu virus is particularly deadly this year. Flu deaths are piling up. On the other hand, the flu vaccine is only about 10% effective. The medical community is pointing to the mounting death toll and telling us everyone should get a flu shot. Opponents of the flu vaccine are pointing to its limited effectiveness and saying: “Why bother. The risks outweigh the benefits.” As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

When you examine the scientific literature it is clear that:

The risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
The benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
The medical profession has not leveled with us about the real reason they recommend that everyone get a flu shot.

Is The Flu Shot Safe?

The greatest fear of vaccination for children has been the claim that the flu vaccine causes autism. It is easy to understand how the hypothesis arose that vaccinations and autism might be linked. This is because the first symptoms of autism usually appear around the time that children are completing their initial series of vaccinations.

However, clinical research has not substantiated any causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. It isn’t that scientists haven’t looked. A few clinical studies have looked for a link between vaccinations and autism and have failed to find any. The age of onset and prevalence of autism are virtually identical in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Another frequently mentioned concern is the toxic adjuvants added to flu vaccines to make them more effective. The rationale for adding these compounds is complex, so let me give you a simple, non-scientific explanation.

We can think of adjuvants as toxins (for example, formaldehyde and aluminum). When our cells sense the presence of those toxic materials, they send out distress signals that, among other things, signal our immune system to mobilize its army to destroy any invaders. Our immune system then sends out scouts to check for invaders. These scouts sense the inactivated virus particles in the flu vaccine and signal our immune system to mount a vigorous immune response whenever those virus particles are detected.

Proponents of the flu vaccine will tell you the vaccine contains only small amounts of these toxins and most of us accumulate far higher amounts of these toxins from other sources in our day-to-day living. Personally, I dislike the idea of purposely ingesting any amount of toxins. However, our food supply has become contaminated and regulation of consumer goods has become weak. Unfortunately, the proponents of the flu vaccine are correct in saying our overall exposure to these toxins is much larger than what we accumulate through vaccinations.

Finally, most vaccines still contain mercury as a preservative, and mercury is a neurotoxin. So, if you are getting your child vaccinated, I recommend that you insist on getting a mercury free vaccine. You may also want to inquire about the adjuvants, preservatives and additives in the flu vaccine as well, because some of them are also toxic.

Beyond that, the biggest concerns are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome which causes symptoms ranging from muscle weakness and fatigue to partial paralysis. These side effects are real, and they are serious, but they are also quite rare. They affect somewhere between 1 in a million to 1 in 100,000 children, depending on the vaccine.

In short, the risks associated with the flu shot are real, but they have been greatly exaggerated by some in the media.

Let’s Talk Science

It turns out that the benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated by health professionals and the media as well. However, to properly understand why the messages you hear are a bit misleading, you need to understand some scientific jargon, namely the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

Relative risk describes the effect of an intervention for people with a certain condition. In this case, relative risk would be the effect of the flu shot (intervention) for people who have been infected with the flu virus (condition). Relative risk is often used in media reports because it magnifies the effect of the intervention. In short, it makes the intervention look really good.

Absolute risk describes the effect of an intervention on the probability that you will develop a certain condition. In this case absolute risk would be the effect of the flu shot on you actually getting the flu. Since this takes into account your probability of being infected by the flu virus as well as the relative risk reduction once you have become infected, it is a much smaller number. Absolute risk is a much better measure of the actual benefit you can expect to receive.

Finally, there is another factor that is usually overlooked. The flu vaccine is not affected by flu-like illnesses. Thus, the effectiveness of the flu shot at preventing you from getting sick is even lower than its effectiveness at preventing the flu. The average person cannot distinguish between the flu and a flu-like illness. That is why so many people will tell you: “I got a flu shot, but I got the flu anyway.”

Doctors also cannot distinguish with certainty between the flu and a flu-like illness unless they take a blood sample and test for the presence of the flu virus, which is almost never done. For that reason, reports of flu deaths are overestimates.

Should You Get the Flu Shot This Year Because it is Effective?

There is always year to year variation in the severity of the flu and the effectiveness of flu vaccines.

In addition, there is also significant variation in both the efficacy and evidence for efficacy in different population groups that is generally not acknowledged during the annual campaigns recommending that everyone should get a flu shot. To better understand that, we need to look at the efficacy of the flu shot in each population group individually.

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Children Age 6 Months To 2 Years?

In 2010, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending flu vaccination for all healthy children older than 6 months. However, in 2012 the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review of all published clinical studies and concluded that for children in that age group currently licensed flu vaccines “are not significantly more effective than placebo”. [To fully understand the significance of that statement you need to know that the Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, non-profit organization that promotes evidence-based medicine. In fact, in the medical community Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews are considered to be the gold standard for evidence-based medicine.]

Summary: This is one of the groups at greatest risk for developing severe complications to the flu, so it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group. I will talk about the best way to protect this group below.

Is The Flu Shot Safe & Effective in Healthy Children Age 2 To 7 Years?

This is the age group for which immunization makes the greatest sense, and the nasal spray gives the best results for this group. According to the 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review the flu shot reduces the relative risk of the flu by 48% and the nasal spray with attenuated live virus reduces the relative risk by 83%.

Since around 16% of unvaccinated children catch the flu in an average year this translates to an absolute risk reduction of 3.6% for the flu shot and 17% for the nasal spray. That is a smaller number, but still significant. This, of course, varies from year to year dependent on how well the vaccine matches the strains of virus that are actually circulating through the population. This year those numbers are significantly lower.

Summary: The science behind vaccination for this group has shifted significantly in the past few years. The evidence for the efficacy of the flu shot in this age group has increased while the evidence for harm has decreased. The fear of the flu shot causing autism has been largely disproven by recent clinical studies. That leaves concern about toxic ingredients, severe allergic reactions and the Guillian-Barré syndrome as the major complications of the flu vaccination.

Proponents of the flu vaccinations have estimated that if all children in this age range were vaccinated, around 200 would develop severe complications to the flu shot, and if all children in this age range were unvaccinated 20,000 would develop severe complications from the flu. I have not been able to independently substantiate those statistics. We also need to keep in mind there are rare years, such as during the 1976 swine flu epidemic, approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinated children developed Guillian-Barré syndrome. The incidence of severe complications to the flu shot could have reached the 2-3,000 range if the vaccination program had not been terminated early.

I realize that this is an emotional issue for parents, and there is no perfect answer. However, at present the weight of evidence is slightly in favor of vaccination for this age group.

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Children Age 8 To 18 Years?

According to a recent meta-analysis of all available clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012), we simply don’t know whether the flu vaccine will be effective in this age group because no reliable studies have been conducted.

Even worse than that, we may never know whether the flu shot offers any protection for this age group because of a Catch 22 situation in modern clinical research. Once a particular treatment becomes “the standard of care” it is considered unethical to withhold that treatment in a clinical trial. Since the CDC is now recommending the flu shot for everyone over age 2, it would be considered unethical to conduct a clinical trial in which half the population received flu shots and half did not.

Summary: I suspect that the flu shot may offer some protection in this age group, but there is no convincing clinical evidence to support that belief at present and for the foreseeable future.

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Adults Age 18 To 65 Years?

Here the answer is yes. According to a 2012 meta-analysis of 31 published clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases) the flu shot gives an impressive 75% reduction in the relative risk of catching the flu. However, in an average year only 4% of this population will catch the flu if unvaccinated, so the absolute risk reduction is a modest 3%.

This is also the group that has the least to fear from the flu. Only about 1 in 100 people in this age range develop severe complications as a result of getting the flu, and these are usually the people with severe diseases and/or compromised immune systems. For most healthy adults in this age range, the flu is merely a one or two-day inconvenience.

Summary: For healthy adults in this age range, the flu vaccine offers only a modest decrease in the absolute risk of catching the flu, and this group has a relatively low risk of developing severe complications from the flu. If the self-interest of this group was the only consideration, it is hard to understand the insistence of the medical community that everyone in this age range get a flu shot. It would appear to be a matter of personal choice.

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Seniors Age 65 And Older?

Flu shot proponents will tell you that flu shots cut the risk of death in this group by 50% based on a meta-analysis published in 2002 (Vu et al, Vaccine, 20: 1831-1836, 2002).

However, more recent research has come to the opposite conclusion. A recent meta-analysis (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012) concluded “Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking.” The 2012 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review concluded “Due to the poor quality of available evidence, any conclusions regarding the effects of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older cannot be drawn.”

The lack of protection of the flu virus in seniors is most likely due to the fact that, in many cases, their immune systems have weakened with age.

Summary: This is another group where you would most like to see protection by the flu shot. Because this group is likely to suffer severe complications and death from the flu, it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group.

Who Has Most to Fear From The Flu?

When you hear that the flu shot significantly reduces the risk of severe complications and death from the flu, you should know that the risks are not spread evenly over the population. The very young are at risk because their immune systems haven’t fully developed. The very old are at risk because their immune systems have weakened with age and they may already be in precarious health because of other diseases. And, of course, anyone at any age who is in precarious health because of disease or who has a compromised immune system is at risk as well.

Why Do Health Professionals Recommend That Everyone Get A Flu Shot?

If you are a healthy adult in the 18-65 age range, your risk of severe complications and death from the flu is very low. It is not zero, but it is low. So why are health professionals so insistent that you need to get a flu shot?

The reason is straight forward, but it is not the reason that they are giving you. It is a public health measure, pure and simple.

The very young, the very old, the sick and the infirm are the ones most likely to develop severe complications and die from a flu infection. However, the flu shot doesn’t offer them much protection because their immune systems are often compromised. The best way to protect those groups is to immunize everyone else. If the flu virus can’t gain a foothold in the rest of the population, those at greatest risk will never be exposed to the flu.

So, the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot – even in a year in which the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is less than 10% – are less about protecting you than it is about protecting those whom you might infect. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot, it will be for the right reason, not the reason you are being given by the medical profession.

The medical profession needs to level with people about why they are recommending flu shots, not use scare tactics that make promises the flu shot can’t deliver. This would be the perfect year for them to come clean because their usual rationale for getting the flu shot doesn’t hold water when its effectiveness is so low.

Should You Get the Flu Shot This Year?

As you can see, your decision about whether or not the flu shot is the right thing for you is not an easy one. Both the benefits and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated in the media. I have tried not to be an advocate either for or against flu vaccinations. I have evaluated the scientific literature and tried to give you the unvarnished truth. It is now up to you to make an educated decision – one that is right for you.

I will, however, share my decisions. In prior years, I did not have young children or elderly parents at home who might be compromised if I were to develop even a mild case of the flu. So, I chose to follow the kind of lifestyle that keeps my immune system strong rather than relying on a flu shot to protect me from the flu. Last year when my granddaughter was born, I got the flu shot before going out to California to visit her.

This year the efficacy of the flu shot was so low I didn’t bother with it. It would not have offered me or my granddaughter significant protection. Instead, I have focused on maintaining a strong immune system, I have been exposed multiple times, but so far, my immune system has kept it at bay.

The Bottom Line:

Both the effectiveness and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
The flu shot has no proven effectiveness in children ages 6 months to 2 years, children aged 8-18 years, and seniors 65 years and older.
In children, aged 2 to 7, nasal sprays with partially inactive flu virus usually give a 17% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. Side effects of the flu vaccine in this population group are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome. Both severe complications from the flu virus and side effects of the flu vaccine are very rare, but complications from the flu virus are several-fold more common than side effects from the vaccine.
Fears that the flu vaccine could trigger autism have not been validated by clinical studies. However, mercury is a neurotoxin, so I recommend that you insist on mercury-free vaccines for your children. You may also wish to inquire about other adjuvants, preservatives and additives in the vaccine because some of them are toxic.
In healthy adults, aged 18 to 65, flu shots give a 3% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. This is also the population group with the lowest risk of severe complications from the flu. For most adults in this age group, the flu is nothing more than a one or two-day inconvenience.
The groups most likely to develop severe complications and die from flu infections are the very young, the very old, and the sick. They are also the groups least likely to benefit from the flu shot because their immune systems are weak.
If you are a healthy adult in the 18 to 65 age group, the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot are less about protecting you than they are about protecting those whom you might infect if you catch the flu. It is a public health measure to protect the very young, the very old, and the sick. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot, it will be for the right reason, not the reason you have been given by the health profession.
This year the decision of whether or not to get a flu shot is even more difficult because the flu vaccine offers you and the people you might expose so little protection.

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.

Calf Cramps Remedy

February 20, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Don’t Let A Leg Cramp Stop You Short

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Getting a leg cramp while you are running can be the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” If you don’t treat it properly and quickly when it is happening, you may limp to the finish line, and you can suffer from its effects for days afterward. I will show you the best calf cramps remedy below. First, let’s go over spasms and muscle cramps.

A spasm and a cramp are similar because it’s a shortening in the muscle fiber, but that’s where the similarity ends. A spasm is a slow-forming shortening of a group of fibers that tie up into a knot in the muscle. You can feel a spasm with your fingertips, it feels like a bump as you slide along the full length of the muscle. With a spasm, as you press down and slide, it doesn’t hurt until you get to the spasm, and then it can really hurt. But then it stops hurting as you slide off the spasm. A spasm refers pain to the insertion points of the muscle and frequently doesn’t hurt where the spasm has formed (that is, until you press on it).

Why Do Your Muscles Cramp?

A cramp (Charlie horse) is when all the fibers of the entire muscle suddenly and violently contract. The muscle will quickly shorten and can go into a huge knot, or it will just totally shorten.

Usually a cramp happens in your calf muscle, although it can happen to any muscle in the body. Your calf is comprised of two major muscles, the gastrocnemius and soleus. The gastrocnemius, which is shown in this graphic, originates behind your knee and inserts into your Achilles tendon.

Visualize the muscle suddenly shortening, pulling up on your Achilles tendon, and becoming a mass of tight knots through the entire muscle.

Muscles have an “all or nothing” response. This means that when a muscle fiber contracts, it will shorten 100% of its length. It never starts to shorten and then make a U-turn and lengthen. A cramp is seriously painful, and if you try to stretch it out as it’s happening, you can tear the muscle fibers. In fact, that’s the reason it hurts for sometimes days after the cramp.

A Calf Cramps Remedy You Can Administer Yourself

The best thing to do is to squeeze the two ends of your calf muscle together, which will help the cramp complete as quickly as possible. This will hurt, but for less time than the normal cramping process. Hold your calf tightly, as shown in this picture, and continue to press the two ends toward each other.

Hold it until you can breathe normally (about 30-45 seconds), and then release. Breathe for a minute or so, and then push the two ends together again. This second time won’t hurt, you are only doing it to make sure that all the fibers have completed the contraction.

Once you have stopped the cramp, don’t stretch…yet. You need to flush out the hydrogen ions (AKA lactic acid) that rapidly built-up in the muscle during the cramp.

There are many ways to self-treat your calf. If you are out on the road you can either sit on a bench or lie on the ground and put the sore calf onto your opposite knee. Press down and hold the pressure for 30 seconds. Then deeply press along the muscle going from the back of your knee toward your ankle.

You can also use your opposite heel and press deeply, straight into your calf.

Start at the top of the muscle and move down toward your ankle. Stop whenever you come to a point that is especially painful. The point should be close to the area shown in this picture.

Hold the pressure for 30-60 seconds, or until it doesn’t hurt anymore. Release, and then repeat 2-3 times.

Complete this self-treatment by squeezing your calf muscle, like you are wringing out a wet towel. This will force blood into your muscle and get your circulation moving again.

Proof That My Treatments Work

I once taught this technique at an Ironman Triathlon during a 15-minute session I was giving to the triathletes. Several days later a triathlete emailed me and told me that he had a cramp as he was running, and he did the treatment I’d taught him. It cost him a few minutes (he wasn’t in the top three, so the time loss wasn’t a huge issue) but he was able to get up and get back to running, totally without pain.

About a mile later he got a cramp in the other leg, but he automatically started to just stretch it like he’d always done before. He ended up limping all the way to the finish line, and days later it was still hurting. He wanted to let me know that my cramp treatment really worked great. This was especially helpful because I’d always wondered what body chemistry did to the outcome of treating a cramp, and here I found out that chemistry wasn’t involved in the treatment of the muscle fibers.

What To Do After The Calf Cramps Remedy

If the cramp happens during a race or athletic event, knowing how to stop it, and these quick massage techniques, will get you back into the game. But it hasn’t totally resolved the issue. Finally, when you have the time to be detailed (after the race, in the evening, etc.), it is important to work out all the spasms and then stretch properly.

When you are treating the muscles afterward, I suggest you consider getting an analgesic cream that goes way deep into the muscle fibers. Use it when you are massaging the muscle, but don’t put it on before you play, run, or before/after a shower because it will go too deep into the muscle and burn like crazy. After you do the treatments, use ice &/or arnica gel (get it at a good health food store) to heal the bruised muscle fibers and help with pain and swelling. Arnica is fantastic, it’s an amazing homeopathic remedy that has been around for ages and really works.

Naturally you will also want to make sure you hydrate properly and that your diet, vitamins and minerals are all in balance.

Cramping is a common problem athletes face, but with a little bit of effort you can prevent muscle injury and get back in the race quickly!

You can find the full treatments for your muscle cramps 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.

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.

The Supplement Industry: Exposing The Dark Side

February 13, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

It Is Buyer Beware

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Every once in a while, the professor needs to clear out his desk. This week was a perfect time for a little early Spring cleaning. I have been accumulating articles about the dark side of the supplement industry. None of them are sufficient for a whole issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” by themselves, so I have combined the top three in this issue.

I don’t want to unduly alarm you. Most supplement companies are ethical. They are doing their best to provide you with supplements that will improve your health. However, there are a few bad apples in every barrel.

The Supplement Industry: Exposing The Dark Side

Perhaps the question we should be asking is “Why do supplement companies “Go over to the Dark Side” in the first place? It almost always involves the almighty dollar. Simply put, some companies are more interested in making money than they are about improving your health.

Let me give you some examples where companies cut corners to save money:

They substitute cheaper ingredients to save money. This practice is referred to as adulteration. There is, in fact, no evidence that the cheaper ingredients will provide the same benefit as the ingredient listed on the label. I give an example of adulteration below.
They don’t do quality controls. That saves a lot of money. However, it means that neither you or the company knows what is in the product. The FDA inspects as many manufacturing facilities as the can. Each year they shut down a few manufacturers for lack of quality controls, but two spring up for every one they shut down. I call it “Whack-A-Mole”, after that popular carnival game.
They don’t do clinical studies on their products. That also saves a lot of money. However, it means that neither you or the company knows whether their product is safe and effective. The FDA doesn’t require clinical studies, so many companies don’t do them.

However, the worst abuses of the industry arise because of our own human frailties. When it comes to weight loss, muscle gain, sexual arousal, and energy, many people don’t care about safety. They just want instant results.

The unscrupulous companies in the supplement industry are only too happy to oblige. They manufacture products containing illegal stimulants and pharmaceuticals. These products work. They also kill people. These companies are the really “bad apples” that give the whole industry a black eye. I will give some examples of products containing illegal stimulants and pharmaceuticals below.

The Adulteration Of Cranberry Supplements

Is nothing sacred? Is even something as wholesome and natural as cranberry supplements not safe from adulteration? Apparently, the answer is: “No”.

Part of the problem is that cranberry supplements have become very popular. They used to just be for urinary tract infections. However, a quick scan of the internet showed they are now also recommended for detoxification, for reducing inflammation, for reducing heart disease and preventing kidney stone formation.

With the increased interest in the benefits of cranberry supplements, it is no surprise that sales of cranberry supplements almost doubled between 2013 and 2016. That created a huge problem for manufacturers. Cranberry extract is very expensive, and there just wasn’t enough to meet demand. Plus, for new companies to gain traction in an increasingly crowded market, they needed to come in at a lower price than the established supplement companies.

You might suspect unscrupulous companies would be tempted to substitute cheaper ingredients for authentic cranberry extract. In fact, because of a recent bulletin released by the Botanical Adulterants Program of the American Botanical Council, we know that is exactly what is happening. The bulletin reported that many ingredient suppliers are adulterating cranberry extract with cheaper ingredients such as peanut skin, grape seed, mulberry fruit, hibiscus calyx, black bean skin, or black rice. In fact, they are using almost any ingredient that can impart the same red color found in authentic cranberry extracts.

Unfortunately, most supplement companies don’t have the kind of sophisticated equipment that is required to test for adulteration. They simply believe the lies of their suppliers and pass on these worthless “cranberry supplements” to you.

The FDA Warns Against Kratom Supplements

Kratom supplements have also gained widespread popularity in recent years. A quick scan of claims on the internet show why. If you believe the hype, kratom will:

Relieve anxiety, stress, and depression.
Relieve pain & inflammation.
Improve mental acuity & focus.
Increase your metabolic rate & burn off excess pounds.
Improve your sexual prowess.
Induce healthy sleep.
Strengthen your immune system.
Prevent diabetes.
Help with opioid withdrawal.

I didn’t come across “leaping tall buildings in a single bound”, but I might have missed something. With all this hype, it’s no wonder kratom is becoming so popular.

However, the FDA is not impressed. They recently issued an FDA advisory “about the deadly risks associated with kratom.”

The FDA advisory states: “Proponents argue that it is a safe substance because it is a plant-based product…Evidence shows that kratom has similar effects to narcotics like opioids, and carries similar risks of abuse, addiction and in some cases, death.”

It goes on to say: “Calls to US poison control centers regarding kratom have increased 10-fold from 2010 to 2015, with hundreds of calls made each year. The FDA is aware of 36 deaths associated with kratom-containing products…The use of kratom is also associated with serious side effects like seizures, liver damage, and withdrawal symptoms.”

The FDA is currently doing its best to seize and destroy shipments of kratom entering the country, but some is still making it in. The kratom manufacturers have disputed the FDA claims, but my advice would be to avoid kratom supplements until this issue is resolved.

Illegal Stimulants Can Still Be Found In Supplements

Amphetamine-like stimulants are very popular for weight loss and muscle building supplements. This is because they increase metabolic rate, which “burns fat effortlessly”, and increase energy, which “improves workouts and maximizes muscle gain.” You can sense the allure of these kinds of products.

There is only one problem. They cause high blood pressure and irregular heartbeat. They kill people. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have warned you about the amphetamine-like stimulants DMAA and DMBA. They are both quite dangerous. The FDA has ruled that both are illegal dietary ingredients. That means they should not be present in any supplements. Period.

Octodrine is another amphetamine-like stimulant. It was approved as a drug to treat bronchitis in the 1940s. As a pharmaceutical ingredient, it also should not be present in any supplement.

Unfortunately, a recent study (PA Cohen et al, Clinical Toxicology doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2017.1398328 shows that they are still present in supplements you can easily buy online. The investigators searched online for weight loss and sports supplements which had natural sounding ingredients on their labels that might be analogs of DMAA.

They selected two weight loss products and four sports supplements, purchased the products, and tested them in their laboratory. All of them contained illegal stimulants. In addition to DMAA, the investigators found DMBA, octodrine, and several other stimulants in the products they tested.

There is no way to whitewash this. These are all illegal stimulants. They could not have ended up in the products by chance. These manufacturers were knowingly adding illegal ingredients to their products. I’m sure they felt adding those ingredients would allow them to make exaggerated claims about how their products could “make your weight disappear without any effort” and “turn Clark Kent into Superman.” They were thinking about all the money they could make. But, they had to know their products might just kill someone.

How Can You Protect Yourself From The Dark Side of The Supplement Industry?

How can you protect yourself from unscrupulous supplement manufactures? How can you make sure the supplements you use are safe and effective, that they build your health rather than destroy your health? I have covered this in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is a brief summary:

Choose an established company, with a reputation for integrity.
Ignore alluring claims about cures, boundless energy, and the like. Use your common sense. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
Ignore testimonials. They are often made up. Ignore endorsements. They are bought and sold.
Insist on rigorous quality controls
Insist on published clinical studies that show their products are safe and effective.

The Bottom Line

In this week’s issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I explored the dark side of the supplement industry. For example:

A recent bulletin by the Botanical Adulterants Program of the American Botanical Council reported that many cranberry supplements were adulterated with cheaper ingredients with no proven effectiveness.
The FDA has recently issued an official advisory about the deadly risks associated with kratom products.
A recent study showed that some weight loss and sports supplements contain illegal stimulants that have the potential to kill people.

For more details about these reports and how you can protect yourself from the dark side of the supplement industry, 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.

Your Chances of Getting Pregnant Reduced by Iodine Deficiency?

February 12, 2018February 6, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Your Chances Of Getting Pregnant Could Be Cut In Half

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Are your chances of getting pregnant reduced by iodine deficiency?

It shouldn’t be happening. The introduction of iodized salt in the 1920s virtually eliminated iodine deficiency in this country. However, in just the past twenty years the incidence of iodine deficiency has increased 3-8-fold in women of childbearing age. Recent studies have estimated that today 30-40% of women of childbearing age are iodine deficient.

How did that happen?

We have been told to cut back on sodium. Many Americans have responded by throwing away the (iodized) salt shaker. Unfortunately, we still get a lot of salt from processed foods, and that salt is usually non-iodized.
When we do add salt to our foods it is usually the “healthier” designer salts. First it was sea salt. Now it is trendy versions like Pink Himalayan Salt. While sea salt might have some iodine naturally, the trendier versions are non-iodized.
The New-Age Whole Food diets often ban salt from the diet. That increases the probability of becoming iodine deficient. For example, a recent study reported that women who followed the Paleo diet for two years became iodine deficient (S. Manousi et al, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72: 124-129, 2018 ).

The consequences of iodine deficiency, especially among women of childbearing age, are alarming. In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor,” The Dangers of Iodine Deficiency During Pregnancy, I reported that iodine is essential for bone and neural development during fetal development and infancy. I also reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics, The National Institutes Of Health, and the World Health Organization have all declared that mild iodine deficiency during pregnancy can prevent normal cognitive development and reduce IQ levels in children.

This study (JL Mills et al, Human Reproduction, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex379, 2018 ) reports that iodine deficiency also reduces a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant. [I might add, this almost seems to be part of Nature’s plan. If the consequences of iodine deficiency during pregnancy are so detrimental, the fact that iodine deficiency also reduces the chances of a woman becoming pregnant could be considered a good thing.]

How Was The Study Done?

This study recruited 501 couples (ages 18-40) from 16 counties in Michigan and Texas. The women had all discontinued contraception within the previous two months with the intention of becoming pregnant and were followed for an additional 12 months. Women with known thyroid disease were excluded from the study.

Urine samples were collected from each woman at the beginning of the study to determine iodine and creatine levels. The women used fertility monitors to time intercourse relative to ovulation (Basically, that means they optimized their chances of becoming pregnant). They then used digital home pregnancy monitors on the day of expected menstruation to identify pregnancies.

Finally, 90% of the women took either a multivitamin or a pre-natal vitamin during the study (The significance of this will be discussed later).

Are Your Chances of Getting Pregnant Reduced by Iodine Deficiency?

The results of the study were:

3% of the women in the study were iodine deficient (defined as iodine-creatine ratios of <100 mcg/g). This was further broken down to:
8% were mildly iodine deficient (50-99 mcg/g).
8% were moderately iodine deficient (20-49 mcg/g).
7% were severely iodine deficient (<20 mcg/g).
That is a total of 22.5% who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency.
Women who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency had a 46% decrease in the chance of becoming pregnant over each menstrual cycle compared to the iodine sufficient group.

A simple way of reporting those data would be to say that their chances of becoming pregnant were reduced by 46%, but that would not convey the whole picture. Most of the women did become pregnant during the 12-month study. However, it took the women with moderate to severe iodine deficiency twice as long to become pregnant. Iodine deficiency did not prevent pregnancy from occurring, but it delayed it.

The authors concluded: “In summary, our data show that groups of women with iodine concentrations in the moderate to severe deficient range experience a significantly longer time to pregnancy…The US and European countries where iodine deficiency is common should evaluate the need for programs to increase iodine intake for women of childbearing age, particularly those trying to become pregnant”.

Where Can You Get The Iodine You Need?

The important question becomes: “Where can you get the iodine you need?”

You could start by using old-fashioned iodized salt rather than designer salts in your salt shaker. However, I am reluctant to recommend anything that would increase sodium intake. We get far too much from processed foods already.
Seafood (or seaweed, if you are a vegetarian) are the best food sources of iodine. However, our oceans are so contaminated I would recommend consuming those foods only occasionally.
You will often see bread and dairy mentioned as good food sources because iodine was used in the preparation of those foods. However, iodine has largely been replaced by other agents, so those foods should no longer be considered good sources. For example:
Iodine in commercial breads has traditionally come from the use of iodate as a dough conditioner. Today iodate has largely been replaced with bromide in commercial bread making. Not only does this trend decrease the amount of iodine available in our diet, but bromide also interferes with iodine utilization in our bodies
Iodine in milk has traditionally come from the use of iodine-containing disinfectants to clean milk cans and teats. However, they have largely been replaced with other disinfectants
Fruits and vegetables are a variable source of iodine, depending on where they were grown. That is because iodine levels in the soils vary tremendously from region to region.
That leaves multivitamins and prenatal vitamins as your best source. However, you do need to read labels. You should look for supplements that provide 150 mcg of iodine. Unfortunately, only 50% of prenatal supplements in the United States even contain iodine. Remember, 90% of the women in this study took either a multivitamin or prenatal supplement and 44.3% of them were iodine deficient.

The Bottom Line

The introduction of iodized salt in the 1920s virtually eliminated iodine deficiency in this country. Now, almost 100 years later, iodine deficiency is back. Recent studies estimate that 30-40% of women of childbearing age are iodine deficient. This is concerning. Previous studies have shown iodine deficiency affects mental development during fetal development and infancy. A recent study suggests that iodine deficiency may also make it more difficult for women to become pregnant. Specifically, the study reported:

3% of the women in the study were iodine deficient. This was further broken down to:
8% were mildly iodine deficient.
8% were moderately iodine deficient.
7% were severely iodine deficient.
That is a total of 22.5% with moderate to severe iodine deficiency.
Women who had moderate to severe iodine deficiency had a 46% decrease in their chance of becoming pregnant over each menstrual cycle compared to the iodine sufficient group.

For more details about why iodine deficiency has reemerged in this country and where we can get the iodine we need, 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.

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

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.