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

Are There Anti-Aging Vitamins?

November 22, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Could You Live To Be 120 And Beyond?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Recent headlines suggest that we can slow biological aging just by increasing our consumption of certain vitamins. That sounds wonderful. After all, everyone is still hoping for that mythical “Fountain of Youth” and anti-aging vitamins could be just the ticket.

But, what did the paper behind the headlines actually show? The paper (J-Y Lee et al, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12403, 2016) reported that people who consumed the most vitamin C and folic acid had the longest telomeres.

You might be wondering how journalists extrapolated from that study to headlines proclaiming that those vitamins could slow biological aging. To understand the answer to that question you need to know two things:

What is biological aging?

What are telomeres and why are they important?

What Is Biological Aging?

In simplest terms, biological aging refers to the aging process on a cellular level. This concept is based on the “Hayflick Limit” first proposed by Leonard Hayflick in 1962. He showed that normal human cells have a maximum lifespan of 40-60 cell divisions. As they approach that upper limit, DNA damage accumulates and cell division slows and eventually stops.

The “Hayflick Limit” is important because our tissues depend on constant cell division to remain young and vital. Our organs are made up of various tissues and depend on those tissues performing at an optimal level. Thus, as more and more cells lose the ability to divide, our tissues and our organs begin to age. This is thought to be associated with disease and eventually death.

Thus, even though biological aging refers to aging at a cellular level, its significance is thought to extend far beyond the cellular level. It is thought to influence aging, disease, and death at a whole-body level. It reminds me of the famous quote “For want of a nail…the kingdom was lost.” If you’ve forgotten that quote, look it up. It is a perfect analogy for how something that seems so inconsequential can have such a profound effect on our health and mortality.

What Are Telomeres And Why Are They Important?

Telomeres are sequences of repetitive DNA at the ends of our chromosomes that protect their integrity. Telomeres become progressively shorter as we age. As a very simple analogy we can think of telomeres as being similar to the tips of our shoelaces. If you have ever lost the tip of your shoelace, you know that the shoelace is worthless once the tip is gone.

That analogy holds perfectly with respect to our telomeres. As the telomers become progressively shorter, DNA division slows and eventually stops. DNA division is essential for cell division. Telomere shortening is postulated to be responsible for the Hayflick Limit. Thus, it is no surprise that telomere shortening is associated with aging, age-related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and dementia, and death.

Telomere shortening is a bad news, good news phenomenon. On the “bad” side, telomere shortening is inevitable. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we will all die at some point.

On the “good” side, there is tremendous heterogeneity in telomere length between individuals at any given age. Some of these differences in telomere length may be genetic, but many appear to be lifestyle related (MA Shammas, Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 14: 28-34, 2011). For example, short telomers appear to be associated with things like smoking, environmental pollution, stress, meat consumption, and fat consumption. Long telomeres are associated with the lack of those things and with positive lifestyle characteristics such as exercise and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Are Some Vitamins Anti-Aging Vitamins?

More recent studies have begun to look at the influence of individual nutrients on telomere length. The study featured this week (J-Y Lee et al, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12403, 2016) is just the latest example.

This study used food frequency questionnaires to assess nutrient intake of 1958 middle-aged and older Koreans between June 2001 and January 2003. They measured intake of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9 (folate), C and E plus calcium, phosphorous, potassium iron and zinc.

Ten years later they measured telomere length in the same population and reported that:

Telomere length was positively associated with intake of vitamin C, folate, and potassium.

No association with telomere length was seen for the other nutrients.

So, are these anti-aging vitamins? Let’s look at the strengths and weaknesses of this study.

This study has some notable strengths:

It is a fairly large study, so the results are statistically significant.

There is a good biochemical rationale for vitamin C and folate being protective for telomeres.

Antioxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids, and polyphenols protect the DNA from oxidative damage.

Folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 are involved in pathways that stabilize and repair DNA.

It is consistent with previous studies (See below)

However, this study also has some glaring weaknesses:

It only measures associations, not cause and effect.

The diet analysis was not repeated at the end of the study. The authors assumed that dietary habits did not change, but we don’t know that.

The use of dietary supplements was not assessed, so we don’t know how that might have influenced the outcome.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

If we look at the totality of published studies(MA Shammas, Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 14: 28-34, 2011) :

There is good evidence that optimal intake of the antioxidants C and E is positively associated with telomere length.

There is good evidence that optimal intake of folic acid and vitamin B12 is positively associated with telomere length.

There is preliminary evidence that optimal intake of carotenoids, polyphenols, and omega-3 fatty acids is positively associated with telomere length.

However, there is a lot we don’t know about telomeres. We know that short telomeres are associated with aging, age-related diseases and death. What we do not know is whether telomere shortening is the cause of the aging process or merely a marker of aging. Let me rephrase those two possibilities in a more understandable manner.

If telomere shortening is the cause of the aging process, anything we can do to decrease the rate of telomere shortening would slow the aging process and delay the onset of age-related diseases. If the vitamins mentioned above then caused this decrease, they could indeed be considered anti-aging vitamins.

If telomere length is simply a marker of aging, we can consider it like the “canary in the coal mine”. That analogy might be particularly apt. The value of the canary is that it can detect toxic gases when they are still undetectable to humans. It turns out that it is virtually impossible to detect the effect of nutrient intake on longevity (We simply live too long), and it has proven very difficult to determine the effect of nutrient intake on age-related diseases. Having a simple marker of the aging process may well give us valuable insight into how we can best delay the aging process.

Either way longer telomeres are probably a good thing. Based on a limit of 40-60 cell divisions for normal human cells, Leonard Hayflick estimated a maximum human lifespan of 120 years. If we could truly decrease the rate of telomere shortening, would that potentially increase maximum human lifespan or would it mean that more of us reach 120 in good health? Most of us would probably be happy with either outcome.

The Bottom Line

Telomeres are the tips at the end of our chromosomes that protect the chromosomes from unraveling.

Our telomeres get progressively shorter as we get older. Short telomeres are associated with aging, age-related diseases, and death.

Recent studies have shown that our lifestyle can influence the rate of telomere shortening. For example:

Short telomers are associated with things like smoking, environmental pollution, stress, meat consumption, and fat consumption.

Long telomeres are associated with the lack of those things and with positive lifestyle characteristics such as exercise and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Recent studies have also shown that optimal intake of certain nutrients can influence the rate of telomere shortening. For example:

There is good evidence that optimal intake of the vitamins C, E, folic acid, and B12 is positively associated with telomere length.

There is preliminary evidence that optimal intake of carotenoids, polyphenols, and omega-3 fatty acids is positively associated with telomere length.

There is a lot that we do not know about telomere length. In particular,

We do not know whether telomere shortening is the cause of the aging process or merely a marker of aging, like the canary in the coal mine.

In either case, anything we can do to reduce the rate of telomere shortening is probably a good thing.

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.

Pain Behind The Knee Relief

November 15, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Surgery The Only Option?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Recently I was speaking at a convention and a woman came to me complaining of back of knee pain that was sharp each time she stood up. She had been told she needed knee surgery, but this was a solution she didn’t want to entertain. Her job has her sitting in one position for hours, and when I felt the back of her knee I found a small point that caused her a great deal of pain. She needed pain behind the knee relief.

What Causes Pain Behind The Knee After Sitting?

Pain behind the knee can be caused by a small muscle called “Popliteus.” The popliteus muscle originates on the posterior side of the tibia (shin bone) and inserts into the posterior femur (thigh bone). When it contracts (shortens) it causes your knee joint to bend. The nickname is “the key that unlocks the knee.” If your popliteus doesn’t contract, you can’t bend your knee.

Why A Muscle Can Cause Pain Behind The Knee

The problem is caused by the muscle being held contracted for an extended period of time. Muscle memory is a phenomenon that causes a muscle to stay in the shortened length after it has been held contracted for a long time. For example, in this case when your knee has been bent while you drive your car or sit at your desk, could cause pain behind the knee.

When you go to stand up the popliteus has shortened due to muscle memory and it won’t lengthen. You now have stiffness and back of knee pain because the muscle and tendon are pulling hard on the bones. Often a person will tell me that the pain feels like it’s “deep inside my knee joint.” It is deep inside your knee joint.

So, you sit down again, and the pain at the back of your knee stops hurting. However, it’s only not hurting because you have brought the two bones closer together so the pressure has stopped. It’s only making the matter worse in the long run.

BTW, this is what is happening all over your body. As a muscle gets tight because of spasms or shortened fibers, it is pulling hard on the tendon attachment at the insertion point. If you try to stretch the muscle without first releasing the tension, you are placing a greater strain on the joint where the tendon is attached.

So, what to do?

Releasing The Tension Can Relieve Pain Behind The Knee

I’ve always explained that applying steady pressure to the spasm (also called a “trigger point”) will release the tension and allow the muscle to stretch normally. As you hold the point it will become less and less painful, and soon it won’t hurt anymore. After the pain is gone you can safely stretch the muscle without tearing the fibers. This will release the tension and begin to relieve pain behind the knee.

Now it’s important to drink a lot of water after the treatment. If your muscle feels a bit sore you can use either ice (wrapped in a cloth) or arnica gel (a wonderful homeopathic remedy). Ice &/or arnica will heal the bruising caused by the knotted muscle fibers.

Treating The Muscle That Causes Pain Behind The Knee

I’ve written several self-treatment books and filmed unique self-treatment DVD programs, through the years. I’m happy to share this simple treatment that I demonstrate in my book, Treat Yourself To Pain-Free Living.

Put your foot onto a stool or chair. Bend your knee and wrap your hands around your knee joint. Have your middle fingers press directly into the area behind your knee joint and put your thumbs on your kneecap. You are using your thumbs as leverage and pressing into the muscles with your middle fingers. Move around an inch in any direction until you find the tender point and then maintain the pressure for at least 60 seconds.

You can also sit on the floor or your bed with your foot flat and your knee bent. Press up into the back of your knee, feeling for the painful tender point. Hold the pressure for 30-60 seconds.

End the treatment by slowly straightening your leg while you are still maintaining the pressure. You can repeat this movement 2-3 times.

It only took a few minutes of sustained pressure on the trigger point and the lady I mentioned above was out of pain! I had her press on the muscle, and she didn’t feel any discomfort. I checked again, and the pain behind the knee was gone. Imagine, only a few minutes and she avoided the possibility of knee surgery. She was thrilled!

It is always beneficial to check the muscles for spasms before you have non-life threatening surgery. Many times the pain can easily be eliminated by simply releasing the spasms that are putting pressure on the insertion point at the joint.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

About The Author

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

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

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

Are There Any Honest Nutritional Supplement Companies?

November 8, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do They “Cherry Pick” Scientific Studies?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When we buy a food supplement from a company we assume that it will provide a benefit. We are trusting that company to be honest in their product claims. But, are there any honest nutritional supplement companies?

What if they were lying to us?
What if they had no clinical studies done with their product?
What if they were just quoting studies done with ingredients found in their product?
What if they were “cherry picking” the studies they listed to support the claims they wanted to make?

Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the nutraceutical industry. As an example, I came across an article in a recent issue of www.nutraingredients.com about a FDA warning letter (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2016/ucm518533.htm) to a noni juice company. In case you are wondering, noni fruit is the latest in a long line of “magical fruits” that is going to cure everything that ails you.

The thing that brought this company to the FDA’s attention in the first place was the health claims the company made on their website. The company claimed or implied that their product would cure cancer, cure gout, cure arthritis, lower cholesterol, and help fight infections. Claims like that always invite FDA scrutiny.

What caught my attention, however, was the quote by an attorney specializing in FDA compliance issues that the studies cited on their website were “cherry picked” to support their claims. He said that the studies they cited “…do not meet the standards of third party literature…You have to include a full range [of published studies], and not just cherry pick the positive studies. It has to be a balanced presentation. It looks like they just did a literature search on noni and included only the positive studies.”

That statement caught my attention because it doesn’t just apply to just this one company. It is a practice that is common in the nutraceutical industry. Many supplement companies cherry pick studies from third party literature. They list only the studies that support their product claims and ignore the rest. That is misleading because it implies a level of proof for their product claims that does not exist. It is fundamentally dishonest. These are certainly not honest nutritional supplement companies.

Using Borrowed Science

The noni juice company cited in the FDA letter had no clinical studies to support their claims. Instead they quoted studies done with ingredients found in their product. This is what I call “borrowed science.”

I call this “borrowed science” because the studies were not actually done with their products. They were simply trying to “borrow” results done with individual ingredients and pretend that they applied them to their product.

Let me be clear. Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are of little value in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Again, these are not honest nutritional supplement companies.

There are several reasons this is true.

In many cases, the amount of that ingredient provided by the supplement does not match the amount actually used in the clinical study they quote. The ingredient may or may not be effective at the dose provided in the supplement.

More importantly, a supplement usually contains multiple other components that may influence how a single ingredient works in your body. The other components may enhance the effectiveness of the ingredient in question, or they may inhibit it.

Without clinical trials done with their product, companies actually have no idea whether their product works or not.

Unfortunately, I see this practice all too frequently in the nutraceutical industry. Clinical trials are expensive. It’s cheaper and easier to search the literature for published studies you can “borrow” to support your product.

Honest Nutritional Supplement Companies Do Not“Cherry Pick” Studies

Even worse, many companies cherry pick studies from the literature to support the product claims they want to make.

To understand what that statement means you need to know a little bit about the scientific method. Most scientists design their experiments to disprove what other scientists have published. This is a self-correcting process that is a strength of the scientific method.

However, it also means that you will find articles in the literature supporting and refuting the benefits of almost every nutraceutical ingredient. The scientific community waits until enough studies have accumulated and then relies on the weight of evidence before drawing any conclusions.

Unfortunately, unscrupulous supplement companies decide first on what claims they want to make and quote only the studies that support those claims. This is what is referred to as “cherry picking” the studies.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (otherwise known as DSHEA) is very clear about that. Section 5 of DSHEA states “…scientific journal articles, books and other publications can be used in the sale of dietary supplements provided…[they] are presented with other materials to create a balanced view of the scientific information…”

In plain words this legalese simply means that you can’t cherry pick studies. You can’t select only the studies that support your product claims and ignore those that don’t. Honest nutritional supplement companies would not use these deceitful practices.

However, this is a practice that I see all too often in the nutraceutical industry. It is dishonest. It is disgraceful

Are There Any Honest Nutritional Supplement Companies?

The bad news is that there are lots of supplement companies that do no clinical studies of their own. Instead they rely on borrowed science from studies that really do not provide proof that their products are either safe or effective. Even worse, many of those companies cherry pick only the studies that support their product claims and ignore studies that do not. This is a practice I regard as clearly dishonest. Those are companies I would avoid.

The good news is that there are a few companies that actually support clinical studies on their key products and publish those studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. Those are companies worthy of your consideration.

There are other things to take into account in selecting the best of the best – things like the number of studies and the quality of the studies. However, that’s a topic for another day.

Many Blogs Cherry Pick As Well

I can’t leave this topic without pointing out that many popular health and nutrition blogs, including those written by some well-known doctors, do exactly the same thing.

The pressures that lead to this behavior are obvious. The very popularity of these blogs depends on them being sensational week after week.

Unfortunately, true science is rarely sensational. It’s usually pretty wishy-washy. If you do a complete search of the literature, you usually find articles that are both for and against any point of view you wish to express. Occasionally, enough evidence accumulates on one side of an issue that scientists are willing to come to a definitive conclusion, but that conclusion is hardly ever sensational.

The only way that the authors of these popular blogs can make sensational claims each week is to cherry pick only the studies that support their point of view and ignore everything else.

Unfortunately, the average reader doesn’t realize this. They see the list of references supporting the claims and believe what they read. Then these bizarre claims get reposted over and over until the general public actually starts believing that they are true.

It really is a shame that DSHEA doesn’t apply to blogs. If it did, they wouldn’t be nearly as sensational, but they would be much more accurate. They would have to report on the whole body of scientific literature, rather than cherry picking just the studies that support their point of view.

In conclusion, there are some honest nutritional supplement companies, but be sure the company you choose to believe is citing studies on their actual products and not just ingredients in their products. Also, watch out for “cherry picking.”

The Bottom Line

The FDA recently sent a warning letter to a noni juice company for making unsupported health claims for their product. The company was claiming their product could cure things like cancer, gout and arthritis. Whenever a company makes claims like that, they can expect to draw the attention of the FDA.

An outside attorney specializing in FDA compliance pointed out that the company also had no good evidence to support their product claims. The company had done no clinical studies on the products. Instead they had “borrowed” the results of third party studies done with ingredients found in their product. Even worse, they had cherry picked only the studies that supported their product claims and ignored the studies that did not.

Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are often worthless in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. I discuss the reasons for that in the article above.

Cherry picking only the studies that support a company’s product claims runs afoul of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) requirement that companies provide a balanced view of the scientific literature relating to their products. It is also misleading and dishonest.

Unfortunately, the practice of using “borrowed science” from third party studies and cherry picking only the studies that support their product claims is common in the nutraceutical industry. Supplement companies that rely on this kind of evidence to support their product claims are dishonest and should be avoided.

For products you can trust, choose companies that support clinical studies on their key products and published those studies in peer-reviewed journals. You should also look at the number and quality of studies, but that is a topic for another day.

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.

A Bad Diet as an Adult May be the Result of Poor Feeding Habits in Infancy

November 1, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

“As The Twig Bends…”

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You have probably heard the saying “As the twig bends, so grows the tree.” The origin of that quote is lost in lore of medieval England, but the saying absolutely rings true when we are talking about infant nutrition and a bad diet as an adult.

Most moms naturally assume that a healthy diet is important for their infants, but many new moms have questions:

What does a healthy diet for their infant look like?

What should they do if their infant is a fussy eater?

Could what they feed their infants influence their eating patterns and their health for years to come?

Of course, there is no shortage of advice. There are the family customs handed down from generation to generation. There is lots of advice on the internet, some of it offered by people who have no knowledge of nutrition. Your pediatrician’s advice may be based on what they learned in medical school, but it is just as likely to have come from their mother.

All of that advice is well meaning, but some of it is flat out wrong!

Fortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and the US Food and Drug Administration have sponsored a major study called the longitudinal Infant Feeding Practices Study II (IFPD II) to answer these and other important questions about infant feeding practices.

How The Study Was Set Up

The initial phase of the study was performed between May 2005 and June 2007, and the study design was reported in 2008 (Fein et al., Pediatrics, 122: S28-S35, 2008). During this phase of the study, investigators simply collected information on infant feeding practices from ~2000 mothers when their infants were between 1 month and 1 year of age.

The purpose of this phase of the investigation was simply to collect baseline data so that subsequent studies could correlate infant feeding practices with diet and health outcomes as these children got older.

This was a very comprehensive survey of infant feeding practices and health status:

The first neonatal feeding practices survey was sent when the infant was ~ 1 month old.
Between ages 2 to 7 months, nine more surveys were sent out on an approximately monthly basis. These surveys asked about infant feeding, health, care, and related issues.
After 7 months additional surveys were sent out every 7 weeks until the infant was 12 months old.
In addition, the study included two maternal dietary surveys, one during pregnancy and a second one 4 months after delivery.

A Bad Diet Can Begin in Infancy

In phase 2 of the study multiple investigators followed up with ~1,500 of these children at age 6 to find out how infant feeding practices correlated with their diet and health as they reached early childhood. These studies were all published in a special edition of the journal Pediatrics in 2014 (Pediatrics, 134: Supplement 1, September 2014). Key findings from these studies were:

Duration of Breastfeeding Is Positively Correlated With A Healthier Diet At Age 6(C.G. Perrine et al, Pediatrics, 134: S50-S55, 2014). Specifically:

Infants who were breastfed for 12 months or longer were significantly more likely to drink water and to eat fresh fruits and vegetables at age 6 than infants who were breastfed for 6 months or less.

Infants who were breastfed for 12 months or longer were also significantly less likely to consume juices and sugar-sweetened beverages at age 6.

However, no correlation was seen between the duration of breastfeeding and consumption of milk, sweets and salty snacks in this study.

The authors of this study made the interesting comment that the taste of breast milk varies somewhat depending on what the mother has eaten that day. In contrast, commercial infant formulas taste the same every time and are often somewhat sweeter than breast milk. They hypothesized that this normal variation in the taste of breast milk may make toddlers and young children more willing to accept new foods such as fruits and vegetables. Here, you can already start to see breastfeeding longer may help avoid a bad diet later.

Of course, the authors cannot eliminate the possibility that mothers who breastfeed longer are also choosier about what they feed their children.

Fruit and Vegetable Intake In Infancy Is Positively Correlated With Fruit and Vegetable Intake At Age 6(K.A. Grimm et al, Pediatrics, 134: S63-S69, 2014). Specifically:

33% of 6-year-olds in their survey consumed fruit less than once daily and 20% consumed vegetables less than once daily.

More importantly, children in their study who consumed fruits and vegetables less than once daily during late infancy (10-12 months) were ~2.5 times less likely to eat fruits and vegetables more than once daily at age 6.

The authors of the study made the interesting observation that a liking of things that are sweet or salty is hardwired into the human brain. A single exposure to sweet and salty foods during infancy may be all that it takes to create a lifelong craving for those kinds of foods and leading to a bad diet.

In contrast, it may take repeated exposure to fruits and vegetables during infancy to develop a familiarity and preference for those kinds of foods. One of the authors of this study reported in a previous study that infants who were offered green beans for the first time squinted and wrinkled their noses. However, many of those same infants opened their mouths to try a spoonful if parents persisted.

Once again, there are other factors to consider, such as the kind of diet parents are modeling for their children.

Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages During Infancy Doubles The Odds Of Consuming Them At Age 6(S. Park et al, Pediatrics, 134: S56-S62, 2014). This study speaks for itself, but it is troubling. I shudder every time I see a young mother wheeling her baby through a store with a soft drink in their baby bottle. Is this a bad diet for an infant?

The implication of these studies and several other studies published in that issue of Pediatrics is clear. Bad diets do begin in infancy. However, there is a positive side to these studies. Good diets also begin in infancy, and you are in charge of what your infant puts in their mouth.

Bad Health Begins In Infancy

These studies are critically important because bad diets are not just a victimless crime. Bad diets affect health. Eventually, they kill people. Here are two examples from this set of studies that show how an infant’s diet affects their health – one positively and one negatively.

Duration of Breastfeeding Is Positively Correlated With A Healthier Immune System At Age 6(R. Li et al, Pediatrics, 134: S13-S20, 2014). This study showed that longer breastfeeding and later introduction of foods was associated with lower rates of ear, throat, and sinus infections. This conclusion is not exactly new. It strongly supports what a number of previous studies have shown.

Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages During Infancy Doubles The Odds Of Obesity At Age 6(L. Pan et al, Pediatrics, 134: S29-S35, 2014). This finding is not surprising. The study mentioned above showed that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages during infancy doubles the odds of consuming them at 6. Moreover, previous studies have clearly shown that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with obesity in children.

However, this finding is troubling because obese children often become obese adults, and obesity is associated with many serious health issues.

Again, the implication of these studies is clear. Both bad health and good health can be strongly influenced by feeding habits established in infancy.

The Bottom Line

A major clinical study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration monitored infant feeding patterns during the first year and compared those patterns with diet habits and health outcomes at age 6.

The duration of breastfeeding was positively associated with a healthier diet and a stronger immune system at age 6. Specifically:

Infants who were breastfed for 12 months or longer were significantly more likely to drink water and to eat fresh fruits and vegetables at age 6 than infants who were breastfed for 6 months or less.

Infants who were breastfed for 12 months or longer were also significantly less likely to consume juices and sugar-sweetened beverages at age 6.

Infants who were breastfed for 12 months or longer were significantly less likely to suffer from of ear, throat, and sinus infections.

The pattern of fruit and vegetable consumption established in late infancy was maintained through at least age 6. Specifically:

Children who consumed fruits and vegetables less than once daily during late infancy (10-12 months) were ~2.5 times less likely to eat fruits and vegetables more than once daily at age 6.

Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages during infancy has a negative impact on both diet and health through at least age 6. Specifically:

Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks during infancy doubles the chances that children will still be consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and will be obese at age 6.

This study strongly confirms what many smaller studies have suggested for years. It reinforces the importance of breastfeeding for at least the first 12 months and slowly transitioning to healthy foods rather than sugar-sweetened beverages and junk foods. It shows that what we feed our infants may influence their diet and their health for a lifetime.

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

Does Vitamin D Help Prevent Asthma Attacks?

October 25, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

What do the experts say about vitamin D helping to prevent asthma attacks? You’ve seen the headlines. Vitamin D is no longer just for healthy bones. It has become the latest “miracle” nutrient. If you believe everything you read, vitamin D can prevent or cure everything from multiple sclerosis to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Unfortunately, the evidence for many of those claims is weak.

However, the effect of vitamin D on the severity of asthma symptoms appears to be an exception. That relationship appears to be on much more solid ground.

A review published last year(S.K. Bantz et al, Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health, 3: pii: 1032, 2015) concluded “We emphasize that all children, especially those who are asthmatic, should be assessed to ensure adequate intake or supplementation with at least the minimum recommended doses of vitamin D. The simple intervention of vitamin D supplementation may provide significant clinical improvement in atopic disease, especially asthma.” [Note: Atopic disease refers to diseases characterized by a hyperallergenic response, such as eczema, hay fever, and asthma.]

That was followed by the recent publication of a Cochrane Review that concluded “Vitamin D is likely to offer protection against severe asthma attacks”. To understand the significance of that statement you need to understand that this is not just another clinical study or another review. Cochrane Reviews are conducted by an international group of experts and are considered the “Gold Standard” for evidence-based medicine.

You may remember that famous commercial: “When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen.” In this case: “When Cochrane Reviews speak, doctors listen.”

Let’s look briefly at how the review was conducted, and then examine exactly what the review said, and what it didn’t say.

Does Vitamin D Help Prevent Asthma Attacks?

One of the characteristics of Cochrane Reviews that set them apart from many of the other reviews that you find in the literature is that they include only the highest quality clinical studies in their analysis. This is one of the things that gives them such credibility.

This particular Cochrane Review included seven trials involving a total of 435 children and two trials involving a total of 658 adults. Most trial participants had mild to moderate asthma. The duration of the trials ranged from four to 12 months. All studies were placebo controlled and used close to RDA recommended doses of vitamin D.

The results were pretty clear cut:

Vitamin D supplementation reduced the average number of severe asthma attacks requiring treatment with oral steroids by 36%. This conclusion was based on 3 high-quality studies involving 680 participants. Here, these studies clearly show vitamin D does help prevent asthma attacks.

Vitamin D supplementation reduced the number of acute asthma attacks requiring emergency room visits and/or hospitalizations by 50%. This conclusion was based on 7 high-quality studies with 963 participants. These studies also show vitamin D helps prevent asthma attacks.

None of the studies reported any severe adverse effects from vitamin D supplementation. (Compare that with all warnings associated with those ads for asthma medications you see on TV.)

However, they did not see any effect of vitamin D supplementation on day-to-day asthma symptoms.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study strongly suggests that vitamin D supplementation in the RDA range (600 IU for ages 1-70 and 800 IU for adults over 70) significantly reduces the risk of severe asthma attacks requiring steroids or hospitalization. Thus, if you or your child have asthma, vitamin D supplementation in the RDA range just makes sense.

However, this study also suggest that vitamin D is not a panacea that will make all asthma symptoms disappear.

Also, even Cochrane Reviews have limitations.

None of the studies included in this review looked at vitamin D status prior to the study. We simply don’t know whether vitamin D supplementation might be effective at reducing day-to-day asthma symptoms in individuals who were vitamin D deficient.

The studies included in this review did not include asthma sufferers with severe symptoms. Again, we don’t know whether vitamin D supplementation might make day-to-day symptoms more tolerable and easily controlled for people with severe asthma symptoms

One final thought: Blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D are the best indicators of vitamin D status. For reasons that we don’t understand, not everyone consuming RDA levels of vitamin D ends up with optimal levels (50-75 nmoles/L). For that reason, it is a good idea to get your blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D tested as part of your annual physical exam.

If you are already getting RDA levels of vitamin D and your 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels are not in the optimal range, you may want to supplement with extra vitamin D. Just be sure to monitor your 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels on a regular basis to make sure they don’t exceed the optimal range.

So, according to the Cochrane Review, vitamin D does help prevent asthma attacks.

The Bottom Line

A recent Cochrane Review concluded that vitamin D supplementation in the RDA range (600 IU for ages 1-70 and 800 IU for adults over 70) significantly reduces the risk of severe asthma attacks requiring steroids or hospitalization in both children and adults. This is significant because Cochrane Reviews are considered the Gold Standard for evidence-based medicine.

Thus, if you or your child have asthma, vitamin D supplementation in the RDA range just makes sense.

However, blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D are the best measure of vitamin status, and not everyone consuming RDA levels of vitamin D ends up with optimal levels (50-75 nmoles/L). If you are already getting RDA levels of vitamin D in your diet and your 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels are not in the optimal range, you may want to supplement with extra vitamin D. Just be sure to monitor your 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels on a regular basis to make sure they don’t exceed the optimal range.

This Cochrane Review did not find any effect of vitamin D supplementation on day-to-day asthma symptoms.

However, even Cochrane Reviews have limitations.

None of the studies included in this review looked at vitamin D status prior to the study. We simply don’t know whether vitamin D supplementation might be effective at reducing day-to-day asthma symptoms in individuals who were vitamin D deficient.

The studies included in this review did not include asthma sufferers with severe symptoms. Again, we don’t know whether vitamin D supplementation might make day-to-day symptoms more tolerable and easily controlled for people with severe asthma symptoms

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.

Shoulder Joint Pain Relief

October 18, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Shoulder joint pain was preventing a father from throwing a baseball to his son and he was very distressed. He needed should joint pain relief in the worst way. He was complaining to a friend of his who is a client of mine. Even though he had been recommended to go for surgery, his friend convinced him to give muscle therapy a chance. So yesterday “Frank” came in to see me.

He demonstrated throwing a ball, but he could barely lift his arm, and he definitely couldn’t bring it back. He said that his time with his son is precious to him, and that their favorite pastime is throwing a baseball. If I could just help him do that, he would be happy.

Why Muscles Cause Shoulder Joint Pain

Your shoulder has more muscle attachments than any other joint in your body. A muscle pulls in only one direction, muscles never push. When you consider all the movements you can make with your shoulder and arm, you can see why there are so many muscles involved.

The important fact is when a muscle is shortened from spasms, it will cause pain at its insertion point on the bone at the shoulder joint.

The reason is evident when you consider an analogy I frequently use to describe joint pain. If you pull your hair at the end, it hurts at your scalp. However, you don’t need to massage your scalp, you don’t need to take aspirin for the headache, and you definitely don’t need brain surgery! You just need to let go of your hair!

The exact same thing is true to stop your shoulder joint pain. You just need to let go of the tight muscles that insert into your shoulder.

The Muscles That Cause Shoulder Joint Pain

Perhaps you’ve heard of the rotator cuff muscles: supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis. However, my experience has proven that there are a lot of other muscles that aren’t considered shoulder muscles, but that will cause shoulder joint pain. Those muscles are your biceps and triceps, your levator scapulae, and your latissimus dorsi (among others).

While not rotator cuff muscles, your biceps and triceps both originate deep within your shoulder joint. The other two muscles will move your shoulder blade (scapula). When they are in spasm, which shortens the muscle fibers, it will cause a strain to be placed on the muscle tendon, which will then cause a strain, and pain, on your shoulder joint.

How To Release Shoulder Joint Pain

There are so many muscles involved in shoulder joint pain that I couldn’t show all of them here, that’s why I wrote Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living.

However, I do want to show you how to do one treatment for your infraspinatus muscle.

But first, back to “Frank.” I treated each of the muscles mentioned, and then using Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, I showed him how to treat each of the muscles of his shoulder. He was thrilled! He could easily, and painlessly, throw a baseball. In fact, he went outside and tried it just to make sure.

The key is self-treatment. Muscles will again shorten up until you train them to be their normal, longer, length. You can’t go to a therapist as often as necessary to make the muscles return to their proper length. However, you can treat yourself every day! That’s how you really stay flexible and pain-free — frequent self-treatment.

An Easy Treatment For Shoulder Joint Pain

The following pictures are from Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living

Step 1: To treat your left infraspinatus, put the Perfect Ball in your right hand and bring it under your arm, going back as far as you can so you are on top of your infraspinatus muscle.

Step 2: Lean into a wall. Find the “hot spot” (the spasm). You’ll know you’re on it because it will hurt.

Step 3: Stay still for 30-60 seconds, then move a little bit to roll the ball back and forth on the muscle.

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living will explain this further, and will give you pictures and descriptions of how to self-treat the other muscles that cause shoulder joint pain.

It just takes a little bit of direction and effort to learn how to self-treat. But, I’ve seen so many times that you CAN stop shoulder joint pain!

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.

Folic Acid vs. Folate

October 11, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Supplement Manufacturers Trying to Mislead You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

There has been much confusion on folic acid vs. folate. For example, I recently received this question from a reader:

“I have gotten so much clarification about folic acid from your video – thank you!
But I have another question I was hoping you could answer.

When a supplement label states there is “folate” rather than “folic acid”, is there really a difference between the two? I hear women telling each other to only use the one that says folate because it’s made from food. And folic acid isn’t. These women are also paying more money for these products because of this. Is this true? (And I’m not talking about tetrahydrafolate, either)
I’ve been told by one manufacturer that they label it as folic acid, but they know other companies who use the exact same source of folic acid. Still, they put folate on their label, possibly to avoid controversy.
Are these women being duped? Should they be asking the manufacturer certain questions for clarification?”

The video, this reader is referring to is my “The Truth About Methyl Folate” video in which I debunk the many myths about methyl folate circulating on the internet, and, unfortunately, repeated by some doctors.

However, the reader is correct. I did not address the folic acid vs. folate nomenclature in that video. I will attempt to clarify it in this article.

Folic Acid vs. Folate

A Rose By Any Other Name

I call this section “A Rose By Any Other Name” from the famous Shakespeare quote from Romeo and Juliet “A rose by any other names would smell as sweet”.

Biochemists and nutritionists use the terms folic acid and folate interchangeably. There is a sound chemical rationale for that.

Folic acid has a glutamic acid residue on one end. Thus, folic acid is what chemists refer to as an organic acid, specifically a carboxylic acid. Under acidic conditions the appropriate suffix for an organic acid is “ic”. However, under neutral or alkaline conditions, organic acids lose their protons. Once that happens, the appropriate suffix is “ate”.

The exact pH of vitamin pills may vary from brand to brand. In our body our stomach is acidic, our intestines are alkaline, and our blood and cells are normally near neutral. Thus, vitamin B9 could correctly be labeled either folic acid or folate in supplements. It will be folic acid in our stomach and will be folate in our intestines, bloodstream, and cells. Beginning to see the difference between folic acid vs. folate?

The bottom line is that nobody is trying to trick you by using the term folate for the vitamin B9 on their supplement label. Furthermore, whether the label says folic acid or folate, the actual vitamin B9 will be in both the folic acid and folate form as it travels through your body.

In answer to your other question, since folic acid and folate are two names for the same molecule, folate is not more natural than folic acid. If someone is charging you extra because they use the term folate on their label, they are ripping you off.

What About Tetrahydrofolate?

The person who sent me the question also asked about tetrahydrofolates. Here the story gets a bit murkier. As folic acid or folate enters our cells, three things immediately happen:

It is reduced to tetrahydrofolate. That terminology simply means that 4 hydrogens have been added to the molecule.

A string of glutamic acid residues is added. That traps it inside the cells.

It is converted to a half dozen different derivatives that play important metabolic roles in the cell. N5-methyltetrahydrofolate (commonly referred to as methyl folate) is one of these metabolically active compounds.

This is where it gets confusing. Nutritionists also refer to all of these tetrahydrofolate derivatives as folates. My guess is that years ago some genius must have decided that the term tetrahydrofolate was too long and complicated for the general public.

In my view lumping everything together under the term folate has turned out to be more confusing in the long run. However, I do have the advantage of hindsight. It’s easy to point out mistakes after they are made.

However, this is where all of the confusion arises. It’s because the term folate can mean so many different things. Here are a few fast facts to help clarify the confusion.

Folates in food are in the tetrahydrofolate form. Tetrahydrofolate in foods is, in fact, more natural than folic acid or folate in supplements. However, tetrahydrofolates in foods are utilized only about half as well as folic acid or folate in supplements. In addition, most of us don’t eat enough high-folate foods.

In contrast, tetrahydrofolate in a supplement is not more natural than folic acid. That’s because:

It would require one cup of lentils or two cups of spinach to provide the RDA level of tetrahydrofolate in a single vitamin tablet. That’s just one tablet. You do the math! If someone tells you that the folate in their supplement came from foods, they will lie to you about other things as well.

In fact, the tetrahydrofolate found in supplements is chemically synthesized from folic acid. It can never be more natural than folic acid.

Supplements containing tetrahydrofolate are no better utilized than supplements containing folic acid when you measure their ability to increase cellular tetrahydrofolate levels (the only measure that really matters).

The bottom line is that even if folate on the label were to refer to tetrahydrofolate, it is not from food. It is not more natural than folic acid. It is not better utilized than folic acid. If someone is charging you a higher price for that supplement, they are ripping you off.

Debunking The Methyl Folate Myths

Methyl folate has become an internet sensation. If you believe all the hype, everyone should be using supplements containing methyl folate rather than folic acid. In fact, some of the claims made by manufacturers who sell methyl folate supplements are downright deceptive.

Unfortunately, there are even medical doctors touting the wonders of methyl folate and offering all sorts of plausible sounding biochemical explanations about why it is superior to folic acid. My take on that is that I try not to practice medicine when I write my articles. I have neither the training nor the degree to do that. In turn, I would ask medical doctors to stop trying to practice biochemistry.

As I said at the beginning of this article, I have produced a video, “The Truth About Methyl Folate,” in which I debunk all the many methyl folate myths circulating on the internet. If you would like the “Cliff Notes” version, here it is:

Supplements containing methyl folate do not get their methyl folate from foods.

Methyl folate in supplements is chemically synthesized and is not more natural than folic acid.

Folic acid and methyl folate in supplements are equally well utilized by the body, even in individuals with a MTHFR deficiency.

Excess folic acid does not cause cancer.

If you would like the science and the references behind those statements, I invite you to view my video.

I hope you now understand folic acid vs. folates. If not, please feel free to reach out to me.

The Bottom Line

A reader recently asked me to clear up the confusion about why the terms folic acid vs. folate are used interchangeably on supplement labels to describe vitamin B9.

That terminology is based on simple chemistry. Folic acid and folate are two names for the same molecule. Under acidic conditions, it is called folic acid. Under neutral or alkaline conditions, it is called folate.

Since folic acid and folate are two names for the same molecule, folate is not more natural than folic acid. If someone is charging you extra because they use the term folate on their label, they are ripping you off.

In the cell folate is reduced to tetrahydrofolate and a number of metabolically active derivatives of tetrahydrofolate are formed. Unfortunately, these compounds are also referred to as folates. This terminology has a historical basis rather than a chemical basis and is confusing.

If you see the term tetrahydrofolate on your supplement label, you need to know that it is not from food. It is not more natural than folic acid. It is not better utilized than folic acid. If someone is charging you a higher price for that supplement, they are also ripping you off.

I have produced a video called “The Truth About Methyl Folate” to debunk the many methyl folate myths on the internet. In the article above, you will find the “Cliff Notes” version of the video.

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.

Prenatal DHA Supplement

October 4, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Is taking a prenatal DHA supplement wise for brain health?

There are lots of reasons to think that DHA supplementation may be important for healthy brain development.

DHA is a major component of the myelin sheath that coats every neuron in the brain.

Just as the plastic coating on copper wire allows it to conduct an electrical current, the myelin sheath allows neurons to conduct nerve impulses from one end of the neuron to the other. In short, the myelin sheath is absolutely essential for brain function.

Unlike many of the other components of the myelin sheath, the body cannot make DHA. It must be provided by the diet.

Recent studies have suggested that most women in the United States and Canada do not get sufficient amounts of the omega-3s EPA and DHA in their diet.

Animal studies show that DHA deficiency during pregnancy interferes with normal brain and eye development.

With all that circumstantial evidence, it would seem obvious that a prenatal DHA supplement would be important for healthy brain development in infants and children. However, clinical studies have been all over the map.

Some studies have reported that DHA supplementation during pregnancy improves cognition, attention span, behavior or reading skills in both infants and children. Other studies have shown no effect of DHA supplementation on those parameters. There is no consensus on this very important question.

Thus, when I saw a recent study titled “Prenatal Supplementation with DHA Improves Attention At 5 Years Of Age: A Randomized Controlled Trial” (U Ramakrishnan et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.101071, 2016), I decided to Investigate.

Does Taking a Prenatal DHA Supplement Improve Attention Span?

In this study 1094 Mexican women were randomly assigned to receive either 400 mg of DHA or a placebo containing corn and soy oil starting in the second trimester of pregnancy (a time at which myelination and brain development begins) until delivery. Of the women enrolled in the study, 973 of them gave birth to healthy babies.

The investigators were able to follow up with 797 (82%) of those children at age 5 and conducted tests to measure overall cognitive function, behavior, and attention span.

There were no differences in overall cognitive development or behavior between the two groups.

The children from mothers who supplemented with DHA performed significantly better in tests of attention span. They were much less likely to be distracted by external stimuli than the children from mothers not supplementing with DHA.

In short, this study suggested that supplementation with DHA during pregnancy produced children who were less likely to suffer from attention deficit disorders at age 5.

This study had a number of strengths:

It was a fairly large study (797 children).

Supplementation was with pure DHA rather than with a mixture of EPA, DHA, and other omega-3 fatty acids.

The population was from an urban area of Mexico where omega-3 intake is generally low, so it was likely that many of the women were DHA-deficient at the beginning of the study.

However, it also had some glaring weaknesses:

The DHA status of the women was not measured either at baseline or after supplementation.

The quality of the child’s learning environment was not measured.

In short, the study was neither better or worse than the many other published studies.

Why Is There So Much Confusion?

To try and clear up the confusion I have also analyzed many of the other published studies in this field. There were things not to like about every study, but there was no obvious reason why some studies showed a positive effect of DHA supplementation and others failed to see any benefit. This is not unusual for human nutrition clinical studies, but it is frustrating.

However, when you look at the totality of the studies in this field there is one obvious reason why there is so much confusion. There is no uniformity in experimental design. No two studies are alike.

The published studies differ in:

The composition of omega-3s. Some studies are done with pure DHA. Others with mixtures of EPA and DHA and with varying ratios of EPA to DHA.

The amount of DHA. Studies range from 100 mg/day to 800 mg/day.

When the DHA is given. Some studies give the DHA to the pregnant mothers. Others give DHA to infants or to children of various ages.

Even worse, most of the published studies to date have not measured omega-3 status prior to supplementation, nor have they documented an improvement in omega-3 status with supplementation. Obviously, DHA supplementation is most likely to be beneficial for individuals who were DHA-deficient at the beginning of the study.

Until there is some uniformity in experimental design and DHA status is routinely measured, it is likely that the confusion will continue and this important question will remain unanswered.

Should Pregnant Women Take a Prenatal DHA Supplement?

If we were to assume that most American women were getting enough omega-3s in their diet, and the consequences of DHA deficiency were relatively minor, this would be merely an academic discussion. We could afford to wait years until scientists were able to come to a consensus.

However, neither of those assumptions are true:

One recent study reported that the United States and Canada rated last in the world with respect to omega-3 intake.

Another study reported that 75% of Canadian women were not getting enough omega-3s during pregnancy. Other studies suggest that the situation is very similar in the United States.

If any of the reported consequences (short attention span, cognitive deficits, and behavioral problems) of DHA-deficiency during pregnancy and childhood are true and they are preventable with DHA supplementation, this information is of vital importance to every woman during her child bearing years.

In short, inadequate DHA intake is so widespread and the possible consequences of DHA deficiency during pregnancy are so important that, in my opinion, a prenatal DHA supplement only makes sense. Pregnant women can’t afford to wait until we are absolutely sure that DHA supplementation is essential.

The only caveat to this recommendation is to make sure that the DHA you are getting is pure. Our oceans are increasingly polluted. Many fish and some fish oil supplements are contaminated with heavy metals and/or PCBs. Only use omega-3 and/or DHA supplements from manufacturers that use very stringent quality controls to assure their products are pure.

The Bottom Line

A recent study has reported that DHA supplementation during pregnancy improves attention span in children at age 5.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus in this field. Some studies have come to similar conclusions while others have seen no effect of DHA supplementation during pregnancy.

If we were to assume that omega-3 deficiency was rare in this country and the consequences of DHA deficiency during pregnancy were inconsequential, this would be an academic discussion. Pregnant women could wait for scientists to reach consensus before deciding whether or not to supplement with DHA. However, neither of those studies are true.

Studies show that most women in the US and Canada do not get adequate omega-3s during pregnancy.

If any of the reported consequences of DHA deficiency during pregnancy are true and they are preventable with DHA supplementation, this information is of vital importance to every woman during her pregnancy.

In short, inadequate DHA intake is so widespread and the possible consequences of DHA deficiency during pregnancy are so important that, in my opinion, DHA supplementation during pregnancy only makes sense. Pregnant women can’t afford to wait until we are absolutely sure that DHA supplementation is essential.

The only caveat to this recommendation is to make sure that the DHA you are getting is pure. Our oceans are increasingly polluted. Many fish and some fish oil supplements are contaminated with heavy metals and/or PCBs. Only use omega-3 and/or DHA supplements from manufacturers that use very stringent quality controls to assure their products are pure.

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.

Should We Take Calcium Supplements?

September 27, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Clearing Up The Calcium Confusion

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Should we take calcium supplements? You have every right to be confused about calcium supplementation. There have been a lot of conflicting headlines in recent months.

It has seemed like a no-brainer for years that calcium supplementation could help post-menopausal women and men over 50 avoid the debilitating effects of osteoporosis.

After all:

>99% of adults fail to get the USDA recommended 2.5-3 servings/day of dairy products.

67% of women ages 19-50 and 90% of women over 50 fail to meet the RDA recommendations for calcium intake from diet alone.

Men do a little better (but only because we consume more food). 40% of men ages 19-50 and 80% of men over 50 fail to meet the RDA recommendations for calcium intake from diet alone.

Inadequate calcium intake over a lifetime is considered a major risk factor for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is serious business. It doesn’t just cause bone fractures. It can result in chronic pain, disability, long term nursing home care, and even death.

It’s no wonder that some experts have predicted that supplementation with calcium and vitamin D could save over $1 billion per year in health care cost savings. It is also why health professionals have recommended calcium supplementation for years, especially for postmenopausal women and men over 50.

However, recent headlines have claimed that calcium supplementation doesn’t really increase bone density or prevent osteoporosis (more about that later). Other headlines have suggested that calcium supplementation is actually bad for you. It may increase your risk of heart disease.

That’s why the general public, and even many doctors, are confused. Should we take calcium supplements? Everyone wants to know the answer to two questions:

Do calcium supplements work?

Are calcium supplements safe?

I will start with the second question first.

Are Calcium Supplements Safe?

I have discussed the issue of calcium supplements and heart disease risk in a previous issue of Health Tips From the Professor. Briefly, the initial studies suggesting that calcium supplementation might increase the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease were good studies, but they were small, short-term studies.

The initial studies raised an important question, so the scientific community stepped up to the plate and conducted larger, longer term studies to test the hypothesis. Both of those studies concluded that calcium supplementation posed no heart health risks.

Now a third major study on the subject has just been published (Raffield et al, Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Disease, doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2016.07.007). The study followed 6236 men and women ages 45-84 for an average of 10.3 years. The subjects were from four different race/ethnicity groups and came from 6 different locations in the United States. More importantly, there were 208 heart attacks and 641 diagnoses of cardiovascular disease during the study, so the sample size was large enough to accurately determine the relationship between calcium supplementation and heart disease.

The results were pretty straight forward:

The authors concluded: “[This study] does not support a substantial association of calcium supplement use with negative cardiovascular outcomes.” If you would like the plain-speak version of their conclusion, they were saying that they saw no increase in either heart attacks or overall cardiovascular disease in people taking calcium supplements.

If anything, they saw a slight decrease in heart attack risk in those taking calcium supplements, but this was not statistically significant.

In summary, the weight of evidence is pretty clear. Three major studies have now come to the same conclusion: Calcium supplementation does not increase the risk of either heart attacks or cardiovascular disease.

Of course, once information has been placed on the internet, it tends to stay there for a very long time – even if subsequent studies have proven it to be wrong. So the myth that calcium supplementation increases heart attack risk will probably be with us for a while.

So, should we take calcium supplements? Let’s first investigate a little further.

Do Calcium Supplements Work?

As I mention above, recent headlines have also suggested that calcium supplementation does not increase bone density, so it is unlikely to protect against osteoporosis. I analyzed the study behind those headlines in great detail in two previous issues of Health Tips From the Professor.

In Part 1 Calcium Supplements Prevent Bone Fractures I pointed out the multiple weaknesses in the study that make it impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion from the data.

In Part 2 Preventing Osteoporosis I discussed the conclusion that the study should have come to, namely: Adequate calcium intake is absolutely essential for strong bones, but calcium intake is only one component of a bone healthy lifestyle.

The bottom line is that calcium supplementation will be of little use if:

You aren’t getting adequate amounts of vitamin D and all of the other nutrients needed for bone formation from diet and supplementation.

You aren’t getting enough exercise to stimulate bone formation.

You are consuming bone dissolving foods or taking bone dissolving drugs.

Conversely, none of the other aspects of a bone healthy lifestyle matter if you aren’t getting enough calcium from diet and supplementation.

The bottom line is that you need to get adequate calcium and have a bone healthy lifestyle to build strong bones and prevent osteoporosis, and calcium supplementation is often essential to make sure you are getting adequate calcium.

Should We Take Calcium Supplements?

Should we take calcium supplements? If you are one of the millions of Americans who aren’t meeting the RDA guidelines for calcium from diet alone, the answer is an unqualified yes. Calcium supplementation is safe, and it is cheap. Osteoporosis is preventable, and it is not a disease to be trifled with.

However, you also need to be aware that calcium supplementation alone is unlikely to be effective unless you follow a bone healthy lifestyle of diet, exercise and appropriate supplementation to make sure you are getting all of the nutrients needed for bone formation.

Of course, it is always possible to get too much of a good thing. The RDA for calcium is 1,000 – 1,200 mg/day. The suggested upper limit (UL) for calcium is 2,000 – 3,000 mg/day. I would aim closer to the RDA than the UL unless higher intakes are recommended by your health care professional.

The Bottom Line

80% of men and 90% percent of women over 50 do not get enough calcium from their diet.

Consequently, doctors have consistently recommended calcium supplementation to prevent osteoporosis, and 50% of men and 60% of women over 60 currently consume calcium supplements on a regular basis.

Some small, short term studies suggested that calcium supplementation might increase the risk of heart disease, and warnings about calcium supplementation have been widely circulated on the internet. This hypothesis has been evaluated by three larger, longer term studies that have all concluded that calcium supplementation does not increase heart disease risk.

A recent study claimed that calcium supplementation was ineffective at increasing bone density, and that report has also been widely circulated. However, there are multiple weaknesses in the study that make it impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion from the data.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who aren’t meeting the RDA guidelines for calcium from diet alone, you should consider calcium supplementation. It is safe. It is effective when combined with a bone healthy lifestyle of diet, exercise, and appropriate supplementation. Finally, it is cheap. Osteoporosis is preventable, and it is not a disease to be trifled with.

Of course, it is always possible to get too much of a good thing. The RDA for calcium is 1,000 – 1,200 mg/day. The suggested upper limit (UL) for calcium is 2,000 – 3,000 mg/day. I would aim closer to the RDA than the UL unless higher intakes are recommended by your health care professional.

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.

Side Stitch Pain Relief

September 20, 2016 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is Side Stitch Pain And How Do You Treat It?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Side stitch pain feels like a pin is being pushed into the muscle between your ribs – and it hurts! In fact, it’s enough to make you stop running if you’re out exercising. Or you’ll take very shallow breaths if you are suddenly attacked by a side stitch pain.

What Causes Side Stitch Pain?

The most common cause of side stitch pain is a spasm in your intercostal muscles , the tiny muscles that attach your ribs together.

When you take a breath in, your external intercostal muscles contract to make your rib cage expand, and your internal intercostal muscles contract so you can draw your ribs together and force the air out of your lungs. This is a smooth movement until you add something like heavy coughing or rapid, deep breathing.

If, for example, you are having an allergic reaction to leaves molding in the fall or you have bronchitis or a post-nasal drip, you may have bouts of uncontrolled coughing.

Or, if you are an athlete, you may be panting after a challenging workout or run.

In both cases you are rapidly opening and closing your rib cage as your body quickly draws in more air into your lungs. This rapid and repetitive movement can cause a spasm to form in your intercostal muscles. The spasm, a tiny knot in the muscle fibers, prevents those fibers from expanding as you try to draw in your breath. And you feel the muscle tension as a side stitch pain.

Treatment For Side Stitch Pain

Relief from side stitch pain is as simple as 1,2,3. Best of all, it gives immediate pain relief so you can get on with your activities.

Step 1: Using your fingertips, press directly into the side stitch pain point. Use your opposite hand to add strength to your movement.

Step 2: Hold the point for 30 seconds and then take a slow, deep, breath so your rib cage expands fully.

Step 3: Repeat this 2-3 times.

This simple treatment stops side stitch pain as soon as it happens so you can get back to breathing easily again. It’s easy to self-treat when you have just a little direction of where to go to find the pain, and how to do a self-treatment.

You can discover how to eliminate pain quickly using my book, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living. This book is a “how to guide” to the body, and will save you time and money, and most importantly, give you relief!

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.