Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Statins Cause Memory Loss?

by

Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?

Author: Dr. Steve Chaney

 

statins and diabetesDo statins cause memory loss?  They are at it again. The medical profession is telling us that yet another study shows that statins are safe, so almost everyone should be taking a statin drug. There is only one problem. That’s not what the study really showed.

Let’s start at the beginning. For people who have already had a heart attack it is pretty clear that statin drugs save lives. If stain drugs were only prescribed for people who have had a heart attack or were at high risk of having a heart attack, I would be a proponent of their use.

However, the guidelines developed by the pharmaceutical and medical industry recommend statin use for millions of Americans who have never had a heart attack and who are at low to moderate risk of ever having a heart attack. That is problematic.

As I documented in a recent “Health Tips From the Professor”  the benefits of statins are marginal at best in healthy people who have not yet had a heart attack.

In addition, statins have some significant side effects. For example, up to 5% of people taking statins develop muscle pain and weakness. For most people the muscle pain is merely an inconvenience, but in a small percentage of cases it can lead to serious complications.

More concerning are the required label warnings that statins can lead to memory loss, mental confusion, high blood sugar and type 2 diabetes. In fact, a recent study described in “Health Tips From the Professor” suggests that statins may increase diabetes risk by as much as 46%.

In other words, statins may not kill you, but they sure can make life miserable. For many people, the most troubling aspect of statin use is memory loss. One of the most terrifying aspects of aging is the thought that you might be able to keep your body healthy but lose your mind.

However, recent headlines have proclaimed that we can “forget” about statins causing memory loss (Pardon the pun. I couldn’t resist it). They claim that a recent study has shown that statins don’t actually cause memory loss. The problem is that is not exactly what the study showed. It is only the medical profession’s interpretation of what the study showed.

Why Might Statins Cause Memory Loss?

iron and brain developmentStatin drugs block cholesterol synthesis, and cholesterol is an integral part of the myelin sheath that coats our neurons. You can think of myelin as being like the plastic coating on an electrical wire. It is that plastic coating that allows the electrical current to travel from one end of the wire to the other without shorting out. Myelin plays essentially the same role for our neurons.

Because of the importance of cholesterol in maintaining the integrity of myelin, there was concern from the earliest days of statin development that it might adversely affect memory. Thus, multiple clinical studies have been performed to determine whether statin use adversely affects memory.

Unfortunately, the previous clinical studies have been inclusive. Some suggested that statins cause memory loss. Others found no correlation between statin use and memory loss. A few actually suggested that statins improved memory. There are a number of reasons why the previous studies came to different conclusions including use of different statin drugs, different duration of the studies, and differences in how memory was measured.

Do Statins Cause Memory Loss?

blood pressure medicationsThis study (Strom et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2092) differed from previous studies in that:

  • It focused on short term memory loss, and
  • It also included a group of patients who were using non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs.

The study drew on patient data from the online Health Improvement Network database collected from general practitioners offices throughout England between July 7, 2013 and January 15, 2015. The study compared 482,543 statin users with 482,543 matched controls using no cholesterol lowering medication and 26,484 patients using non-statin cholesterol lowering medications. The average age of the participants in this study was 63. Memory loss within the first 30 days after initiation of drug therapy was assessed by scanning the medical records in the database for codes related to memory loss.

The results were stunning!

  • Stain drug users were 4-fold more likely to experience short term memory loss within the first 30 days than non-users, and the likelihood of memory loss was dose dependent.
  • The users of non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs were also 4-fold more likely to experience short term memory loss within the first 30 days than non-users.
  • As you might expect there was no significant difference in memory loss between users of the statin and non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs.

How Were The Results Interpreted?

The results seemed to be pretty clear cut, but it was a somewhat misleading interpretation of the results that was widely publicized. The authors of the article correctly pointed out that there are two possible interpretations of these results. Either…

  • All cholesterol lowering drugs cause acute memory loss….or
  • The association of memory loss with cholesterol lowering drugs is the result of something called “detection bias”.

Let me explain. Some memory loss is fairly common for people in their 60s and beyond. The term “detection bias” simply means that the patients might have been more acutely aware of memory loss because they were monitoring themselves for side effects to the drug they just started taking.

Of course, the medical profession is so confident in the benefits of statins that they focused on the second interpretation, and that is the one that you heard about in all of the press releases about this study. If you believe that the self-reported memory loss in this study was entirely due to detection bias, then the most logical interpretation of the study is that statin drugs really don’t cause memory loss.

However, I consider the first interpretation to be the most likely of the two. If use of cholesterol lowering drugs were associated with a 25% or 50% increase in memory loss, detection bias could have been a credible interpretation of the data. However, a 4-fold increase in memory loss is hard to ascribe to detection bias alone.

Furthermore, the first explanation is fully consistent with what we know about myelin. Because of the importance of cholesterol in maintaining the integrity of the myelin sheath, it is logical that any drug that dramatically lowers cholesterol levels could have an adverse effect on cognitive function.

Are There Other Options Besides Statin Drugs?

Because of the marginal benefits in healthy people and the multiple side effects, some experts are starting to step up and say that statins may be overprescribed. For example, Dr. Roger Blumenthal, MD, a professor and director of the Ciccarone Preventive Cardiology Center at Johns Hopkins recently said: “Statin therapy should not be approached like diet and exercise as a broadly based solution for preventing coronary heart disease. These are lifelong medications with potential, although rare, side effects, and physicians should only consider their use for those patients at greatest risk…”

So, what are the alternatives?

#1: Lower Cholesterol Naturally With Some TLC

healthy livingsThe National Heart Lung & Blood Institute recommends that something called Therapeutic Lifestyle Change or TLC should always be tried first for patients with elevated cholesterol, and that statins only be used if the lifestyle approach fails – a message that seems to have gotten lost in the translation in many doctor’s offices. The TLC recommendations are:

  • Add 2 grams per day of plant stanols and sterols to your diet. In most cases some that will require some degree of supplementation.
  • Eat less than 7 percent of your daily calories from saturated fat
  • Eat less than 200 mg a day of cholesterol
  • Make sure that you get 10-25 grams per day of soluble fiber.
  • Get only 25–35 percent of daily calories from total fat (this includes saturated fat calories)
  • Consume only enough calories to reach or maintain a healthy weight
  • In addition, you should get at least 30 minutes of a moderate intensity physical activity, such as brisk walking, on most, and preferably all, days of the week.

There is ample evidence that implementation of these lifestyle changes will reduce cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke without any side effects. The reduction in cholesterol levels is more modest than what can be achieved with cholesterol lowering medications, but perhaps that is the point. Perhaps the medical profession is being too aggressive in reducing cholesterol levels with drug therapy.

If you are a bit overwhelmed by the TLC recommendations, there is good news. Even one or two of the lifestyle changes mentioned above can substantially reduce your risk of heart attack or stroke. For example, in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor,” apple a day keeps statins away, I reported on a study claiming that simply eating one apple a day would be just as effective as statins at reducing cardiovascular deaths.

#2: Reduce Other Risk Factors Associated with Heart Disease

Elevated cholesterol is not the only risk factor associated with heart disease. In fact, many experts feel that it isn’t even the most important risk factor. High blood pressure, high triglycerides, inflammation and damage to the endothelial lining of our arteries are other important risk factors for heart disease. If you are leery about using statins to reduce your cholesterol levels, you might want to explore other natural approaches to reducing heart disease risk. For example:

  • Nitrate from foods such as beetroot and spinach reduce blood pressure and improve endothelial health. This is also a topic I have covered in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” Nitric Oxide Benefits Side Effects.
  • Resveratrol and related polyphenols reduce inflammation and improve endothelial health.

I could go on, but you get the point. There are other natural approaches for reducing heart attack risk. Statins and other cholesterol lowering drugs are not the only game in town.

     Red Yeast Rice Yeast Rice Side Effects?

red yeast rice side effectsHowever, just because a supplement is natural doesn’t necessarily mean that it is either safe or effective. Red yeast rice is a perfect example. Many people think of red yeast rice as a natural way to reduce cholesterol levels. They believe red yeast rice side effects are non-existent. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The active ingredients in red yeast rice are a class of compounds called monacolins, which are close analogs of the statin drugs. In fact, the most abundant monacolin, monacolin K, is identical to the statin drug lovastatin.

That destroys one myth. If a red yeast rice product contains as much monacolin K as a lovastatin pill, it would have the same benefits and the same side effects.

It only gets worse! In fact, you have no way of knowing how much monacolin K is in your red yeast rice supplement. Because lovastatin is a drug the manufacturers are caught in a Catch-22 situation. If the manufacturers were to actually standardize or disclose the levels of monacolin K in their product, the FDA would consider it an unapproved drug.

When manufacturers don’t standardize their active ingredients bad things happen. How bad, you might ask? A recent study analyzed the concentration of active ingredients in 12 commercially available red yeast rice supplements (R. Y. Gordon et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, 170: 1722-1727, 2015). The results were appalling:

  • Total monacolins in the supplements ranged from 0.31 to 11.15 mg/capsule.
  • Monacolin K (lovastatin) ranged from 0.10 to 10.09 mg/capsule.
  • To put that into perspective therapeutic doses of lovastatin range from 10 to 80 mg/day.

It gets even worse! The study also measured levels of a toxin called citrinin that is produced by a fungus and is potentially toxic to the kidneys. This is not a toxin that you would find in a pharmaceutical product like lovastatin, but it was present in high levels in one third of the red yeast rice formulations tested.

To sum it all up, if you were to go out and purchase a red yeast rice supplement.

  • You might get a batch with no active ingredients. It wouldn’t have any of the side effects of a statin drug, but it wouldn’t have any efficacy either.
  • You might get a batch that would have the same efficacy and the same side effects as a low dose statin drug.
  • You would have a 33% chance of getting a batch that was contaminated with a toxin that you would never find in a statin drug.

I don’t know about you, but after reading that study I have no desire to ever try a red yeast rice supplement.

Do statins cause memory loss?

 

 

The Bottom Line

  • For people who have already had a heart attack statin drugs are clearly beneficial. They save lives.
  • If you haven’t already had a heart attack and your doctor prescribes a statin, you may want to have a serious discussion with your doctor about alternative approaches for reducing heart attack risk. You may even want to seek a second opinion from a doctor with a more holistic orientation. Recent research suggests that statin drugs:
  • Are of marginal efficacy in low to moderate risk individuals who have not suffered a heart attack.
  • Can cause muscle pain and weakness, which can lead to serious illness in a small percentage of the cases.
  • May increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by up to 46%.
  • May cause memory loss and mental confusion.
  • A recent study showed that both statin and non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs caused 4-fold greater short term memory loss in older adults compared to matched patients who were not taking statin medications.
  • The medical profession has chosen to interpret this study as showing that statin drugs don’t cause short term memory loss, and that is the interpretation that has been widely reported in the press. I feel that the more logical interpretation of the data is that both statin and non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs cause short term memory loss.
  • Fortunately, there are natural approaches for reducing cholesterol levels and heart disease risk without any side effects. For example, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute recommends a natural approach called Therapeutic Lifestyle Change or TLC .
  • There are also natural approaches for reducing other risk factors for heart disease such as high blood pressure, high triglycerides, and inflammation. These include things like omega-3 fatty acids, nitrate from vegetables like beetroots and spinach, and polyphenols like resveratrol just to name a few.
  • However, natural is not always better. Red yeast rice, for example, is neither safe nor effective. 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.

Iron and Brain Development

by
Iron and the Teen Brain
Author: Dr. Steve Chaney

 

iron and brain development in teensFor those of you with teenagers – or who have had teenagers in the past – you may suspect that there’s nothing between their ears. But actually there is a lot going on between their ears, and some of the neural contacts laid down in the brain during the teen years influence the health of their brain during their adult life.  Let’s look at the association between iron and brain development.

And – no surprise here – what they eat can affect the health of their brain as well.

Which brings me to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences January 9, 2012 (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105543109) that looks at the adequacy of dietary iron intake during the teenage years and their brain health as adults.

Basics of Iron Metabolism

Before I describe the study perhaps a little bit of what I call Biochemistry 101 is in order.

Free iron is toxic to living cells. For that reason, our body produces multiple proteins to bind and transport the iron. The protein that binds and transports iron through the bloodstream is called transferrin. Under normal conditions 2/3 of the transferrin in our bloodstream has iron bound to it and 1/3 does not. And that is the ideal ratio of bound and unbound transferrin for delivery of iron to brain cells and other cells in our body.

When our diet is iron deficient (or we have excessive blood loss) the percent iron saturation of transferring decreases. The body tries to compensate by producing more transferrin, but this doesn’t really help since the problem was inadequate iron supply, not inadequate transferrin supply. As a consequence elevated transferrin levels are generally indicative of an iron-deficient diet.

Iron and Brain Development in Teens

iron and brain developmentThe study was led by Dr. Paul Thompson of the UCLA Department of Neurology. He and his team performed brain scans on 631 healthy young adults with an average age of 23. The brain scans were of a type that measured strength and integrity of the connections between the nerves in the brain – in other words, the brain’s wiring. They then went back and looked at the amount of iron available to each subject’s brain during adolescence by looking at their blood transferrin levels from routine physical exams performed at ages 12, 14 and 16 (blood transferrin levels are often measured as part of routine physical exams).

The results were pretty clear cut. Elevated transferrin levels during the teenage years were associated with reduced brain-fiber integrity in regions of the brain that are known to be vulnerable to neurodegeneration. These individuals did not show any cognitive impairments as young adults, but the concern is that they might be more likely to develop cognitive impairments as they age.

Dr. Thompson summarized his team’s findings by saying that “Poor iron levels in childhood erode your brain reserves which you need later in life to protect against aging and Alzheimer’s. This is remarkable, as we were not studying iron deficient people, just around 600 normal healthy people. It underscores the need for a balanced diet in the teenage years, when your brain command center is still actively maturing.”

Questions Every Parent Should Ask

If you have teenagers you might want to ask yourself questions like:

  • What is your teenager’s diet like?
  • Is it balanced?
  • Are you sure that it meets their nutritional needs?
  • Should you consider supplementation to make sure that they are getting all of the nutrients that they need?

 

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study suggested that inadequate iron intake in the teenage years may affect how our brains are wired in our adult years. The authors of the study interpreted the study as suggesting that an inadequate diet during the teen years could predispose us to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s as adults.
  • This study only looked at structural differences in the brain circuitry. We can’t conclude from this study alone that inadequate iron intake as a teenager will doom somebody to cognitive impairment and increased Alzheimer’s risk as they age. But we can conclude that adequate iron intake during adolescence is required for normal brain development.
  • And it’s probably not just iron. This study focused on iron status because transferrin levels are routinely measured during physical exams so it was easy to go back and determine what each subject’s iron status was during their teenage years. Many other important nutrients are required for normal brain development, but we don’t have an easy way of going back and determining what someone’s nutritional status was for those nutrients in their teen years. What was shown to be true for iron in this study is likely to be true for other nutrients as well.
  • These were normal teens eating a normal American diet. They weren’t from a third world country and there was nothing weird about what they were eating. But, clearly some of the subjects in the study weren’t getting the iron that they needed from diet alone.
  • The teen years are a time of rapid growth and maturation. It’s not just the brain that needs the proper balance of nutrients during the teen years. All of their tissues require proper nutrition.

 

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 All Calories Created Equal?

by
Are Food Choices More Important Than Calories?Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Most adult Americans gain a pound or two each year. That may not sound like much on a yearly basis, but over a lifetime it is huge – if you’ll pardon the pun.

are all calories created equalBecause the health consequences of weight gain are so devastating, everyone has their favorite dietary advice for keeping those extra pounds away. For some it is diet plans – low fat, low carb, paleo, Mediterranean – you name it. For others it is counting calories or avoiding sugars of all kinds. The list goes on. Are all calories created equal?

But what if all of these approaches were wrong? What if we could keep our weight under control solely based on the foods we eat? A recent study seemed to suggest that we just might.

How Was The Study Designed?

A group of scientists from Tufts University and Harvard decided to look at how the food choices we make on a daily basis influence our weight gain or loss over time (Smith et al, AJCN 101: 1216-1224, 2015). However, they designed their study in a very unique way, and it is important that I explain the study design so that you can understand the strengths and limitations of the study.

Most studies of this kind look at what foods people are eating and compare that to how much they weigh. These scientists looked at changes that people made in their diets and correlated that with how much weight they gained or lost over time.

When you think of it, that’s the information most of us really want to know. We are less interested in why the foods we used to eat got us into trouble in the first place than we are in how the changes we make in our diet might influence future weight loss or gain.

This study combined the data from three very large, long term studies – the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Altogether that is a group of 120,784 men and women who were followed for 16-24 years. All three of these studies measured weight and evaluated dietary habits using food-frequency questionnaires every 4 years.

The scientists conducting the study measured changes in food choices and changes in weight for each individual in 4-year increment over the total time duration of the studies. In analyzing the data, they looked at choices of protein foods, total carbohydrate, and the glycemic load (GL) of the carbohydrates.

Glycemic load is the glycemic index (effect on blood sugar) of the carbohydrates in a particular food times the total amount of carbohydrate in that food. You can think of glycemic load as a measure of carbohydrate quality. For example, white bread, pastries, muffins, pancakes, white rice, chocolates, candy bars, cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, and pretzels would all be examples of foods with a high glycemic load. Fruits, whole grain foods and starchy vegetables would be examples of foods with a moderate glycemic load. Vegetables and beans would be examples of foods that generally have a low glycemic load.

The authors of the study did not measure calories or fat intake for this study, but those factors are indirectly included in food choices – more about that later.

Are All Calories Created Equal?

Now let’s get to the good stuff – the results of this study. When the authors analyzed the data they found that:

  • Most of the subjects did not exchange one protein food for another over the course of the study. They exchanged protein foods for carbohydrate-rich foods and vice versa.

This was a surprise. Since many experts have been recommending that people substitute chicken and fish for red meat, they had expected to see that kind of dietary shift when they analyzed the data. Apparently, people have not been listening to the experts!

  • high carbohydratesWhen the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of red meats, processed meats, chicken with skin or most cheeses they gained between 0.5 to 2.3 pounds per year. Within this category the greatest weight gain was seen when hamburgers were substituted for carbohydrates, and the least weight gain was seen when cheese was substituted for carbohydrates.
  • When the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of milk, peanuts or eggs there was no net change in weight. These appear to be substitutions that are good for weight maintenance.
  • When the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of yoghurt, peanut butter, beans, walnuts, other nuts, chicken without skin, low-fat cheese or seafood they lost between 0.5 and 1.5 pounds/year. Within this category the greatest weight loss was seen when plain yoghurt was substituted for carbohydrates, and the least weight loss was seen when low-fat cheese was substituted for carbohydrates.
  • When they focused on carbohydrate-rich foods, replacing one serving of high glycemic load foods with low glycemic load foods was associated with one pound of weight loss per year. Simply put, if you switch from cookies, pastries and candies to fruits and vegetables, you are likely to lose weight. No surprise here.

The study really got interesting when they looked at the effect of adding different proteins in the context of the carbohydrate-rich foods that the subjects were eating. For example,

  • When the subjects added a serving of red meat to a diet containing carbohydrate foods with a high glycemic load, they gained an average of 2.5 pounds per year. When they added that same serving of red meat to a diet containing carbohydrate foods with a low glycemic index, they gained only around 1.5 pounds per year.

Simply put, that means eating a hamburger on a white flour bun with fries is going to pack on more pounds than a hamburger patty with brown rice and a green salad.

  • The effect of glycemic load was particularly interesting when you looked at the protein foods that were good for weight maintenance overall. For example, adding a serving of eggs to a high glycemic load diet resulted in a 0.6 pound/year weight gain, while adding that same serving of eggs to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.75 pound/year weight loss. The results were similar for cheeses.
  • Finally, glycemic load also influenced the effectiveness of protein foods associated with weight loss. For example, addition of a serving of beans to a high glycemic load diet resulted in 0.5 pound/year weight gain loss, but adding a serving of beans to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.5 pound/year weight loss.

New Insights From This Study

good proteinThis study broke new ground in several areas. For example,

  • We have heard over and over that substituting beans, chicken and fish for red meats is healthier. This is the first study I have heard of that says those same substitutions can prevent or reverse weight gain.
  • Many people advocate a high protein diet for weight control or weight loss, but many of them will tell you the type of protein doesn’t matter. This study suggests that the type of protein foods we eat are important in determining whether we lose or gain weight.
  • Everyone knows that switching from white grains, pastries and candy to whole grains, fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight, but this is the first study I’m aware of that suggests those same changes will influence whether the protein foods we eat lead to weight gain or weight loss.
  • Many people focus on fats and calories when trying to avoid weight gain. While this study is not really fat and calorie neutral (see below), it does suggest that if we focus on eating healthy foods we don’t need to be counting every fat gram and every calorie.
  • Finally, this study suggests that if we forget all of those crazy diets and focus on eating healthy foods, our weight will take care of itself. Not exactly a novel concept, but one worth repeating.

Limitations of the Study

The head author of this study stated in an interview “The idea that the human body is just a bucket for calories is too simplistic. It’s not just a matter of thinking about calories or fat. What’s the quality of the foods we are eating? And how do we define quality.” This has been picked up by the media with statements like “not all calories are created equal”.

That is a bit of a hyperbole, because this study is not really fat and calorie neutral. The protein foods (red and processed meats) that pack on the most calories are higher in fat and calories per serving than those protein foods (skinless chicken, fish and beans) that cause the least weight gain. Similarly, the carbohydrate foods with the highest glycemic load (pastries, cakes and candy) are higher in fat and calories per serving than those carbohydrate foods with the lowest glycemic load (fruits and vegetables).

The real message is not that fat content and calories don’t count. Nor is it that calories in some foods count more than the same calories in other foods. The take home lesson from this study should be that we don’t have to focus on fat and calories. If we focus on healthy foods, the fat and calories tend to take care of themselves.

But, even that message is a bit too simplistic. Choosing healthy foods is not all that there is for weight control. We also need consider:

  • Portion sizes. Half a chicken could easily add more calories than a small hamburger.
  • How the food is cooked. Fish cooked in a cream sauce may not be any better for weight control than a slab of red meat.
  • Exercise. We need to maintain muscle mass to keep metabolic rate high.

 

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study has broken new ground and provided some new insights into how to prevent those extra pounds from sneaking up on us over time. This study evaluated how some simple changes we could make in the foods we eat can influence whether we gain or lose weight.
  • One part of the study looked at the effects of replacing a serving of carbohydrate rich foods with a serving of protein rich foods. If that protein rich food were a hamburger, we could expect to gain about 2.3 pounds/year. If that protein rich food were seafood, we could expect to lose about 1.5 pounds/year. Other protein foods fall in between those extremes. The specifics are covered above.

This a new insight. Many people advocate a high protein diet for weight control or weight loss, but many of them will tell you the type of protein doesn’t matter. So, are all calories created equal?  This study suggests that the type of protein foods we eat are important in determining whether we lose or gain weight.

  • Another part of the study looked at the effect of different carbohydrate foods based on their glycemic load (the effect they have on blood sugar). Simply replacing 1 serving of high glycemic load foods (refined grain foods, cookies, cakes, candy) with low glycemic load foods (whole grains, fruits and vegetables) was associated with a one pound/year weight loss. This should surprise no one.
  • Finally, one part of the study looked at the influence of glycemic load on the effect that various proteins have on weight gain or loss. For example, adding a serving of eggs to a high glycemic load diet resulted in a 0.6 pound/year weight gain, while adding that same serving of eggs to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.75 pound/year weight loss. Other examples are given above.

This is also a new insight. Everyone knows that switching from white grains, pastries and candy to whole grains, fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight, but this is the first study I’m aware of that suggests those same changes will influence whether the protein foods we eat lead to weight gain or weight loss.

  • Some in the media have interpreted this study as saying that fat and calories don’t count. However, this study was not really fat and calorie neutral. The protein and carbohydrate rich foods that packed on the most calories were also the foods highest in fat and calories. The real take home message from this study is that we may not need to focus so much on fat and calories. When we focus on eating healthy foods the fat and calories tend to take care of themselves.
  • Even that message is a bit too simplistic. It is not enough to just focus on healthy foods. We need to consider things like portion size, how the food is prepared, and our exercise habits among other things.

 

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

Do Omega-3s Prevent Age-Related Muscle Loss?

by

Does Fish Oil Build Muscle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

omega-3Omega-3-rich fish oil supplements have attracted their share of controversy in recent years, but there appear to be lots of reasons to make sure that you get enough omega-3s from your diet.

There is actually pretty good evidence that omega-3s offer a natural approach for people who wish to lower their blood pressure (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/do-omega-3s-lower-blood-pressure/) or heart attack risk (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/fish-oil-really-snake-oil/). There is also some evidence that omega-3s may be important for brain development in infants (J Protzko et al, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8: 25-40, 2013), for mental performance in children (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/omega-3s-improve-reading-skills/) and for preventing cognitive decline in the elderly (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/omega-3s-slow-cognitive-decline/).

If the latest headlines are to be believed, we can add preventing age-related muscle loss to the benefits of an omega-3-rich diet.

Why Is Age-Related Loss of Muscle Mass a Problem?

The term for age-related muscle loss is sarcopenia, and it is a big problem for older adults. After age 50 we lose 1-2% of our muscle mass each year. As you might expect, our strength declines as well. Each 1% loss of muscle mass translates into about 1.5% loss in strength. That means after age 50 we lose 1.5% of our muscle strength each year, and once we hit 60 the rate of loss increases to around 3% per year.

That may not sound like much on an annual basis, but it adds up over time. With a little bit of higher math you can calculate that you could easily have lost 45% of your muscle strength by the age of 70 and a whopping 75% by the age of 80. At that point even the simplest physical activities – lifting a grandchild or a bag of groceries – can become challenging. That loss of strength also contributes to a loss of balance that can lead to debilitating falls.

The most effective way of preventing age-related muscle loss is regular resistance training, especially when coupled with adequate intake of protein and leucine (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/protein-needs-for-older-adults/). However, resistance training is hard work, so many older adults gravitate to quick fixes like testosterone, growth hormone, or DHEA – even though each of those treatment regimens have significant side effects and risks.

That’s why the recent headlines suggesting that a risk-free approach like omega-3 supplementation might increase muscle mass and strength in older adults is so enticing.

Do Omega-3s Prevent Age-Related Muscle Loss?

A previous study had suggested that omega-3 supplementation enhanced the effect of strength training in elderly women (Rodacki et al, AJCN, 95: 428-436, 2012). Although the mechanism of that effect is unclear, the authors of this study decided to go one step further. They asked if omega-3 fatty acids might prevent loss of muscle mass even in the elderly in the absence of a structured exercise program (Smith et al, AJCN, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.105833, 2015).

age-related muscle lossThe study consisted of 44 men and women age 60-85 (average age 69) who were not exercising on a regular basis. They were given either 4 gm of fish oil (containing 1.86 gm of EPA and 1.5 gm of DHA) or a placebo containing corn oil each day for 6 months. Muscle mass and four measures of muscle strength were performed at the beginning of the study and again at 6 months. The measures used were thigh muscle volume (a measure of muscle mass), hand grip strength, overall muscle strength (the maximum weight that the subject could lift in a single repetition for leg press, chest press, knee extension, and knee flexion) and isokinetic power (the power attained in knee extension and flexion exercises). The results were pretty impressive for the omega-3 group compared with the control group:

  • Thigh muscle volume (muscle mass) increased by 3.6%
  • Handgrip strength increased by 6%.
  • Overall muscle strength increased by 4%.
  • Isokinetic power increased by 5.6%.
  • Other than complaints about fishy breath, there were no adverse effects in the omega-3 group.
  • The authors calculated that the increase in muscle mass and strength during 6 months of omega-3 supplementation was sufficient to offset 2-3 years of normal age-related muscle loss and strength loss.
  • The increase in muscle mass and strength associated with omega-3 supplementation was less than can be attained from regular resistance exercise coupled with adequate protein intake. However, it was the same or greater than could be obtained from testosterone, growth hormone or DHEA – and didn’t have the risks associated with those treatments.

For example, a recent study has concluded that testosterone injections are associated with a significant risk of stroke, acute coronary syndromes, hospitalization and death (Layton et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1573).

The authors concluded ”Fish oil-derived omega-3 therapy slows the normal decline in muscle mass and function in older adults and should be considered a therapeutic approach for preventing sarcopenia and maintaining physical independence in older adults.”

Limitations of the Study

Before you all run out and stock up on fish oil supplements, I should point out that this study has several limitations.

  • It is a very small study. It needs to be replicated by future studies.
  • It used a very high dose of fish oil (4 gm/day). High doses are often used in an initial study like this one just to establish whether there is an effect worth further study. However, this study needs to be repeated at lower doses to see if this benefit of omega-3 supplementation is also seen at more physiological doses (500 – 1,000 mg) of omega-3s.

Because of these limitations, I am not yet ready to agree with the authors that omega-3 supplementation “…should be considered a therapeutic approach for preventing sarcopenia and maintaining physical independence in older adults.” This is an interesting finding that holds the promise of an inexpensive, risk-free, natural approach for maintaining muscle mass in older adults, but it needs to be verified by future studies before it can be widely recommended.

There are many reasons to supplement with omega-3s, but at this point in time I would definitely not recommend fish oil supplementation as an alternative to resistance exercise and adequate protein intake for older adults who wish to prevent age-related loss of muscle mass and strength.

However, the health risks of testosterone, growth hormone, and DHEA supplementation are significant. For someone who is absolutely set on pursuing an exercise-free solution to maintaining muscle mass and strength as they age, I would recommend omega-3 supplementation first rather one of the riskier alternatives.

 

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study has suggested that omega-3 supplementation may prevent age-related loss of muscle mass and strength. The study was performed in both men and women age 60-85 who were not exercising on a regular basis.
  • Omega-3 supplementation was less effective than regular resistance exercise coupled with adequate protein intake, but equal to or greater in effectiveness than testosterone, growth hormone, or DHEA treatment.
  • This was a very small study and it used a very high dose of omega-3s. It is a promising finding because it represents an inexpensive, risk-free, natural approach for maintaining muscle mass in older adults, but it needs to be verified by future studies before it can be widely recommended.
  • There are many good reasons to supplement with omega-3s, but at this point in time I would definitely not recommend fish oil supplementation as an alternative to resistance exercise and adequate protein intake for older adults who wish to prevent age-related loss of muscle mass and strength. Resistance training combined with adequate protein is a proven intervention. Omega-3 supplementation is not.
  • However, the health risks of testosterone, growth hormone, and DHEA supplementation are significant. For someone who is absolutely set on pursuing an exercise-free solution to maintaining muscle mass and strength as they age, I would recommend omega-3 supplementation first rather one of the riskier alternatives. It might just work, and it is a lot less risky.

 

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.

Stretches For Sciatica Pain. Do They Work?

by

How To Treat Sciatic Nerve Pain Naturally

 

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

 

Stretches for sciatica pain work,

but only when muscle spasms are released first!

 

stretches for sciatic nerve painMost people have been told to stretch tight muscles but they haven’t been told that muscle spasms (trigger points) shorten the fibers and tie the muscles in tiny micro knots.

This analogy helps explain how muscle spasms cause pain.

Consider what happens if you have two trees, a big strong one and one that easily moves. Tie a rope straight across from tree to tree. If you pull on the rope it’s easy to see that the flexible tree bends.

 

stretches for sciatia painHowever, if you tie several knots in the rope the flexible tree leans over toward the strong tree. Now if you try to stretch the rope to make the flexible tree stand up straight the knots put a strain on the points where the rope is tied.

Trying to stretch the rope causes the knots to tighten and overstretches the rope on either side of the knot.

This is what happens with your muscles.

In the case of sciatica, the muscle that crosses over your sciatic nerve is the piriformis. When the piriformis is shortened by a muscle spasm it places a downward pressure on the sciatic nerve, impinging the nerve. This gets complicated because other muscles cause your pelvis to rotate and press the bone up into your sciatic nerve.

If you try to stretch the piriformis muscle it causes the tight muscle to press down onto the sciatic nerve, and can potentially tear the muscle.

Release the Muscle Knots Before Stretches for Sciatica Pain

release muscle knots before stretchingBefore stretching, it’s easy and essential to release the muscle that causes sciatica pain.

Lie on the floor, place the Trigger Point Therapy Ball, or a new tennis ball, onto the piriformis muscles (pictured left).

Ease onto the ball until it doesn’t hurt. Then move the ball just a bit to search for other tender points. Hold 30-60 seconds on each tender point to release the muscle knots

 

Now You Are Ready To Do The Stretches for Sciatica Pain Relief!

sciatia pain reliefThis seated spinal twist is a great stretch for sciatica pain relief.

Make sure you are seated tall and exhale as you twist. Hold for a minute and switch sides.

 

 

 

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

 

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.

 

About The Author

Julie DonnellyJulie 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.

Restaurant Chains Beginning To Serve Healthy Fast Food?

by

Would You Like Hydrocolloids In Your “Healthy Fast Food?”

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

The fast food industry is changing. Some of the changes are good. Some of the changes are bad. Some of the changes are downright ugly. Let’s start with the good.

healthy fast foodIn recent months Panera, MacDonald’s and Subway have all announced that they are switching to ingredients that people can recognize – ingredients that you might actually use in your own kitchen. Chipotle has recently announced that they have removed all genetically modified organisms from their foods.

This week Pizza Hut said that it will remove artificial colors and preservatives from its food. Taco Bell pledged to remove artificial colors, artificial flavors, high-fructose corn syrup and palm oil from its foods.

For example, Taco Bell will start using real pepper instead of “black pepper flavor” in its food (I didn’t even realize that there was an artificial pepper flavor. Come on! Real pepper can’t be that expensive!). They also plan to remove Yellow No. 6 from their nacho cheese, Blue No. 2 from their avocado ranch dressing, and carmine from their red tortilla strips.

Are restaurants making healthy fast food? Or is this all for show?

Will Healthy Fast Food Be Available At  Ordinary Fast Food Chains?

Now let’s look at the bad. Perhaps the first question to ask is: “Why is the fast food industry making these changes? Have they suddenly decided that they want to become part of the health food industry?”

One clue to those questions is the name of the parent company that owns both Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. They call themselves Yum Foods. You will notice that they don’t call themselves Health Foods. Their name alone speaks volumes about their priorities.

When the CEO of Yum Foods was describing these changes, he didn’t speak about any desire to make healthy fast food. He spoke about responding to shifting consumer attitudes and the desire of consumers for “real food” as driving these kinds of changes. The bottom line is that fast food companies are realizing that consumers are becoming more aware of the dangers of artificial ingredients and are making their buying choices accordingly. The companies simply don’t want to lose market share.

The second question to ask is: “Are these foods actually healthier?” The answer is: “Not really”. None of these companies are talking about removing fat, sugar, salt or calories from their foods. They are more concerned with retaining the “yum” factor than they are in actually making healthy fast food.

Do You Want Hydrocolloids With That Pizza?

hydrocolloidsNow let’s talk about the ugly. Perhaps the most important questions you should be asking are: “What is behind the curtain?” “What aren’t they telling us about?” The answer is: “You probably don’t want to know.”

For example, I came across an interesting article in a food industry journal. A Spanish company called Premium Ingredients was announcing that they had developed a new “food” product from hydrocolloids and melting salts that could be used to replace casein in pizza toppings.

But, first a bit of background:

You’ve heard nutritionists claim that pizza is a perfect food because it contains foods from all four food groups. Of course, that’s ignoring the fact that pizza is generally made with white flour and contains lots of fat – mostly saturated, calories and sodium.

But, when you look at many of the frozen and fast food pizzas on the market it gets even worse.

You noticed that Premium Ingredients didn’t say that their hydrocolloids/melting salts mixture could be used to replace cheese. They said that it could be used to replace casein. That’s because many pizza manufacturers haven’t used real cheese in years.

Instead they are using casein (milk protein) and a chemical smorgasbord to manufacture a cheese “food” with the taste and consistency of cheese.

Cheese is a good source of protein and calcium, and it supplies a lot of other essential nutrients as well – such as vitamin D, vitamin A, vitamin B12, riboflavin, folic acid, magnesium & zinc. Some of the artificial cheeses on the market do supply the calcium found in real cheese, but almost none of them provide the other essential micro-nutrients. But, because the artificial cheeses have been made with casein up to now, we could at least count on them to supply the protein found in real cheese.

Now, thanks to Premium Ingredients, the manufacturers of frozen and fast food pizzas won’t even have to use casein-containing artificial cheeses. In their trade journal article Premium Ingredients boasted that their product will help manufacturers cut costs (and cut protein and essential nutrients in the process).  Is this creating healthy fast food?

Lucky us?

 

The Bottom Line

  • A number of fast food chains have recently announced that they are removing some artificial ingredients from their foods.
  • These changes appear to arise from a desire to respond to changes in consumer preferences rather than to actually make healthy fast food.
  • For example, most of the fast food chains that are removing artificial ingredients from their foods are making no effect to reduce fat, sugar, salt and calories. Fast foods are not becoming health foods.
  • Even worse are the hidden ingredients you don’t know about. For example, a fast food supplier recently announced that it had developed a mixture of hydrocolloids and melting salts that could be used in place of casein (milk protein) for the “cheese food” that fast food chains for their pizza topping.
  • That saves the fast food chains money, but it leaves you with a pizza that gives you no milk, no calcium, no vitamin D and less of many other essential nutrients.
  • Pizzas are just the tip of the iceberg. Most of us no longer make complex foods like pizza from scratch. We count on manufacturers to use the same natural ingredients that we would use. But, in fact we have no idea of what they are putting in the foods that we are eating. That is why our food supply is becoming depleted of essential nutrients in ways that we don’t even know about. That’s one reason why I use food supplements and why I recommend food supplements for others.

 

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.

What Is Epigenetics

by

Can What We Eat Affect Our Kids?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

what is epigeneticsWhat is epigenetics?  For me, the first stages of understanding came a while back.  When I was a young graduate student (which is more than just a few years ago), I was taught that all genetic information resided in our DNA. During conception, we picked up some DNA from our dad and some from our mom, and that DNA was what made us a unique individual.

We knew that environmental influences such as diet, lifestyle and exposure to toxic chemicals could affect our health personally. However, we never dreamed that the effects of those environmental influences could actually alter our gene expression, and that those genetic alterations could be passed on to our children.

Today we know that environmental influences can actually modify our DNA and that those modifications can be passed on to our offspring – a process called epigenetics.

What Is Epigenetics & How Does It Affect Gene Expression?

Simply put, epigenetics involves modifications to our DNA. DNA can be methylated or acetylated and the proteins that bind to our DNA can be modified in multiple ways. That is important for two reasons:

  • These alterations can turn genes on and off. That means that epigenetic modifications can alter gene expression.
  • These alterations can be influenced by our environment – diet, lifestyle, and exposure to environmental chemicals

In a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” article titled “Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?”  I discussed recent research suggesting that a healthy diet and lifestyle causes epigenetic changes in the DNA that may reduce your risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

That alone was a monumental discovery. Even more monumental is the recent discovery that at least some of those epigenetic changes can be passed on to our children, which brings me to the question I posed in the title of this article: “Can what we eat affect our kids?”

Animal Studies Showing That Epigenetic Changes Can Be Inherited

epigenetic changes are inheritedAs is often the case, the first definitive study showed that epigenetic changes were heritable was an animal study. This study was done with a mouse strain called agouti (Waterman and Jirtle, Mol. Cell. Biol. 23: 5193 – 5300, 2003). Agouti mice can have two remarkably distinctive phenotypes. They can either have a yellow coat, become obese as adults and be prone to cancer and diabetes as they age or they can have a brown coat and grow up to be lean and healthy.

It had been known for some time that these phenotypic differences were controlled by the epigenetic methylation of a specific gene called the agouti gene. The agouti gene codes for a genetic regulator that controls coat color, feeding behavior, and body weight set-point, among other things. When the agouti gene is under methylated it is active. As a consequence the mice have yellow coats and are prone to obesity. When the agouti gene is highly methylated it is inactive. The mice have brown coats and are lean and healthy.

Moreover, methylation of the agouti gene is not a purely random event. Mothers with the yellow, obese phenotype tended to produce a preponderance of offspring with the same phenotype and vice-versa. In short, the epigenetic methylation pattern of the agouti gene could be passed from generation to generation. It was heritable.

Waterman and Jirtle’s research broke new ground by showing that the methylation of the agouti gene could be strongly influenced by what the mother ate while the fetal mice were still in the womb.

When they fed agouti mothers a diet with extra folic acid, B12, betaine and choline (all nutrients that favor DNA methylation) during conception and pregnancy the agouti gene of their offspring became highly methylated. A high percentage of those offspring had brown coats and grew up to be lean and healthy.

However, when Waterman and Jirtle put agouti mothers on a diet that was deficient in folic acid, B12, betaine and choline during conception and pregnancy the agouti gene of their offspring was under methylated. Many of those offspring had yellow coats and grew up to be fat and unhealthy.

Subsequent studies from the same laboratory have shown that:

  • Addition of genistein, a phytonutrient from soy, to the maternal diet also favors methylation of the agouti gene and protects against obesity in agouti mice (Dolinoy et al, Environmental Health Perspective, 114: 567-572, 2006).
  • The addition of the environmental toxin bisphenol A to maternal diets causes under methylation of the agouti gene and predisposes to obesity in agouti mice, but this effect can be reversed by also feeding the mother genistein or folic acid and related nutrients during pregnancy (Dolinoy et al, PNAS, 13056-13061, 2007).

The agouti mice studies provide a dramatic example of how diet and environmental exposure during pregnancy can cause epigenetic changes in fetal DNA that have long term health consequences for the offspring. However, they are animal studies. Does the same hold true for humans?

Diet, Epigenetic Changes, and Obesity in Humans

diet-epigenetic-changes-obesityWith humans, it is really difficult to determine whether epigenetic changes that occur during conception and pregnancy affect our children. That is because when you measure an epigenetic effect in a child or adult, it is difficult to sort out how much of that effect was caused by what the mom ate during pregnancy and how much was caused by how the family ate as the kids were growing up.

Unfortunately, there is a tragic human experiment that shows that the same kind of epigenetic changes are heritable in humans. I’m referring to what is known as the “Dutch Hunger Winter”. This was a period of starvation during 1944-1945, the final year of World War II, when the Germans set up a blockade that prevented food from reaching western Holland. During that few months even pregnant women were forced to live on food rations providing a little as 500 calories a day.

This was an event without parallel in human history. Holland is not a third world country. Once the blockade was lifted children born during the Hunger Winter had the same plentiful supply of food as every other Dutch citizen. This has allowed generations of research scientists to ask what were the effects of a brief exposure to malnutrition during conception and pregnancy.

The health consequences were dramatic. 50 years later individuals who were conceived during the Hunger Winter weighed about 14 pounds more, had waists about 1.5 “ larger, and were three times more likely to have heart disease than those born to mothers who were in their second or third trimester of pregnancy during that time. By the time they reached age 63, they experienced a 10% increase in mortality.

What caused those health consequences? Could the cause have been epigenetic? Recent research suggests that the answer might be yes.

A recent study analyzed epigenetic changes in DNA from blood samples of survivors born during the Hunger Winter that had been collected when they were 59 years old (Tobi et al, Int. J. Epidemiology, doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv043, 2015). This study showed:

  • A distinct pattern of DNA methylation was observed in survivors who were conceived during the Hunger Winter. This pattern of DNA methylation was not observed in survivors who were in their second or third trimester during the Hunger Winter. It was also not seen in people who were conceived immediately before or after the Hunger Winter.
  • Some of the genes with distinctive methylation patterns were genes that affected things like cholesterol levels and insulin sensitivity, which have the potential to increase disease risk.
  • Other genes with distinctive methylation patterns were genes that affected metabolism. They were “thrifty” genes that increased the efficiency of metabolism. Increased efficiency of metabolism is beneficial when calories are scarce, but can lead to obesity when calories are plentiful.

That is a truly remarkable finding when you think about it. If these data are true, they suggest that starvation during early pregnancy caused the fetus to make epigenetic changes to its DNA that allowed it to become more efficient at energy utilization, and those epigenetic changes have lasted a lifetime – even when food was abundant throughout the rest of that lifetime.

What Is Epigenetics And Can What We Eat Affect Our Kids?

can what we eat affect our kidsThe studies I featured in this article are powerful “proof of concept” that diet and environmental exposure during conception and pregnancy can result in epigenetic changes to the DNA of the offspring that can persist throughout their life and dramatically affect their health. However, it is not yet clear how they apply to you and me.

  • Agouti mice are a very special strain of mice. It is not yet clear what effect folic acid, genistein and bisphenol A have on epigenetic modification of specific human genes, and whether those epigenetic modifications will have health consequences in humans.
  • The specific circumstances of the Dutch Hunger Winter are unlikely to be repeated on any significant scale. The closest approximation I can envision would be a woman who becomes pregnant while on a very low calorie fad diet.

There are, of course, many other examples of heritable epigenetic modifications. For example:

  • When female rats are maintained on a “junk-food diet” high in fat and sugar during pregnancy and lactation their offspring show a marked preference for high fat foods (Ong & Muhlhausler, FASB J, 25: 2167-2179, 2011). They also show epigenetic alterations of the central reward pathways that may pre-condition them to require higher intakes of fat to experience pleasure from eating.
  • When rats are fed diets deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, adolescent rats from the second and subsequent generations display marked increases in hyperactivity and anxiety (For more details, see my “Health Tips from the Professor” article titled “The Seventh Generation Revisited”.
  • In a clinical trial of 162 obese Canadian mothers who had children before and after weight loss surgery, the children born after weight loss surgery were half as likely to grow up overweight or obese as the children born before the weight loss surgery (Smith et al, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 94: 4275-4283, 2009), and this correlated with epigenetic modification of genes that play a role in obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease (Guernard et al, PNAS 110: 11439-11443, 2013).

Taken together, the existing data suggest that our diet and environmental exposure during conception and pregnancy can cause epigenetic changes to our children’s DNA that may affect their future health in ways that we can only begin to understand at present. It is a sobering thought.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • The term epigenetics describes modifications to our DNA that turn our genes off and on.
  • In this article I discussed two powerful “proof of concept” studies, one in rats and the other in humans, showing that diet and environmental exposure during conception and pregnancy can result in epigenetic changes to the DNA of the offspring that can persist throughout their life and dramatically affect their health.
  • The health consequences of these epigenetic modifications include obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hyperactivity, anxiety and many more.
  • This is a new paradigm. Most prenatal nutrition advice is currently based on what it takes to have a healthy baby – not on what it might take for your child to experience better health throughout their life.
  • Of course, the science of epigenetics is relatively new. It will be many years before we will be able to make specific recommendations as to what your diet should be like during pregnancy and lactation if you wish to make beneficial modifications to your baby’s DNA.
  • However, you should be aware that what you eat during pregnancy & lactation may influence the health of your children – not just at the time of their birth – but throughout their life, and that a high calorie, “junk-food” diet or a fad weight loss diet just may not be your best choice.

*The agouti mice picture is by Randy Jirtle and Dana Dolinoy (E-mailed by author) [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

 

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

Can Food Affect Your Mood?

by

An Apple A Day Keeps The Blues Away

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Can food affect your mood? In rural North Carolina you still occasionally see bumper stickers that say “Life Happens”. Of course, the word they use isn’t exactly “Life”, but you get the point.

can food affect your moodWe can’t always control what happens to us. What is important is how we react when bad things happen to us. Do we brush them off and move on, or do we let them get us down? There is no shortage of experts telling us how we can keep the blues away. We are told to count our blessings, meditate, think happy thoughts, develop support groups – the list goes on and on.

But is there perhaps one important parameter that most of these experts are missing? Could the foods we eat make us blue?

The standard American diet (S.A.D.) is high in processed foods, fat (especially saturated and trans fats), refined grains, simple sugars, salt and calories. As I’ve said before, almost anything would be better.

You probably already know that the S.A.D. leads to obesity and a whole host of diseases – including heart disease, cancer and diabetes – just to name a few. But did you know that the S.A.D. could make you sad? That’s what two recent studies suggest.

Can Foods Affect Your Mood? Does Junk Food Make You Sad?

The first study by Akbaralay et al (British Journal of Psychiatry, 195: 408-413, 2009) looked at the dietary patterns and mental health outcomes of 3486 participants in the Whitehall II Prospective Study.

In case you didn’t know it, Whitehall is the central district in London where most of the British government offices are located. So the 3486 participants in this study were bureaucrats. They were middle aged (average age 55.6 years old) office staff (74% men, 26% women) who spent most of their day sitting and really didn’t like their jobs very much. (I made up the part about not liking their jobs. It is hard to imagine that kind of job would be deeply fulfilling, but I’m sure that some of the bureaucrats liked their jobs better than others – which is the whole point of this study.)

At the beginning of the study the participants were given a 127 item food frequency quiz to fill out. Interestingly enough, the food preferences of the participants in this study clustered neatly into two groups.

The diets of the processed foods groups predominantly consisted of sweetened desserts, chocolates, fried foods, processed meats, refined grains and high fat dairy products. In short the diet of this group was pretty similar to what we think of as the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.). In contrast, the diets of the whole foods group consisted mostly of vegetables, fruits, fish and whole grains.

Five years later the study participants were analyzed for depression using a 20 item standardized depression scale.

The results were pretty eye-catching. The processed food group was 58% more likely to suffer from depression than the whole food group! And this was after correction for age, gender, weight, marital status, education, employment grade, physical activity, smoking and diseases (high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke).

The reasons for this astounding correlation between diet and depression are not clear. Can food affect your mood? Does this give us more insight?

The authors speculated that the diets of the whole food group were likely higher in antioxidants, folic acid and omega-3 fatty acids than the diets of the processed food group – and studies have suggested that each of these nutrients may protect against depression.

The authors also suggested that it might be an indirect effect. Diets that are high in saturated fats and refined grains and low in omega-3 fatty acids increase inflammation, and studies have suggested that inflammation can lead to depression.

Can Food Affect Your Mood? Does Healthy Food Make You Glad?

an apple for healthy fruitThe previous study suggested that junk food may make you sad. So you might be asking: “Does that mean that healthy foods can make you glad?” According to one recent study (Br J Health Psychol, Jan 24, 2013, doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12021) the answer may be yes.

A team from the University of Otago in New Zealand enrolled 281 young adults (average age = 20) in a study that looked at the effect of diet on their mood. Each day for 21 consecutive days they recorded their mood and what foods they ate using an online questionnaire. In particular, they reported the number of servings of fresh fruit and vegetables and of several unhealthy foods such as biscuits or cookies, potato chips or French fries and cakes or muffins.

The investigators correlated the foods eaten with the moods reported by the participants on the same day, and again on the day after those foods were eaten. Once again, the results were pretty impressive.

On the days when people ate more fruits and vegetables they reported feeling calmer, happier and more energetic than they did on other days (p = .002 – anything less than .05 is considered a statistically significant difference). And the good effects of fruit and vegetable consumption carried over to the next day as well (p < .001).

Can food affect your mood? While I paraphrased the “apple a day” quote to introduce this study, one apple won’t quite do it. According to this study it takes about 7-8 servings of fruits and vegetables to positively affect mood. In addition, it probably wasn’t just the fruits and vegetables that made the difference. Based on the previous study I would guess that the participants in the study may have eaten other healthy foods such as whole grains and fish on their good days.

Can Food Affect Your Mood?

Taken together these two studies suggest that the next time you feel a little blue you may want to look at your diet. You may want to include a healthier diet along with the meditation and positive thinking.

Of course, these studies both measured correlations between diet and mood, and any good scientist will tell you that correlations do not prove cause and effect. It could be that when people are “down in the dumps” they just naturally reach for junk foods rather than fruits and vegetables.

However, since there is no downside to consuming fruits and vegetables, I feel fully comfortable recommending more fruits and vegetables in our diets. If their health benefits aren’t enough to motivate you, maybe the possibility of improving your mood will!

There are some things you just can’t control. To paraphrase those country songs, you can’t keep your girl and dog from running off. Life happens to all of us. Can food affect your mood? If you want to keep your mood where it should be, you can always reach for those fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

 

The Bottom Line

  • Two recent studies have suggested what we eat can affect our mood.
  • The first study showed that people who habitually consumed a diet consisting of sweetened desserts, chocolates, fried foods, processed meats, refined grains and high fat dairy products were 58% more likely to suffer from depression than people who habitually consumed a diet consisting mostly of vegetables, fruits, fish and whole grains.
  • The second study showed that the subjects in their study reported feeling calmer, happier and more energetic on the days when they ate more fruits and vegetables than they did on the days they ate junk foods.
  • Of course, these studies both measured correlations between diet and mood, and any good scientist will tell you that correlations do not prove cause and effect. It could be that when people are “down in the dumps” they just naturally reach for junk foods rather than fruits and vegetables.
  • However, since there is no downside to consuming a healthier diet, I feel fully comfortable recommending more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and omega-3s in our diets. If their health benefits aren’t enough to motivate you, maybe the possibility of their improving your mood will!

 

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

Do Supplements Cause Cancer?

by
Danger

The Kernel of Truth Behind the Scary Headlines

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

DangerOnce again the sky is falling! Some of the recent headlines have been downright scary. You’ve probably seen headlines saying things like “The American Association for Cancer Research reports that dietary supplements increase cancer risk” and “A recent study shows that taking extra vitamins and minerals may do more harm than good”. You’re probably asking yourself if you should throw away those vitamin and mineral supplements that you have been taking.

Let me start by correcting some of the more misleading statements in the recent headlines:

•    This was not a position statement from the American Association for Cancer Research. It was a talk presented by a single scientist at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

•    This was not a new study. The talk was based on a paper published in 2012 (Martinez et al., Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104: 732-739, 2012).

•    This was not even a study. It was a review of previously published studies.

•    When you read the paper you find that the majority of studies found no effect of supplementation on cancer risk, a few suggested that supplementation might decrease cancer risk, and a very few suggested that supplementation might increase cancer risk. However, the scientist giving the talk at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting choose to emphasize the few studies suggesting increased risk.

Should We Worry About A Few Studies Suggesting Increased Cancer Risk?

The important question is whether we should be concerned about even a few studies suggesting that supplementation increases cancer risk. As a mythsresearch scientist I am not particularly concerned. That’s because I realize that there is always some variability in the results of clinical trials.

•    Sometimes that’s because an individual clinical study was poorly designed. Those are studies that are easy to eliminate from consideration.

•    However, many times we do not know why an individual study is an “outlier”. We only know that it is different from all the other studies. Good scientists base their opinions on the weight of the evidence from all available clinical studies, not individual studies – particularly if the individual studies are outliers.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works in the “real world”. In the real world individual studies that support a particular viewpoint are often quoted over and over until they become “generally accepted as true” – even if multiple subsequent studies have come to the opposite conclusion. They become what I call “nutrition myths”.

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I will briefly debunk some of these nutrition myths about the cancer risk of supplementation by exposing the clinical studies that were poorly designed and/or have been contradicted by multiple subsequent studies.

However, there is often a “kernel of truth” buried in all the hype. This kernel of truth is the main focus of this issue because it should guide our decisions about supplementation – not the scary headlines.

Antioxidants & Cancer Risk – A Poorly Designed Study

One of the most widely quoted studies supporting the claim that antioxidant supplements increase the risk of cancer was a meta-analysis of 66 published clinical studies (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 297: 842-857, 2007). It came to the conclusion that consumption of extra vitamins A, E, and beta-carotene were associated with up to a 16% increased risk of cancer. However, that study included only those studies in which adverse outcomes were reported. 400 studies with no adverse outcomes were ignored.

More to the point, another group of scientists came back and re-analyzing the same data set a couple of years later (Nutrients, 2: 929-949, 2010). When they looked at same 66 studies included in the original meta-analysis, they reported that 60% of the studies showed no effect of supplementation; 36% of studies showed a benefit of supplementation; and only 4% showed an increased cancer risk.

You might ask yourself, “If only 4% of the studies showed any increase in cancer risk, how could the meta-analysis of all 66 studies report a 16% increase in cancer risk?” That’s because of a statistical quirk. In a meta-analysis the outcome of a single very large study can swamp the conclusions of multiple smaller studies. In this case, the increased cancer risk reported in the original meta-analysis was almost entirely due to a single study in which participants using vitamin E were also on hormone replacement therapy. That’s a concern because we now know that hormone replacement therapy significantly increases cancer risk.

In short, this was a flawed study, but it is cited over and over as “proof” that antioxidant supplementation may increase cancer risk.

Examples of Nutrition Myths Disproved by Subsequent Studies

Antioxidants & Cancer Risk

antioxidant supplementsI have covered this topic in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” so I’ll just give you a brief summary here. In short, the flawed paper suggesting that antioxidants has been followed by several major studies that have come to the opposite conclusions. For example:

•    One study followed 24,000 adults in Germany for 11 years and found that those consuming antioxidant supplements at the beginning of the study had a 48% decrease in cancer mortality and a 42% decrease in overall mortality (European Journal of Nutrition, 51: 407-413, 2012).

•    A US study followed 15,000 male physicians for 10 years and found that multivitamin supplementation decreased cancer incidence by 8% (JAMA, 308: 1871-1880, 2012).

•    Another study with the same group of 15,000 physicians found that vitamin C and E supplements had no effect on cancer risk over an 8 year period. But, when the study was extended by an additional 3.8 years vitamin C supplementation decreased the risk of colon cancer by 46% (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100: 915-923, 2014).

•    Finally, a study of 7,728 women with invasive breast cancer showed that multivitamin use increased breast cancer survival by 30% (Breast Cancer Research & Treatment, 141: 495-505, 2013).

Folic Acid & Cancer Risk

I have also covered this topic in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor”, so, once again, I will be brief.

•    The study (JAMA, 297: 2351-2359, 2007) that is widely quoted as suggesting that folic acid supplementation might increase the risk of developing colon cancer in people over 50 didn’t actually look at colon cancer. It looked at adenomas in the colon. That is an important distinction because adenomas are benign. They can develop into a cancerous lesion over time, but that is not inevitable.

•    Two major studies since then (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 94: 1053-1062, 2011 and Gastroenterology, 141: 98-105, 2011) have reported that folic acid supplementation does not increase the risk of colon cancer.

•    In fact, the second study showed that people with the highest intake of both folic acid from supplementation and folates from food significantly decreased their risk of developing colon cancer.

The Kernel of Truth Behind the Headlines

While the scary headlines about supplements causing cancer are clearly misleading, I would be doing my readers a disservice if I didn’t discuss the Newspaper Headlineskernel of truth behind the headlines.

Let me start by saying that I am not a big fan of high dose, high purity individual supplements. In foods vitamins and minerals tend to occur in a natural balance. When we take individual nutrients in high doses, they often interfere with our body’s ability to absorb and utilize similar nutrients from the foods we eat. We create an imbalance.

That is the “kernel of truth” behind the headlines. High dose, high purity supplements have the potential to create nutritional imbalances. They have the potential to cause harm. Let me give you some examples in the context of cancer risk.

•    Alpha-tocopherol is the most abundant form of vitamin E in foods. However, there are many other forms of vitamin E in foods and high dose, pure alpha-tocopherol suppresses their absorption. This is a potential concern because some of them – gamma-tocopherol and the tocotrienols, for example – are more effective than alpha-tocopherol at reducing the risk of certain cancers in animal studies. This selective anticancer effect has not yet been demonstrated in humans, but it does raise some concern about the use of high dose, high purity alpha-tocopherol supplements.

•    Antioxidants are generally found in combination in foods, not as isolated nutrients. This is important because antioxidants work together. For example, vitamin E reduces free radicals to chemically unstable intermediates that have the potential to damage cells and cause cancer. A selenium-containing enzyme is required to convert these unstable intermediates into completely harmless compounds. This is thought to be the reason why a recent study found that high dose alpha-tocopherol increased prostate cancer risk in men with low selenium status, but not in men with high selenium status (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt456, 2014).

•    Beta-carotene is the most abundant carotenoid in foods, but there are many other naturally occurring carotenoids – some of which appear to have unique anticancer activity in animal studies. This has been suggested as the reason why several studies have shown that diets high in carotenoids decrease the risk of lung cancer in smokers, but high dose beta-carotene alone appears to increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers.

•    B vitamins are best utilized in balance. That is especially true for folic acid, B12 and B6, which probably explains a recent study that suggested high dose B6 and folic acid supplements were associated with an increased risk of mortality, but a B complex supplement containing the same doses of both folic acid and B6 was not associated with increased mortality (Archives of Internal Medicine, 171: 1625-1633, 2011).

Do Supplements Cause Cancer?

Now that you understand the “kernel of truth” behind the headlines you can better understand why some experts recommend getting our vitamins and minerals from foods rather than supplements. While I understand the logic behind that recommendation, I consider it an imperfect solution to the problem for three reasons:

#1: Most of us don’t eat the way that we should. The USDA tells us that only 3-5% of Americans eat a healthy diet on a daily basis.

#2: Most of us don’t eat enough variety of foods. Even if we eat some healthy foods, we won’t get the balance of essential nutrients we need unless we eat a wide variety of healthy foods.

#3: Some of us have increased nutritional needs. Poor diet, genetic predisposition and poor health can all increase our needs for certain essential nutrients – and we may not know about those increased needs until it is too late.

Supplementation to fill nutritional gaps is still a good choice for many Americans, but I recommend avoiding the high dose, high purity individual supplements. For example:

•    Choose a supplement that contains all the naturally occurring forms of vitamin E and selenium in addition to alpha-tocopherol.

•    Choose a supplement that contains a variety of carotenoids, not just pure beta-carotene.

•    Choose a supplement that contains the B vitamins in balance, not just high dose individual B vitamins like folic acid or vitamin B6.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If you take individual high purity, high dose supplements you might actually increase your cancer risk. For the most part, the increased cancer risk has not been proven, but it is theoretically possible. A better approach is to choose supplements that are designed to mimic the balance of vitamins and minerals found in the foods we eat.

The Bottom Line

•    Ignore the scary headlines warning that supplement use may increase your risk of cancer. For the most part, those headlines are based on a few flawed studies that have been refuted by multiple subsequent studies which have come to the opposite conclusion.

•    However, there is a kernel of truth behind the idea that certain supplements might have the potential to increase cancer risk. High dose, high purity individual supplements such as alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene and folic can interfere with our body’s ability to absorb or utilize related nutrients that are important for cancer prevention. In short, high dose, high purity supplements can create nutrient imbalances that have the potential to increase cancer risk.

•    That doesn’t mean that we need to avoid supplements entirely. It does mean that we need to make wise choices about the supplements we use. My recommendations are:

o    Choose a supplement that contains all the naturally occurring forms of vitamin E and selenium in addition to alpha-tocopherol.

o    Choose a supplement that contains a variety of carotenoids, not just pure beta-carotene.

o    Choose a supplement that contains the B vitamins in balance, not just high dose individual B vitamins like folic acid or vitamin B6.

o    I could go on, but you get the idea. You want to choose supplements that are designed to mimic the balance of nutrients we find in nature.

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 Sports Supplements Safe?

by

Are There Any Sports Supplement Companies You Can Trust?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

are sports supplements safe“Pump up your muscles”, “Explode your muscles”, “”Blast your fat”, “Annihilate your fat”, “Ramp up your energy”: The claims leap off the page of the ads for many sports and weight loss supplements.  But, are sports supplements safe?

The easiest way to ramp up your energy and annihilate your fat is to put amphetamines or other illegal stimulants in the supplement. The easiest way to pump up your muscles is to put steroids in the supplement. Unfortunately, there are always a few unscrupulous companies that are only too willing to do just that.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost. It’s been a bad few weeks for the sports supplement industry. It seems like every time you turned around there was another article about a sports supplement making fraudulent claims, containing illegal ingredients, or actually harming people. It makes you wonder whether you should just completely avoid sports supplements all together.

That would be unfortunate because sports supplements can help with hydration, endurance and recovery. They can help you maximize the benefits of your exercise program. Furthermore, there are a lot of reputable sports supplement companies out there. The problem is that there are a few “bad apples” in the industry, and the FDA is not really doing its job to protect the American consumer from their deceptive and dangerous products.

Even worse, when the FDA acts, major retail nutrition stores often drag their feet at actually removing the products from their shelves (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-dietary-supplements-safe/), and the unscrupulous manufacturers just switch to another equally dangerous stimulant.

It is, therefore, important for those of us who are nutrition educators to warn consumers like you about the dangerous products that are in the marketplace. The FDA will eventually act, but you need to know about those products now!

I have previously warned you about sports nutrition products containing the amphetamine-like stimulants DMAA (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-dietary-supplements-safe/), DEPEA (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-fat-burning-sports-supplements-safe/) and DMBA (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/supplements-to-avoid/). As you might guess from the names, these are all structurally related compounds. They have several other characteristics in common:

  • They are all synthetic amphetamine analogs.
  • The sports nutrition companies selling products with these ingredients tried to fool the public (and the FDA) by claiming that they were natural components of the herbal ingredients in their product.
  • None of them had ever been tested for safety and efficacy in humans. Some of them actually killed people before the FDA stepped in and banned them.

Amphetamine and amphetamine-like substances are popular in sports nutrition and weight loss products because they increase energy levels and speed up metabolism. Unfortunately, they also cause high blood pressure, arrhythmia, heart attacks and death.

Are Sports Supplements Safe?  Yes and No.

sports supplementsSports Supplements Containing a Form of Amphetamine

Yet another analog of DMAA called beta-methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) has appeared in the sports nutrition marketplace. It is an isomer of amphetamine that was first synthesized in the 1930’s. Because it is an analog of amphetamine, BMPEA is classified as a banned substance by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Unfortunately, its story is all too familiar.

The FDA first reported the presence of pharmacological doses of BMPEA in 43% of sports and weight loss supplements containing the herbal ingredient Acacia rigidula in 2012. The manufacturers claimed that the BMPEA in their products came from the Acacia rigidula even though there was no scientific evidence that it had ever been successfully extracted from Acacia rigidula.

BMPEA causes high blood pressure in animals and has never been tested for safety or efficacy in humans. Its close analog, DMAA, caused scores of deaths before the FDA finally banned it. However, the FDA did not warn consumers that supplements with the ingredient Acacia rigidula might contain BMPEA and might, therefore, be dangerous.

A group led by Dr. Pieter Cohen of Harvard University (Cohen et al, Drug Testing and Analysis, DOI: 10.1002/dta.1793, 2015) recently decided to analyze sports and weight loss supplements containing Acacia rigidula to see whether some companies had voluntarily removed DMPEA from their products over the last two years. One might hope that at least some of those companies might have been more motivated by protecting the health of their customers than by profit.

Not a chance! Dr. Cohen and his colleagues tested 21 products containing Acacia rigidula and found that 11 of them (52%) contained BMPEA – some in amounts as high as 94 mg/serving.

Dr. Cohen was quoted as saying “More than two years after the FDA’s discovery [of BMPEA in sports supplements], the FDA has yet to warn consumers about the presence of an amphetamine isomer in supplements. This is really about the FDA and why the FDA is not enforcing the law. This is a great example of how the FDA could so easily move now and not wait like it did with DMAA, wait until strokes and heart attacks had become front page news.”

After Dr. Cohen’s article became front page news several Senators called on the FDA to ban BMPEA. A week later the FDA finally caved in and announced that BMPEA was not a legal ingredient and that any products listing it on the label must be withdrawn from market. A skeptic might note that this was a full two years after the FDA discovered the existence of products containing BMPEA. The FDA’s announcement also did not cover BMPEA-containing products listing only Acacia rigidula on the label – which made up most of the BMPEA-containing products identified by Dr. Cohen and his colleagues. As the old saying goes, the FDA action was “a day late and a dollar short”.

Sports Supplements Containing Steroids

sports supplements containing steroidsA week later the FDA issued a warning to consumers to stop using a product call Tri-Methyl Extreme because of reports of serious liver damage in people using it. The product contained the anabolic steroids methyl-stenbolone, MAX LMG (a non-methylated prohormone) and epistane.

There are two important take home lessons from this incident.

  • The product actually claimed that it contained anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are known to cause liver damage, heart attack and stroke, testicular cancer, infertility and mood disorders. It is hard to imagine why anyone would use a product that claimed to contain anabolic steroids. Unfortunately, some people are willing to do almost anything that will increase muscle mass and strength.
  • The FDA often only acts once a product has either seriously injured or actually killed people. I tend to agree with Dr. Cohen that it would be far preferable for the FDA to be proactive and warn consumers about products that have the potential to do harm.

Sports Supplements That Cause Cancer

As if that weren’t bad enough, at about the same time a paper was published reporting that use of muscle-building supplements by young men may increase their risk of testicular cancer by up to 177% (Li et al, British Journal of Cancer, DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.26).

The incidence of testicular germ cell cancer in men 15-39 years old has increased 1.6-fold between 1975 and 2011. The reason for that increase is not known, but the authors of British Journal of Cancer article noted that the use of performance-enhancing supplements in that group has also increased dramatically during the same time period.

A previous study of testicular cancer patients reported that a high percentage of them (~20%) had used performance-enhancing supplements, but no control group was included in that study. Thus, the authors of this study set out to carefully match testicular cancer patients with healthy men of the same age and demographics – something we scientists call a case-control study.

The study compared 356 testicular cancer patients age 18-55 from Connecticut and Massachusetts with 513 controls that were matched by age, race, education, tobacco and alcohol use, exercise level, injury to testes or groin, and family history of testicular cancer. The results were pretty scary.

  • Use of muscle building supplements increased the risk of testicular cancer by 65% compared to men who never used that kind of supplement.
  • For men who started using muscle building supplements before they were 25, the risk of developing testicular cancer increased by 121%.
  • For men who used muscle building supplements for more than 3 years, the risk increased to 156%.
  • For men who used more than 2 types of muscle building supplements, the risk increased to a whopping 177%. That’s almost double.

This study did not identify the actual ingredients that caused the increased testicular cancer risk, but with so many of the muscle-building supplements on the market containing dangerous and/or illegal ingredients it is perhaps not surprising that they might increase cancer risk. After all, this demographic (young males) is the group most likely to choose the “Monster Muscle Builder” products rather the less glamorous, but safer, sports supplements.

Sports Supplements That Mislead

sports supplements companies that misleadAt the same time that we were hearing about sports supplements with dangerous and illegal ingredients and sports supplements that may cause cancer, the Advertising Standards Authority (the British equivalent of the FTC) accused a British sports supplement company of making false and misleading ingredient claims. That’s a polite way of saying they were lying!

In particular, they disallowed claims that:

  • CLA builds lean muscle and attacks fat stores, promotes fat loss, improves mood and focus and boosts energy.
  • Acetyl-L-Carnitine aids weight loss, burns fat, boosts energy, improves mental performance, and improves focus.

There were more claims they disallowed (click here for the complete report) (http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/4/Protein-World-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_288571.aspx#.VS2VbJOk9RN), but I included those two because you’ve probably seen similar claims for those ingredients on this side of the Atlantic. Those claims are just as bogus in the United States as they are in England.

How To Choose A Sports Supplement Company You Can Trust

safe sports supplementsBy now you are probably convinced that you should never use a sports supplement product again. However, as I said above good sports supplements properly used can improve hydration, endurance, recovery and the results you obtain from your exercise program. Here are the questions to ask.  Are sports supplements safe?  They can be.   Which sports nutrition products can you trust? Here are some simple guidelines to help you choose a trustworthy sports supplement company.

  • Avoid the hyped claims. If the supplement makes claims like “Get ripped fast”, “Intense Energy”. “Extreme Energy”, “Eviscerate fat”, “Makes fat cells self-destruct” or “boosts testosterone”, you should run the other direction.
  • Ignore testimonials. The placebo effect is close to 50% for things like energy, and if an athlete “thinks” they have more energy every time they work out, they will get stronger.
  • Look for published clinical studies showing that the product is safe and effective. Those clinical studies should be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If the company just cites their own “studies” or “white papers”, ignore them. They may look impressive, but they have not been peer reviewed. You have no idea whether they are accurate.
  • I could tell you to look for rigorous quality control standards, but every company claims they have excellent quality controls. Instead I will tell you to look for supplements that are used by medal winning Olympic athletes. Why Olympic athletes? That is because Olympic athletes are more rigorously drug tested than any other athlete. They absolutely cannot afford to have any stimulants, steroids or other banned substances in their body at any time. They need products that are pure, safe and effective.
  • Finally, avoid products with artificial ingredients. While the risks associated with artificial sweeteners, artificial flavors and artificial colors are not as great as the risks associated with stimulants and steroids, they are still ingredients to be avoided. We simply do not know the long term health consequences of artificial ingredients.

 

The Bottom Line

  • There are a few bad apples in every barrel, and the sports supplement industry is no exception. Are sports supplements safe?  Over one two-week period lately we have learned:
  • Over 50% of sports nutrition products labeled as containing an innocuous sounding herbal ingredient were actually found to contain an amphetamine isomer called BMPEA that has been banned by the World Anti-doping Agency. After years of dragging its feet, the FDA finally banned some of the products containing BMPEA, but left many others on the market. As the old saying goes, the FDA was “a day late and a dollar short”.
  • Even though they are extremely dangerous, new sports supplements with anabolic steroids keep popping up online. Once again, the FDA has had to warn consumers not to use a new muscle building supplement containing steroids because several people using that supplement suffered severe liver damage.
  • A study reported that young men who use muscle building supplements may increase their risk of testicular cancer by up to 177%.
  • The British equivalent of our FTC has told a British sports supplement manufacturer that it must stop making false and misleading claims about ingredients like CLA and acetyl-L-carnitine. That is noteworthy because some sports supplement companies in the US make very similar claims for the same ingredients.
  • You shouldn’t necessarily avoid sports supplements because of a few bad apples. Good sports supplements properly used can improve hydration, endurance, recovery and the results you obtain from your exercise program. There are a few simple guidelines that can help you choose the good sports supplement companies and avoid the bad ones:
  • Avoid the hyped claims.
  • Ignore testimonials.
  • Look for published clinical studies showing that the product is safe and effective.
  • Look for supplements that are used by medal winning Olympic athletes. That’s because Olympic athletes absolutely need products that are pure, safe and effective.
  • Avoid products with artificial ingredients.

 

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.

Health Tips From The Professor