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

Restaurant Chains Beginning To Serve Healthy Fast Food?

June 9, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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.

In 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?

Now 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

June 2, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can What We Eat Affect Our Kids?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

What 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

As 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

With 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?

The 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?

May 26, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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.

We 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?

The 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?

May 20, 2015May 19, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Kernel of Truth Behind the Scary Headlines

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Once 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 research 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

I 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 kernel 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?

May 12, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are There Any Sports Supplement Companies You Can Trust?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

“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 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

A 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

At 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

By 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.

Do Women Get Enough Omega-3 During Pregnancy?

May 5, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Should Pregnant Women Take Omega-3 Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Long Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids, Especially DHA, Are Essential For Normal Brain Development

Long chain omega-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, have been shown to be very important during pregnancy, especially during the third trimester when DHA accumulates in the fetal brain at a very high rate. It is during that third trimester that the fetus forms the majority of brain cells that they will have for an entire lifetime.

Inadequate intake of long chain omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation has been shown to be associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes. These include poor developmental milestones, problem solving, language development and increased hyperactivity in the children (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

The Current Recommendation is 200 mg DHA/day During Pregnancy & Lactation.

In order to support brain development in the fetus, some experts have recommend intake of 300 mg per day of DHA during pregnancy. The best dietary sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids such as DHA are fish and fish oil supplements. However, because of concerns about seafood contamination with heavy metals and PCBs (both of which are neurotoxins), the FDA recommended in 2004 that pregnant women limit seafood consumption to two servings a week, which amounts to about 200 mg/day of DHA – and this has been subsequently adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union as the amount of DHA recommended during pregnancy and lactation (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

Even that recommendation for DHA from seafood could be overly generous. A recent study using the EPA risk assessment protocol concluded that some farmed salmon were so contaminated with PCBs that they should be eaten no more than once a year (Hites et al, Science, 303: 226-229, 2004).

Most Pregnant & Lactating Women In The US Are Probably Not Getting The Recommended Amount of DHA In Their Diet

Many pregnant women avoid seafood because of concerns about mercury and PCBs. Unfortunately, the other food sources of omega-3 fatty acids in the American diet, even many omega-3 fortified foods and supplements, are primarily composed of the short chain omega-3 fatty acid linolenic acid (also called alpha-linolenic acid or ALA), and only 1-4% of linolenic acid is converted to DHA in the body (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

Consequently, experts have been concerned for some time that American and Canadian women may not be getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but it was not clear how serious an issue this was.

Do Women Get Enough Omega-3 During Pregnancy?

A group of scientists decided to test the adequacy of DHA intake by comparing DHA intake with the recommended 200 mg/day in a group of 600 pregnant and lactating women enrolled in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study (Jia et al, Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism, 40: 1-8, 2015). The average age of the women in this study was 31.6. They were primarily Caucasian and married. 92% of them breastfed their infants. Most of them were taking a multivitamin or prenatal supplement on a daily basis. Approximately 1/3 of them were also taking a long chain omega-3 supplement.

The majority of women had completed college and had annual household incomes in excess of $100,000/year. In short, this was a very affluent, well-educated group of women. This is the kind of group one might consider most likely to be getting enough DHA from their diet.

DHA intake was based on 24 hour food recalls and supplement intake questionnaires collected in face-to-face interviews 2-3 times during pregnancy and again 3 months after delivery. The DHA content of the diet was determined from these data using well established methods.

The results were both dramatic and concerning.

Only 27% of pregnant women and only 25% of postpartum women who were breastfeeding met the recommendation of 200 mg of DHA/day. In short, nearly three-quarters of the women in the study were not getting enough (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation.

When the women who were taking DHA-containing supplements were excluded from the data analysis, only 13% of pregnant and lactating women were getting enough DHA from their diet. In short, nearly 90% of the women relying on diet alone were not getting enough DHA.

Taking a DHA-containing supplement increased the likelihood of achieving the recommended 200 mg DHA/day by 10.6 fold during pregnancy and 11.1 fold during breastfeeding.

Not surprisingly, seafood, fish and seaweed products were the major contributors to the total dietary DHA intake.

The authors concluded “Our results suggest that the majority of participants in the cohort were not meeting the EU recommendations for DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but taking a supplement significantly improved the likelihood that they would meet the recommendations.”

The Bottom Line

Long chain omega-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, are essential for normal brain development. Inadequate DHA intake during pregnancy and lactation is associated with poor developmental milestones, problem solving, language development and increased hyperactivity in the children.

There is no established Daily Value for omega-3 fatty acids. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union recommend 200 mg DHA/day during pregnancy and lactation.

This recommendation is based partly on the amount of DHA needed for brain development and partly on the FDA warning that pregnant women should not consume more than 2 servings of fish/week due to heavy metal and PCB contamination.

This recommendation can be met by 1-2 six ounce servings/week of fish or a fish oil supplement containing 550 – 600 mg of omega-3 fatty acids.

Many pregnant women avoid fish because of concerns about contamination with heavy metals and PCBs, both of which are neurotoxins. Therefore, the major source of omega-3s in the American and Canadian diets are short chain omega-3 fatty acids that are only inefficiently (1-4%) converted to DHA.

Consequently, experts have been concerned for some time that American and Canadian women may not be getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but it was not clear how serious an issue this was.

A recent study done with a group of 600 women enrolled in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study found that:

Only 27% of pregnant women and only 25% of postpartum women who were breastfeeding met the recommendation of 200 mg of DHA/day. In short, nearly three-quarters of the women in the study were not getting enough (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation.

When the women who were taking DHA-containing supplements were excluded from the data analysis, only 13% of pregnant and lactating women were getting enough DHA from their diet. . In short, nearly 90% of the women relying on diet alone were not getting enough DHA.

Taking a DHA-containing supplement increased the likelihood of achieving the recommended 200 mg DHA/day by 10.6 fold during pregnancy and 11.1 fold during breastfeeding.

This was a very affluent, well-educated group of women. If any women anywhere are getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, this should have been the group that was.

The authors concluded “Our results suggest that the majority of participants in the cohort were not meeting the EU recommendations for (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation, but taking a supplement significantly improved the likelihood that they would meet the recommendations.”

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 Blood Pressure Medications Cause Memory Loss?

April 28, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High blood pressure has been called a silent killer. This is because it is possible to go for years with high blood pressure and not even know it. Even worse, the consequences of untreated high blood pressure can be catastrophic – stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure, kidney failure – the list goes on and on. But, what about when high blood pressure is treated? Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss?

Because of that, the standard medical recommendation for years has been to:

Have your blood pressure tested frequently (at least once a year if your blood pressure is in the normal range and more frequently if it is elevated).

If your blood pressure is elevated, get on a blood pressure medication and try to keep your blood pressure as close to normal as possible.

But, is this always the best advice? Maybe not, particularly when we consider the confusing effects of blood pressure on cognitive function.

We have known for years that untreated high blood pressure in middle aged individuals significantly increases the probability that they will suffer cognitive decline in their later years (for example, R. F. Gottesman et al, JAMA Neurology, 71: 1218-1227, 2014).

Conversely, when we look at the elderly as a group we find that those with the lowest blood pressure actually have a higher risk of cognitive decline than those with the highest blood pressure (for example, B. Sabayan et al, Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 60: 2014-2019, 2012).

How can we reconcile such conflicting data on the correlation between blood pressure and cognitive decline in the elderly? Could it possibly be that it was the blood pressure drugs rather than blood pressure itself that was causing cognitive decline in the elderly?

Do Blood Pressure Medications Cause Memory Loss?

A group of scientists in Italy set up a clinical study to determine whether blood pressure or use of blood pressure drugs better correlated with cognitive decline in elderly patients who already have some degree of cognitive impairment (E. Mossello et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.8164).

They enrolled 172 patients from 2 outpatient memory clinics in the study. The average age of the participants was 79 and all of them had some degree of cognitive impairment (68% with dementia and 32% with mild cognitive impairment). 70% of the study participants were on blood pressure drugs. Their blood pressure was measured on a daily basis, and they were tested for cognitive function at the beginning of the study and 9 months later.

The results of the study concerning:

Those with the lowest blood pressure had the highest rate of cognitive decline over the 9 month period. These results were similar to several previous clinical trials with the elderly.

The association between low blood pressure and cognitive decline was only seen in those subjects on blood pressure medications. Low blood pressure did not increase the risk of cognitive decline in unmedicated subjects.

There are, of course, some significant limitations to this study:

It is a small study of short duration.

It is the first study of its kind. It needs to be repeated.

It was done in an elderly population who already suffered from cognitive decline. We don’t yet know to what extent these conclusions will apply to younger people and to people without cognitive impairment.

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

However, this study does raise a huge red flag that needs to be evaluated very carefully. It raises the issue of whether aggressive drug treatment to bring blood pressure under control may, under some conditions, cause more problems than it cures. It is not unlike the study a few years ago showing that aggressive treatment to lower blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics actually increased the death rate (C. J. Currie et al, The Lancet, 375: 481-489, 2010).

It turns out that increased risk of cognitive decline is just one of several risks associated with aggressive drug treatment to lower blood pressure. Because of that realization an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss? It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

Is There Another Option?

The answer is a resounding yes, and we have known about it for years. It is called the DASH (Dietary Approaches To Stop Hypertension) diet. It is recommended by the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute, the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the US Guidelines for Treatment of High Blood Pressure). Coupled with a few simple lifestyle changes it has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure, without the side effects of the drugs.

You can find the details of the DASH diet here (http://dashdiet.org/), but in simple terms, it is low in fat, high in fresh fruits and vegetable, fiber and low fat dairy products. The recommended lifestyle changes are weight control, restricted sodium intake and exercise.

Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

The Bottom Line

High blood pressure is a silent killer because people often don’t know they have it. If left untreated it can cause stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure and kidney failure.

However, a recent study suggested that aggressive drug treatment to treat high blood pressure in the elderly can increase the rate of cognitive decline.

Because of this and other risks associated with aggressive drug treatment for high blood pressure, especially in the elderly, an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

Fortunately, there is another option, namely the DASH diet. The DASH diet, along with a few simple lifestyle modifications, has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure without the side effects of high blood pressure medications. Both the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute recommend that the DASH diet and lifestyle changes be tried first, before considering use of blood pressure medications.

Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

Finally, high blood pressure is dangerous. Don’t ignore it. Get your blood pressure tested regularly. If it is elevated, talk with your doctor about the best combination of diet, and lifestyle change and whether medications are absolutely necessary to keep your blood pressure under control.

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 Causes Back Pain?

April 21, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Natural Remedies for Back Pain

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

What Causes Back Pain?

Exploring the Overlooked Muscular Causes:

Your back is a symphony of overlapping, interconnected, groups of muscles, tendons, and nerves. Each muscle merges into a tendon, which then crosses over a joint and inserts into a bone. When the muscle contracts it will pull on the tendon and the joint moves.

Your spine has 7 cervical vertebrae, 12 thoracic vertebrae, and 5 lumbar vertebrae, each separated by a gelatinous disk that acts as a cushion to separate the bones and protect them from wear. Muscles span your entire spine, in some cases originating on the vertebrae and connecting each vertebra to the next, in some cases the muscles originate on the ribs and insert into the vertebrae in order to move your spine in the infinite number of angles, and in other cases the muscles originate on your vertebrae and insert into moveable bones such as your shoulder blade, pulling it in various directions.

In order to move in the opposite direction, the contracted muscle needs to relax to remove the strain from the bone, and the muscle on the opposite side contracts to pull the bone in the opposite direction. If the muscle that needs to release is in a spasm it can’t relax, and you have the muscles pulling in two opposite directions – and you have back pain.

The answer to what causes back pain is so broad that it needs to be broken down into four categories:

(1) Why a Muscular Component Can Be What Causes Back Pain

Back pain is commonly caused by repetitively straining the muscles that insert into the vertebrae and ribs. The list of muscles that insert into the bones of your back is long, with each muscle potentially causing pain when it is in spasm and pulling on the bone. Your back is a system of overlapping muscles, so many times when you are treating a muscle for one thing, you are also treating the source of a totally different problem.

This commonly happens when you are treating a thigh muscle that causes knee pain, but is also a key muscle that causes back pain, groin pain, and sciatica.

Natural Remedies for Back Pain

Treating the muscle is one of the natural remedies for back pain. For this muscle treatment I suggest you use a 12″x 1 1/2″ length of PVC pipe and slide (don’t roll) from the top of your thigh to just above your knee. The main area of treatment is shown in this picture. It’s NOT on the front of your thigh, and it’s NOT on the outside of your thigh, but instead it is in between these two lines.

As you go down your thigh you’ll go over several “bumps,” which are actually large spasms that are pulling down on the front of your pelvis. The pelvis rotation causes a strain on your low back, and presses your posterior pelvis up into your sciatic nerve.

There’s a lot more to this muscle, but it’s so broad that it can’t be explained properly here. In fact, each of the muscles that cause back pain are fully explained, and treatments are demonstrated in my Trigger Point Yoga kit.

(2) Why a Bulging or Herniated Disk Causes Back Pain

The disk between each vertebra is meant to be a cushion for the bones so they don’t rub on each other. However, tight muscles that originate on each vertebra can pull the bones together, pressing down on the disks and cause them to either bulge in the opposite direction, or herniate. For example, if the muscles on the right side of the spine are tight, they will bring the vertebrae closer together on the right, causing the disk to bulge toward the left.

If the muscles on both sides of the spine are tight, they will draw the vertebrae closer together and potentially cause the disk to herniate.

In either case the disks will put pressure on the spinal cord and causes back pain to be severe in that area. However, if it is treated before permanent damage is done, releasing the muscle tension on the vertebrae will move the bones off the disk and the pain will be eliminated.

(3) Why a Vertebra Out of Alignment Can Be What Causes Back Pain

Your spine stays in perfect alignment because muscles are putting the exact amount of “pull” on each side. In fact, without muscles the spine would just hang straight and not be able to move at all — like a skeleton on a hook. It is only because of muscles that the spine has any mobility at all.

The only way a vertebrae can move is either by a traumatic accident (such as falling down a flight of steps, or having a car accident), or by muscles pulling on the bones.

However, if muscles are pulling more on one side than the other the vertebrae will move toward the tight muscles.

The tension in the muscles must be released first if the bones are to be moved back into alignment and not be pulled out again by the tight muscles.

(4) Scoliosis, Osteoporosis, Spinal Stenosis, and other Causes of Back Pain

There are medical conditions such as scoliosis, osteoporosis, spinal stenosis, diabetes, and cancer that are also causes of back pain. These are serious conditions that need medical attention. It is always important to eliminate the possibility of any serious health risks before embarking on a path of treatment for back pain.

Conclusion

Obviously, as noted in #4 above, there are medical causes of back pain, but it is clear that the one that is consistently overlooked, and therefore not treated, is the muscular component. My experience with thousands of clients over the years, both at my office and virtually online, is that muscles are frequently what causes back pain, and that the pain can be lessened or eliminated by treating the tight muscles demonstrating one of the natural remedies of back pain.

You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by exploring the muscular component to back pain!

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 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.

Food Ingredients To Avoid List

April 14, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Food Ingredients to Avoid Part 2: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It is getting really hard to find a food or food supplement that doesn’t have any ingredients on the internet “naughty list”. The problem is that many of the internet warnings about food ingredients are what I call “urban nutrition myths”. Want to know the truth about which additives should be on the food ingredients to avoid list?

Last week I identified the top 25 food ingredients on the internet “naughty list” and told you which ones were actually “good” – OK for most people most of the time. This week I’m going to tell which ones are “bad” and which ones are truly “ugly”.

Food Ingredients to Avoid List? The Bad

The term “bad” for the food ingredients in this list is a bit of a misnomer. These are food ingredients that some people will want to avoid, but are perfectly OK for many people. In some cases, the type of food the ingredients are added to determines whether the ingredient is OK or should be avoided. So, the following could possibly be on your food ingredients to avoid list.

Sodium Nitrate and Nitrite: This is a topic I have covered in a previous article titled “Nitric Oxide Benefits and Side Effects” . It is a perfect example of a food ingredient that can be “bad” in certain foods and “good” in others. Briefly:

When sodium nitrate and/or sodium nitrate are added to processed meats, they can combine with the amino acids from the meat in the intestine to form cancer-causing nitrosamines. As you might suspect, this is not a good thing.

On the other hand, when sodium nitrate or sodium nitrite are found in fruits are vegetables or combined with natural antioxidants such as vitamin C, they are converted to nitric oxide, which has a number of beneficial effects in the body. So when they are present in these foods or food supplements, they are actually beneficial.

Sugar & High Fructose Corn Syrup: As I said in my video “The Truth About Sugar” , there are no sugar villains and there are no sugar heroes. For example, high fructose corn syrup has been particularly vilified in recent years, but its chemical composition is not significantly different from honey and agave nectar, which are considered to be “good” sugars.

The problems associated with sugars of all types in the American diet are related to the amount of sugar in our diet (too much) and the kinds of foods they are found in. Let’s focus on that last one for a minute.

When sugars are consumed as a part of foods that are rich in fiber and/or protein they have much less of an effect on blood sugar levels (a lower glycemic index) than when they are consumed in sodas, juices and highly processed foods. That’s important because the bad health consequences of sugars are primarily caused by foods that lead to high blood sugar levels. See, for example, my article “Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?” .

Consequently, we should be focusing on the glycemic index (the effect on blood sugar levels) of the foods we eat rather than obsessing about the amount or kinds of sugar on the label.

MSG: MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is a particularly interesting case. MSG is the sodium salt of the amino acid glutamate.

Glutamate is a neurotransmitter.

When MSG is used as a flavor enhancer in foods with a low protein content, the glutamate is very rapidly taken up by the brain and can overstimulate some neurons.

For most people this is no problem, but a small number of people experience what used to be called “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” due to the large amounts of MSG used in some Chinese foods.

The common symptoms associated with “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” are headache, sweating, skin flushing, nausea & fatigue. Allergic reactions to MSG can even be life threatening in some individuals.

Glutamate is also found in every protein we eat. Consequently, we create lots of MSG in our intestine every time we eat and digest protein. In this situation it is no more harmful than any other amino acid in the proteins we eat.

The most logical explanation for this phenomenon is that when all of the amino acids are in our bloodstream simultaneously they compete with glutamate for uptake into the brain. This slows the entry of glutamate into the brain and prevents overstimulation of neurons.

The bottom line is that MSG as a flavor enhancer is harmless for most people, but problematic for some. MSG as a component of hydrolyzed vegetable protein or sodium caseinate is harmless because it is in balance with the other naturally occurring amino acids. Some websites claim that MSG is found in maltodextrin and citric acid. It is not.

Salt (Sodium): I could, and probably should, write a whole article on sodium intake. Suffice it to say that 1) most of us consume too much sodium, 2) most of that sodium is hidden in the foods we eat rather than added at the table, and 3) some people are more sensitive to the bad effects of sodium than others.

Refined Grains: Again, this could be a whole article. Suffice it to say that 1) whole grains are better than refined grains and 2) most of us would benefit from eating fewer grains in any form and more fruits and vegetables in their place.

Food Ingredients to Avoid List: The Ugly

Finally, there are some food ingredients that most experts (except for those in the food industry) agree should be avoided. I call them the dirty dozen. All should be on everyone’s food ingredients to avoid list. They are:

Trans fats (also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils).
Aspartame
Acesulfame-K
Sucralose
Artificial colors
Artificial flavors
BHA & BHT
Propyl gallate
Sodium and potassium benzoate
Potassium bromate
Potassium sorbate
Polysorbate 80

The Bottom Line

If you were to believe everything you read on the internet about food ingredients that you should avoid, you could end up spending most of your day reading food labels and still find very few foods that you could eat. Some of those warnings are true, some are partially true, and some are mostly myths.

To help you determine which to place on your food ingredients to avoid list, I have identified the top 25 food ingredient warnings and have divided them into the good, the bad and the ugly.

The “good” are those food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most people, most of the time. Here are some examples (see the article above for a full explanation).
Soy: The supposed dangers of soy have been disproven by numerous clinical studies, but the myths persist. I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy protein.
GMO: GMO foods and proteins are a concern but purified food ingredients obtained from GMO foods pose no health risks. There are, however, possible environmental concerns due to the overuse of Roundup.
Carrageenan and Caramel Color: In this case it is contaminants rather than the food ingredients themselves that are the problem. As long as you choose a manufacturer who performs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients, you need not be concerned about these ingredients.
Canola Oil, Maltodextrin and Soy lecithin: The supposed dangers of these food ingredients are myths. They are not backed up by credible clinical studies. However, they are generally derived from GMO foods, so there is a possible environmental concern.
The “bad” are the food ingredients that do pose a problem for some people, particularly when those ingredients are found in the wrong kinds of foods. However, those same ingredients are OK for many people when they are in the right foods.
Sodium nitrate and nitrite: Those ingredients are a concern when added to processed meats, but are actually healthy when found in fresh fruits and vegetables or combined with antioxidants such as vitamin C.
Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup: We definitely need to reduce the amount of sugar in our diet. However, when looking at individual foods we should focus more on glycemic index than on the amount or kind of sugar.
MSG: MSG is a concern for some individuals when used as a flavor enhancer in low protein foods. However, it poses no risk when it is present as a component of partially digested proteins such as hydrolyzed vegetable protein or sodium casseinate.
The “ugly” are those ingredients that most experts agree we should avoid. They include trans fats, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, artificial flavors, artificial preservatives and a few others listed 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.

Food Ingredients To Avoid

April 7, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Food Ingredients to Avoid-Part 1: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I have been getting a lot of questions lately about food ingredient labels. That’s because in today’s internet world everyone is an “expert” wanting to be heard. Couple that with the fact that old news is boring, and we have a problem. All of these experts have to keep coming up with information that is novel and scary. It doesn’t need to be true – just novel and scary.

The warnings about which food ingredients to avoid are a perfect example. A few years ago it was pretty simple to know which ingredients to avoid. If you avoided foods with sugar, refined flour, trans fats and all that artificial stuff, you were OK. However, in recent years the list of additives to avoid keeps getting longer and longer.

It has reached the point where it is getting really hard to find a food or food supplement that doesn’t have any of the ingredients on the “naughty list”. You may even be wondering if there is anything besides organic fresh fruits and vegetables that you actually can eat. How did we get to this point?

The answer is obvious. All the internet “experts” needed something new to warn us about so they took molehills and turned them into mountains. They took food ingredients that might cause a few problems for a limited number of people and characterized them as ingredients that were dangerous for everyone. Their posts were picked up and repeated by other “experts” and pretty soon everyone thought they had to be true. The warnings about food ingredients became what I call “urban nutrition myths”.

It is time for a myth buster to come along and help you sort through all of the ingredient warnings so that you know which ones are true and which are myths. That’s something I enjoy doing. Let me be your guide.

Which Food Ingredients Should You Avoid?

My “research” for this article began by Googling “Food Ingredients to Avoid” to see what was on the internet. Starting from the top of the list that came up on Google, here are the articles I found:

Men’s Fitness: “The 9 Scariest Food Additives You Are Eating Right Now “ (http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/avoid-these-9-worst-food-ingredients)

Waking Times: “20 Ingredients to Memorize and Avoid In Any Food You Consume (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/03/04/20-ingredients-to-memorize-and-avoid-in-any-food-you-consume/)

Women’s Health: “7 Ingredients Nutritionists Always Avoid” (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/nutrition/avoid-these-ingredients)

Reader’s Digest: “4 Most Harmful Ingredients In Packaged Foods” (http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/4-most-harmful-ingredients-in-packaged-foods/)

Huffington Post: “10 Of The Worst Toxic Food Ingredients” (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/17/worst-toxic-food-ingredients_n_3101043.html)

WebMD did not even weigh in on the issue of food ingredient warnings. Reader’s Digest and the Huffington Post included mostly the ingredient warnings that we have been hearing about for years. The other three articles included some of the newcomers to the ingredient warning list. By combining all 5 of those articles, I came up with 25 of the most frequently mentioned “dangerous” food ingredients to avoid and have divided them into 3 categories. I call them “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”.

This week I will help you identify the “good ones” – those food ingredients that are on many of the internet “naughty lists”, but are actually OK for most people most of the time. Next week, I’ll be back with the bad and the ugly lists.

Food Ingredients: The Good

I would be the first to admit the using the word “good” as a descriptor for food ingredients is a bit of a misnomer. The word “good” should really be reserved for organic fresh fruits and vegetables along with other whole, unprocessed foods. Of course, the problem is that most of us don’t eat enough of those foods, so we need to know which ingredients in the processed foods and food supplements we eat are OK.

The list of food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most of us would be a long one, so let me just mention a few that have inadvertently slipped onto the online “naughty lists” that you may have seen.

GMO: Let me be perfectly clear. I am no fan of GMO foods, but ingredients derived from GMO foods are a very different story. I have covered this topic in detail in my previous articles “Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/gmo-labeling-required-food-ingredients/) & “Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/will-non-gmo-foods-be-less-nutritious/) and my webinar “The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/videos/), so let me just summarize the key points here.

GMO foods and proteins derived from GMO foods can be a problem because of food sensitivities to the modified proteins. That risk is real, but is difficult to quantify.

All other food ingredients derived from genetically modified foods contain no genetic information or proteins. They are chemically & biologically indistinguishable from the same ingredients derived from non-GMO foods. Consequently, there are no health risks associated with these food ingredients.

I am aware of the recent internet chatter about the WHO declaring that Roundup can cause cancer. What is missed in these discussions is that Roundup is also approved for use just prior to harvest for non-GMO foods such as wheat and beans. That means that some non-GMO foods are more likely to be contaminated with Roundup residues than are GMO foods.

That just leaves the environmental issue. Roundup does break down relatively quickly in the environment, but I do have concerns about spraying tons of the stuff on our crops every year. However, I must acknowledge that many of my scientific colleagues do not share this concern, and they are not all in bed with Monstanto.

Soy: This is another topic I have covered extensively in my previous articles such as “Soy and Breast Cancer Recurrence” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/soy-and-breast-cancer-recurrence/) & “Soy and Breast Cancer” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/soy-breast-cancer/) and my video “The Truth About Soy” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/videos/). Once again, I will just give a brief summary.

The myths that soy consumption causes breast cancer or any other cancer, lowers testosterone levels in men and interferes with thyroid metabolism have been disproven by multiple clinical studies.

The idea that soy has to be fermented to be healthy is also a myth. Most soy products are processed in such a manner that the toxins in the soy bean are removed.

For ingredients made from soy such as soy lecithin, there are no health risks associated with sourcing them from GMO soy (see above). If you are consuming a soy protein product, however, I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy.

Carrageenan: Carrageenan comes from seaweed and red algae. It has been used in foods for thousands of years because of its gelling properties. In the supplement world it is used to improve consistency and the disintegration of tablets.

There is a lot to like about carrageenan. It is natural, organic and non-GMO. Why then has it become an internet villain in the food ingredient world? The problem is that most of the internet “experts” who are vilifying carrageenan are not distinguishing between carrageenan and its breakdown product poligeenan. Here are the facts:

In some animal studies poligeenan at very high doses has been shown to cause diarrhea, hemorrhaging & ulcerations of the colon and even colon cancer. Not all animal studies agree, but this does raise the possibility that high doses of poligeenan might cause the same effects in humans.

Food grade carrageenan contains <5% poligeenan and does not raise the same concerns.

Food grade carrageenan does not cause gastrointestinal problems in most animal studies. Nor has it been shown to cause cancer in any animal study.
The FDA, USDA and WHO have reviewed all available studies and have concluded that food grade carrageenan is safe.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that carrageenan does not cause cancer.

Caramel Color: I won’t go into detail here, but the argument is similar to carrageenan. It is a minor impurity of caramel coloring that is the concern. However, caramel coloring itself should not be a concern for products made by any reputable manufacturer that employs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients.

Canola Oil: Canola oil is an excellent source of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats, especially the beneficial omega-3 polyunsaturated fats. In supplements it is primarily used as a source of healthy fats and to improve taste, aroma or texture. There are some legitimate concerns with canola oil, but they have been considerably overhyped. This is a perfect example of a molehill being turned into a mountain. Let’s look at the myths that are simply untrue and the facts that have been overhyped.

Myth #1: Canola oil contains the same toxins as the original rapeseed oil. Fact: The toxins found in rapeseed oil has been removed through conventional plant breeding. Canola oil is toxin free.

Myth #2: Canola oil is toxic in animal studies. Fact: When you look at those studies carefully they were either done with rapeseed oil or were done under conditions where almost any vegetable oil would have been problematic.

Fact #1: Canola oil is highly processed. That’s true, but so are most other vegetable oils. If you want a less processed oil, choose virgin olive oil. (Unfortunately, it is not found in many processed foods or food supplements – probably because of cost). Some experts recommend palm oil or coconut oil, but they have their own problems because of their high saturated fat content.

Fact #2: Most canola oil comes from GMO plants. That is true, but canola oil is a highly purified food ingredient. As described above, that means there are no health concerns from eating GMO canola oil, only a possible environmental concern.

Maltodextrin: Maltodextrin is a natural food ingredient made from enzymatically digesting starch. It is used as a stabilizer and thickener in foods. It is also combined with glucose and fructose in sports drinks to provide sustained energy.

Myth #1: The internet is filled with claims that maltodextrin causes gastrointestinal problems or that it is unsafe. There is very little evidence to back that up, and we need to consider those claims in light of the fact that we produce lots of maltodextrin in our intestines every day as we digest the starches in our diet.

Myth #2: “Maltodextrin is just another sugar. It is just another way for food manufacturers to hide the total amount of sugar in their products.” Maltodextrin is actually less sweet than most sugars. As described above, it is primarily added to foods for reasons other than to impart sweetness.

Fact: Most of the maltodextrin in the US does come from GMO corn. Once again, it is a highly purified food ingredient. As with canola oil that means there are no health concerns, only possible environmental concerns.

Just because these ingredients are on my “good list” doesn’t mean that they won’t cause problems for some people. Lots of people have food allergies. My dad, for example, was allergic to chocolate, which has to be one of the cruelest food allergies that someone could have. Sometimes food allergies can be quite severe. Just ask someone with severe peanut allergies what life can be like if they even come near a peanut.

My point is that any natural food or food ingredient can cause allergic reactions in some people. That doesn’t make them bad. It is just part of normal living.

Next week I will be back with “the bad and the ugly” food ingredients. Stay tuned.

The Bottom Line

To help you sort through this confusing information I have identified the top 25 food ingredient warnings and have divided them into the good, the bad and the ugly. This week I covered the “good ones”.

The “good” are those food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most people, most of the time. Here are some examples (see the article above for a full explanation).

Soy: The supposed dangers of soy have been disproven by numerous clinical studies, but the myths persist. I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy protein.
GMO: GMO foods and proteins are a concern, but purified food ingredients obtained from GMO foods pose no health risks. There are, however, possible environmental concerns due to the overuse of Roundup when those GMO foods were grown.
Carrageenan and Caramel Color: In this case it is contaminants rather than the food ingredients themselves that are the problem. As long as you choose a manufacturer who performs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients, you need not be concerned about these ingredients.
Canola Oil, Maltodextrin and Soy lecithin: The supposed dangers of these food ingredients are myths. They are not backed up by credible clinical studies. However, they are generally derived from GMO foods, so there is a possible environmental concern.
Just because these food ingredients made my good list doesn’t mean they are OK for everyone. People can be allergic to certain food ingredients, just as they can be allergic to certain foods so for some, these can still be food ingredients to avoid.

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.