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

The Food Label: Lies of the Food Industry

March 10, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can BIG FOOD Inc. Be Trusted?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Healthy Eating Is In. We are told we need more fiber, whole grains, fruits & vegetables, nuts and omega-3s in our diet. As a consequence more and more Americans are reading food labels to be sure that the foods they are buying are healthy.

But are those food labels deceptive? Is it possible that BIG FOOD Inc. could actually be lying to us? Could it be that the food manufacturers care more about their profits than about our health?

Normally I base my health tips on clinical studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, this week I am reporting on an article called “Hijacked. How the Food Industry Turns Diet Advice into Profits” from the October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Health letter because they do an excellent job of exposing the lies of the food industry.

The Food Label: The Lies of the Food Industry

False Fiber

For example, Nutrition Action describes how the food industry tries to fool us into thinking that their processed foods are healthy by making fiber claims on their labels that are deceptive, if not downright false.

Everyone knows that eating fiber rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes is good for us. But wouldn’t it be more fun if you could get the same amount of fiber in your breakfast bars, cakes, cookies and even yoghurt?

The food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. DuPont, for example, manufacturers and artificial fiber called Litesse by chemically linking glucose (dextrose) molecules into a non-digestible polydextrose polymer. They tell the food manufacturers that they can use Litesse to “tap into this market opportunity and project a healthier image for your product”. I’d be much more impressed if they were talking about a healthier product rather than a “healthier image for your product” It’s all about image, isn’t it.

Similarly, Archer Daniels Midland manufactures a digestion-resistant form of maltodextrin they call Fibersol-2. They tell food manufacturers “who knew fiber could be clean and clear?” (Translation: Adding bran to your products might make them denser and chewier. You can add Fibersol-2 to your doughnuts or cookies and it won’t change their taste or texture).

The problem is that there are few clinical studies showing that these artificial fibers have the same benefits as the fibers we find in fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In addition, these fibers don’t fill you up the way that unprocessed fibers found in foods do (something we scientists refer to as satiety). For example, if you eat a bowl of oatmeal you’re not going to be hungry for a long time. However, recent studies show that adding an equivalent amount of one of these artificial fibers to a muffin or breakfast bar has no effect on how hungry you feel after eating it.

Nutrition Action also raised concerns about highly processed natural fibers such as inulin, maltodextrin, soluble corn fiber or resistant wheat starch. In this situation, they may be oversimplifying their messaging a bit. I agree with their statement that adding these purified fibers to solid foods like cookies or muffins has relatively little effect on either satiety or regularity, but these fibers do have some benefits when used in the right kinds of foods.

For example, inulin is an excellent prebiotic. Its addition to processed foods as a prebiotic, rather than a source of fiber, is appropriate. Maltodextrin needs to be digested before its component sugars are absorbed into the bloodstream, so it enters the bloodstream a bit more slowly than simple sugars. When used in sports drinks it helps stabilize blood sugar and provide more sustained energy. Similarly, the addition of soluble corn starch to a protein shake slows gastric emptying, which also stabilizes blood sugar and provides sustained energy. Wheat bran in a protein shake, on the other hand, would be an inappropriate choice. It would just settle to the bottom of the glass.

The Bottom Line: The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

Vegetable & Fruit Follies

Everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are good for us. They are chock-full of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients as well as fiber. But who wants to spend the time peeling an orange or washing the pesticides off that broccoli? It’s much more fun to get our fruits and vegetables from chips, pasta, and breakfast cereals.

Once again, the food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. The chemical companies make a variety of fruit and vegetable powders that food manufacturers can add to their products. For example, PowderPure tells food manufacturers “Whether you want to add nutrition to your label, infuse full color or formulate a specific flavor profile for your discerning consumers, PowderPure has the right powder to enhance your presence in the marketplace”. You will notice they are talking about adding nutrition to the label, not to the food. They are talking about “enhancing your presence in the marketplace”, not making your food healthier.

The problem is that sprinkling a little fruit and vegetable powder into a processed food will never provide the full range of nutrients that those fruits and vegetables would have provided.

Most manufacturers can’t (or won’t) specify the amounts of nutrients and phytonutrients you get from the fruit & vegetable powders they add to their processed foods, but that doesn’t stop them from making label claims like “We pop a flavorful blend of nine veggies…[in our chips]” or there is “half serving of vegetables in a 2 oz serving…[of our pasta]”.

The Bottom Line: Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

The Fruits & Vegetables in a Capsule Con

One of my pet peeves is the food supplement manufacturers who try to tell you that they have concentrated a cornucopia of fresh fruits and vegetables in a capsule. For example, one company claims that their capsules contain apple, barley, broccoli, beet, cabbage, carrot, cranberry, date, garlic, kale, oats, orange, parsley, peach, pineapple, prunes, spinach, plant enzymes, fiber, and acidophilus. All this in one capsule!

While this list sounds impressive, you need to ask whether they are providing meaningful amounts of those fruits and vegetables. For example, the product claims to have oats. A serving of oats is equal to 1/3 cup dry oats and weighs about 28 grams. A capsule typically weighs about 0. 5 grams. Therefore, to get the equivalent of one serving of oats from a capsule, you would have to consume 56 capsules! And that’s assuming that the entire capsule was filled with oats.

Broccoli is another claimed ingredient. A serving of fresh broccoli weighs 88 grams, but roughly 80 grams of that is water. So if you dehydrated the broccoli you would be left with about 8 grams of material. Therefore, to get a single serving of dehydrated broccoli you would have to consume 16 capsules. Again, that’s assuming that the capsules were completely filled with just broccoli.

You can do this kind of calculation with each ingredient they claim is in their capsules. But when you add up the number of capsules needed to get a reasonable amount of each of these ingredients, the capsule total is staggering.

As for essential nutrients, when you read the label you usually discover that their capsules only contain small amounts of a few essential nutrients. They simply do not provide significant amounts of the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you would have been getting if you ate the real foods.

The Bottom Line: Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label. They do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you had eaten the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

Omega Oops

Omega-3 fatty acids are in fashion, so omega-3 claims are springing up everywhere. You can find omega-3 enriched eggs, milk, juices, bars, and even pasta. I won’t address the controversies about omega-3 benefits in this article because I have written about them previously (“Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?” , “Can Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?” , or “Do Omega-3s Slow Cognitive Decline?”.

The other point that Nutrition Action made was that the amount of omega-3s provided by these omega-3 enriched foods was seldom enough to provide any significant health benefit. It is the long chain omega-3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA that are thought to provide the health benefits. The American Heart Association recommends 500 mg/day of these long chain fatty acids for people who have no history of heart disease, and over 1,000 mg/day for people with prior history of heart disease. In that context the few mg of long chain omega-3s provided by most omega-3 enriched foods is a drop in the bucket.

The story is even more tenuous for those manufacturers who add the short chain omega-3 fatty acid ALA, which is found in most vegetable oils and plant seed oils, to their products. That’s because the efficiency of conversion of short chain to long chain fatty acids in the body is only 10-15% for most people. One tablespoon of canola or soy oil provides about 1,000 mg of ALA. Once again, those products providing only a few mg of short chain omega-3s provide little benefit.

When asked why they added omega-3s to their pasta, one manufacturer said “We have to because of the competition”, not “We wanted to make our product healthier”.

The Bottom Line: Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

The Bottom Line

The October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter exposed many of the deceptive labeling practices that food manufacturers use to make their products seem healthier than they are. In particular:

The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber, read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label and do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you ate the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

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 ADHD?

March 3, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Foods Make Kids Fidget?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When I was a kid we didn’t have all of these fancy words like hyperactivity, ADD and ADHD. If a kid had trouble sitting still and trouble focusing on the task at hand, they were just considered “fidgety”. So, what causes ADHD in kids?

Now that I’ve dated myself once again, let’s get to the real topic which is: “Can the foods that your kids eat have any relationship to ADD and ADHD symptoms?”

To put things into perspective, the CDC just announced that 11% of all school age children in the US have been diagnosed with ADHD. That is a 41% increase in the last decade alone. I am not going to discuss the controversy about why the incidence of ADHD is rising so rapidly in this country. That is another story for another time.

My concern is that two thirds of those children are being given stimulant medications like Ritalin and Adderall. While those medications can help reduce the symptoms, they can also cause serious side effects such as addiction, anxiety and psychosis.

So it might be time to stop and ask, is there a better way? Could the foods those children are eating cause ADHD? If so, could something as simple as changing their diet control the symptoms of ADHD without any side effects?

I’ve talked about the effect of food additives, Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity , and the sugar content of the diet on hyperactivity in previous issues of my “Health Tips from the Professor”.

The question that I’m posing today is whether sensitivities to foods that we would otherwise consider to be healthy could also trigger ADHD symptoms?

Could The Foods Our Children Eat Cause ADHD?

Could food be what causes ADHD in kids? Many clinicians have long felt that food sensitivities could be associated with ADHD symptoms because many of the children that they were treating for ADHD also had food sensitivities that showed up as eczema, asthma and gastrointestinal problems. But no definitive clinical studies had been performed in this area, so the idea that food sensitivities might cause ADHD symptoms remained an open question.

However, a major clinical study called The Impact of Nutrition on Children with ADHD was recently performed that suggests the answer to this question is a resounding YES – food sensitivities can cause ADHD symptoms (Pelesser et al, Lancet, 377: 494-503, 2011).

100 children from the Netherlands and Belgium with a definitive diagnosis of ADHD were enrolled in the study. The age of the children was 4 to 8 years old because it is easiest to control the food intake of children in that age group.

At the beginning of the study every child was given IgG blood tests to identify food sensitivities. During the first 5 weeks of the program the children were divided into two groups.

One group was put on a restricted elimination diet consisting of rice, meats, vegetables, pears and water for 5 weeks (An elimination diet is the “gold standard” for evaluating food sensitivities because it eliminates almost every food known to cause sensitivity from the diet).

The second group was put on a “healthy diet” – one which met current nutritional guidelines, but did not eliminate any food or food group from the diet.

At the end of this 5-week period all of the children were evaluated for ADHD symptoms in a blinded fashion by a pediatrician specializing in diagnosing and treating ADHD.

An astonishing 78% of the children on the elimination diet had a reduction in their ADHD symptoms!

Those on the “healthy diet” showed no significant improvement in symptoms.

Can IgG Tests Identify Children Who Will Benefit From Changing Their Diet?

The first phase of the study (described above) was followed by a second phase in which restricted foods were added back to the diet of those children who had responded positively to the elimination diet.

But the foods were not added back randomly. Each child was exposed for two weeks to foods with a high IgG response in their initial screen and for two weeks to foods with a low IgG response in their initial screen. In others words the foods added back were different for each child and were based on their individual IgG results.

This phase of the trial was done in a crossover fashion – meaning that half of the children received low IgG foods during the first two weeks followed by high IgG foods during the second two weeks – and for the other half of the children the order was reversed.

And this phase of the study was also done in a double blind fashion – meaning that neither the children nor the evaluators knew whether they were receiving low IgG foods or high IgG foods during the test period.

The results of this phase of the study were also very interesting:

There was a substantial worsening of ADHD symptoms in 63% of the children when restricted foods were added back to the diet

AND – it didn’t matter whether the foods were low IgG foods or high IgG foods.

The authors’ conclusions were simple:

Food sensitivities make a substantial contribution to ADHD symptoms in children.

Don’t waste your money on the IgG tests (They have been controversial for some time).

The Bottom Line

What is the significance of this study if you have a child with ADHD? According to a recent study:

Food sensitivities make a substantial contribution to ADHD symptoms in children.

Don’t waste your money on the IgG tests (They have been controversial for some time).

The best way to see if foods trigger your child’s ADHD symptoms is to put them on an elimination diet, and if they show an improvement on the elimination diet, add the restricted foods back one or two at a time so you can identify the ones that should be avoided in the future.

Some of you might be saying that sounds difficult (it is), so why bother?

The answer is that 11% of school age children in this country are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD – and almost all of them are treated with drugs that can have serious side effects.

Using an elimination diet to find out whether your child’s ADHD is triggered by food sensitivities and then changing their diet has absolutely no side effects!

Some of you might be asking, “Are there any easier drug-free approaches that one could try, or is there any natural approach that might work for the 22% of children who don’t respond to the elimination diet?”

The answer to both questions is yes.

Simply eliminating food additives, junk foods and/or sugary foods from the diet helps reduce ADHD symptoms in many children.

You also shouldn’t neglect the role that supplementation can play in laying a strong nutritional foundation for your child. I recommend a good children’s multivitamin to make sure that they are getting the nutrients they need, a protein supplement to help prevent blood sugar swings, a good omega-3 (preferably DHA) supplement to support brain health and a supplemental source of friendly bacteria to promote gut health.

But if all else fails I would recommend trying an elimination diet to identify problem foods and then eliminating those foods from your child’s diet before putting them on drugs.

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.

100th Issue Celebration: The Latest Developments in Health, Nutrition, and Fitness

February 24, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Looking To The Future: The Next 100 Issues

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In the roughly year and a half that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor” in its current form, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life. The 100^th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing what has been covered in the last year and a half and reflecting on the future direction of this publication. Let’s start by looking at some of the major issues that have been covered.

Environmental Toxins and Our Health

We live in an increasingly toxic world. Some of those toxins come from industrial pollution. Some come from agricultural pollution (pesticides and herbicides). Some come from household pollution (cleaning products and outgassing from carpet, drapery, etc.). And some come from the additives that BIG FOOD adds to the processed foods we eat.

I’ve covered the effects of a few of those toxins on our health in articles like “Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?” , “Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?” , and “Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?”. Look for more information along those lines in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exercise and Our Health

Many of you exercise on a daily basis and would like more guidance on the best exercises and how you can best support your exercise nutritionally.

I have covered the benefits of exercise in articles like “Run Long and Prosper”. I have covered nutritional approaches that support exercise gains in articles like “Does Leucine Stimulate Muscle Growth?” and “Do Protein Needs Increase As We Age? “. Finally, I have covered the dangers of many of the sports supplements on the market in articles like “Are Fat Burning Supplements Safe?”, “Are Sports Supplements Safe?”, and “Sports Supplements To Avoid”.

I plan to expand these topics in the coming year and perhaps bring in an expert who can advise you the best exercises for a long and healthy life.

Healthy Eating

Most of you have told me that you are very interested in healthy eating.

I have covered healthy eating in general with articles like “Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?” , “The Seventh Generation Revisited” and “Are Organic Foods Healthier?”.

I have talked about foods and eating patterns to avoid with articles like “Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?”, “Do Sodas Cause Arthritis?” and “Do Grilled Meats Cause Prostate Cancer?”.

I have covered controversial areas with articles like “Are Saturated Fats Good For You?” and “When Is GMO not GMO?” and a webinar on “The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods”.

Look for more healthy eating articles like these in upcoming issues.

Obesity

I don’t need to tell you that in today’s world obesity is a huge problem (pun intended).

I have covered some of the less known causes of obesity in articles like “Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?”, and “Can Gut Bacteria Make You Fat?”.

I’ve covered the risks of obesity in articles like “Belly Fat Could Be Killing You?” and “Does Belly Fat Make You Dumb?”.

Finally, I’ve given you some useful tips on how to lose weight in articles like “What Is The Best Diet For Weight Loss?”, “Are High Protein Diets Your Secret to Weight Loss?”, “7 Easy Ways To Spot Fad Diets”, and “Do Diets Really Work?”.

Look for more informative articles like this in future issues.

Family Nutrition

I have had lots of requests for articles providing nutritional advice for young families.

I have written articles for women such as “Women’s Heart Health Begins At 20” () and “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Decrease The Risk Of Depression In Women?” . I have written articles for children such as “Can DHA Help Johnny Read?” and “Do Foods Make Them Fidget?” (coming next month). I have written articles for men such as “A Big, Fat Problem With Testosterone”. I have even written articles about gender differences such as “Is Omega-3 Uptake Gender Specific?”.

Look for more articles like these in future issues.

Debunking The Nutrition Myths

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, and some of that misinformation has been repeated so often that it has become generally accepted as true. It has become what I refer to as a “nutrition urban legend” or nutrition myth. I have done my best to shine the light of science on these myths and expose them as the untruths that they are.

For example, I have debunked the myths about soy in articles like “Does Soy Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer Recurrence?”, “Should Women With Breast Cancer Avoid Soy?” and my video “The Truth About Soy”. I have debunked myths about antioxidants in articles like “Do Antioxidant Supplements Cause Cancer?” and “Do Selenium & Vitamin E Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked myths about omega-3 fatty acids in articles like “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked the myths about calcium in articles like “Do Calcium Supplements Increase Heart Attack Risk?”.

However, debunking nutrition myths is a lot like the “Whack a Mole” game you see at state fairs. As soon as you debunk one myth, another one pops up somewhere else. For that reason I will continue to expose nutrition myths in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exposing The Lies

Unfortunately, there are a lot of charlatans in the food supplement industry, and some of their more sensational claims are popularized by doctors who should know better.

I have tried to expose the worst of these unsubstantiated claims in articles like “Can Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?”, “Water Is Water” and “Is Green Coffee Bean Extract Bogus?”.

Unfortunately, the charlatans truly believe that a “sucker is born every minute” so there will always be new products and new outrageous claims. I will do my best to protect you from products that drain your pocketbook but do not provide you with any substantiated benefits.

Telling The Truth About Supplementation

On one hand you have experts who tell you that supplements are a waste of money. They don’t do any good. On the other hand, you have people who tout supplements as cure for whatever ails you. Neither extreme is accurate. I have done my best to bring balance and scientific rigor to this discussion with articles like “The Two Biggest Misconceptions About Supplementation”.

The Naysayers base their advice on studies of supplementation in healthy populations, something we scientists refer to as primary prevention studies. Because 95% or more of the healthy test population will never develop the disease being tested for within the time period of the study it is almost impossible to demonstrate a beneficial effect of supplementation in that kind of studies. I have illustrated that point by highlighting the difficulty in proving that statins provide any discernable effect on heart disease risk in healthy populations of people who have not experienced a prior heart attack in my book “The Myths of the Naysayers” and my article “Can An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?”. If you can’t even show that statins prevent disease in healthy populations, why would you expect to be able to show that supplements prevent disease in those populations?

However when you look at the effects of supplementations in populations at high risk of developing disease (because of age, poor diet, increased need, genetics or pre-existing disease) supplementation does appear to be effective. I have highlighted these studies in articles like “Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?”, “Do B vitamins Slow Cognitive Decline?”, and “Do Vitamin D Genes Affect Mortality?”.

In future issues I will continue to highlight the benefits of supplementation. Unlike, the more sensational blogs, however, I will also be quite clear about which population groups are most likely to benefit.

Of course, I can’t cover all 100 issues in this one article. Suffice it to say that I have also provided you with information on nutritional breakthroughs that may dramatically decrease your risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and much more. You can find many of these articles just by going to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips and entering the appropriate term in the search box.

What Does the Future Hold?

I have just touched on a few of my most popular articles in the list I gave you above. You may want to scroll through that list to find articles of interest to you that you might have missed. If you don’t see what you are looking for, just go to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips and type the appropriate term in the search box.

In the coming year you can look for more articles debunking myths, exposing lies and providing balance to the debate about those health topics that affect you directly. As always I pledge to provide you with scientifically accurate, balanced information that you can trust. I will continue to do my best to present this information in a clear and concise manner so that you can understand it and apply it to your life.

Based on input that I have received from many of you I will increase my coverage of exercise and topics of interest to young families. I will also be bringing back Julie Donnelly as a guest expert for a series of articles on how to relieve back pain. Julie is an expert on deep muscle massage therapy and her articles on self-treatment for muscle pain have been among the most popular over the last year and a half. I know you will be happy to have her back.

If you have other topics that you would like me to cover, please click on this link to enter your suggestions in the comment box.

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.

Heart Disease in Women

February 23, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What You Don’t Know About Heart Health Can Hurt You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are a young mom, heart disease is the furthest thing from your mind. You have your kids and your husband to look after. You have work. You don’t have time to look after yourself. Besides, you may think that heart disease in women doesn’t really apply to you. Perhaps it’s time to review some of your assumptions.

Heart Disease Is For Men – Wrong

The misconception that heart disease is primarily a man’s concern arises because estrogen helps protect women from heart disease prior to menopause. However, after menopause women’s heart attack rates exceed men’s. Overall, women account for over half of all heart attack deaths in this country, and if a woman has a heart attack before age 50, it is twice as likely to be fatal for her than for a man.

Women Should Be More Concerned About Breast Cancer Than About Heart Disease – Wrong

While I would never advise a woman not to take precautions to avoid breast cancer, you should know that your lifetime risk of developing heart disease is 6-fold greater than your lifetime risk of developing cancer. In fact, heart disease is the leading cause of death in women over 40 years old. For 25% of heart attack victims their first symptom is sudden death! And many other will never experience the same quality of life again.

Women Don’t Need To Worry About Heart Disease Until After Menopause – Wrong

It is true the likelihood of having a heart attack increases significantly after menopause. That is because menopause dramatically increases a number of risk factors associated with heart disease such as increases in LDL cholesterol, blood clot formation, blood pressure, and inflammation. However, within 10 years after the onset of perimenopause (usually around age 45) your risk of a heart attack will skyrocket past that of a man of the same age. That means in those 10 years all of the not-so-good things you have been doing to your heart since age 20 catch up with you!

What Can You Do?

Don’t wait until after menopause. Start your heart health program today. Here is what the experts recommend.

Lose weight and/or maintain ideal body weight. Overweight and obesity dramatically increase all of the major risk factors for heart disease – LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, hypertension and inflammation.

Exercise for more than 30 minutes – more than 3 times/week. Regular exercise reduces the risk of heart disease by 30-40%.

Follow a diet low in saturated fat and trans-fat (substitute monounsaturated fats like olive oil and omega-3 fats); low in sugars and artificial sweeteners; and high in fiber, whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and fish.

Work with your physician to control predisposing diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

All these help to reduce heart disease in women

More Resources

For more information on heart health for women visit http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/women-heart-disease, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007188.htm, and https://www.goredforwomen.org/home/know-your-risk/factors-that-increase-your-risk/

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 Herbal Supplements Bogus?

February 17, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Can You Be Sure You Are Getting What You Paid For?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Two weeks ago the headlines claimed that most supplements containing grape seed extract were bogus. Just last week the New York Attorney General claimed that four of the largest retailers in the state were selling bogus herbal supplements.

We already knew that it is “buyer beware” in the food supplement industry. Is it really this bad? Are most herbal supplements a waste of money? How can we be sure that we are getting our money’s worth when we buy herbal supplements?

Do Herbal Supplements Work?

Supplements Containing Grape Seed Extract

The headlines about supplements containing grape seed extract were based on a recent study by botanical and medicinal chemistry experts at Rutgers University (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015). They obtained 21 commercially available supplements containing grape seed extract from vitamin supplement retailers, supermarkets and online vendors.

The scientists used HPLC/UV/MS to analyze the supplements for the polyphenols that should be found in authentic grape seed extracts. (HPLC/UV/MS is an analytic method that is the gold standard for identifying and quantifying the chemical composition of the final product. However, it is a very expensive procedure, and many manufacturers do not use it.)

The results of their analysis were quite alarming.

Only 6 of the 21 products tested had the specific polyphenols found in authentic grape seed extract.

9 of the samples had less than 15% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

5 of the samples had less than 3% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

One of the samples had no detectable grape seed extract

9 of the samples contained polyphenols that were characteristic of peanut skin extracts rather than grape seed extract. Peanut skin extract is a much cheaper source of polyphenols than grape seed extract. Substitution of peanut skin extract for grape seed extract is a concern because:
- While polyphenols from peanut skin extract have health benefits, they have not been tested. There is currently no clinical evidence that they are beneficial.
- There is no label information on the products indicating that peanuts were used in their manufacture. This could be a concern for people with peanut allergies.

3 of the samples contained polyphenols that were more characteristic of pine bark extract than grape seed extract. Again this is a concern because that particular blend of polyphenols has not been shown to provide the same health benefits as grape seed extract.

The authors concluded that “adulteration of grape seed extract in commercial preparations is a significant problem.” They suggested that substitution of much cheaper polyphenol sources such as peanut skin extract or pine bark extract offered significant “economic gain” to the manufacturers.

They went on to say “due to reliance of inferior…assays [or complete lack of quality control assays in some cases] across the value chain, adulteration can go undetected by others in the distribution chain, such as those involved in distribution, packaging, wholesale and retail sales.”

To put that in lay terms it means that suppliers and manufacturers often cheat by substituting cheaper polyphenol sources, primarily for financial gain. Furthermore, because most companies don’t use high cost quality control assays such as HPLC/UV/MS they actually have no idea whether their products actually contain grape seed extract or not.

Supplements Containing Ginko Biloba, St. John’s Wort, Ginseng & Echinacea

The recent headlines about ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal products arose from an announcement by the New York Attorney General the he had just ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to take a number of herbal supplements off their shelves because almost 80% of them didn’t contain the ingredients listed on the label or contained non-listed ingredients.

Specifically, the Attorney General claimed that:

The ginko biloba and St. John’s wort supplements that they tested from those stores did not test positive for active ingredients.

Ginseng and Echinacea supplements also failed their tests.

In some cases the supplements contained no organic material. They contained sand instead of active ingredients.

The Attorney General claimed that these and other herbal supplements they tested were bogus. Even worse, they were deceptive and could endanger people’s health. For example, people generally use St. John’s wort to relieve depression. If the supplement is bogus, they are not just wasting money. Their mental health is also being compromised.

While the Attorney General’s announcement is alarming, it is also a bit misleading. It is based on an analytic method called “DNA barcoding”. In simple terms, DNA barcoding means that DNA is extracted from the sample and the genetic information in that DNA is compared with the genetic information characteristic of the herbal ingredient.

DNA barcoding is an important analytic test that every manufacturer should use to validate the identity of their herbal raw ingredients. However, DNA is often removed in the process of preparing an herbal extract, so DNA barcoding is an inappropriate assay to use for validating the quality of the finished product. Assays such as the HPLC/UV/MS are more appropriate or the final product.

In short, the Attorney General identified a potential problem with the herbal supplement industry, but further tests are required before we know how significant the problem actually is. The most troubling aspect of the whole incident is that some of the retailers had not run their own quality controls on the products, so they actually had no idea whether the products they were selling were bogus or not.

How Can you Make Sure the Supplements you Buy Aren’t Bogus?

Now that you know that many herbal supplements may be bogus, how do you protect yourself? How do you make sure that you are not wasting your money and jeopardizing your health?

The answer is actually pretty simply.

Ignore the slick marketing.

Don’t base your decision on price alone.

Do your research. Only choose reputable companies that do quality controls on both the raw ingredients and the finished product.

The Bottom Line

Herbal supplements have been in the headlines lately, and the news isn’t good.

One study (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015) reported that only 6 out of 21 supplements listing grape seed extract on their label actually contained pure grape seed extract. The rest were adulterated with less expensive polyphenol sources which may not provide the same health benefits, such as peanut skin extracts and pine bark extracts. That report was based on HPL/UV/MS, which is the gold standard of quality controls assays for herbal supplements.

Two weeks later the New York Attorney General ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to stop selling herbal supplements containing ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal ingredients. He claimed that 80% of the supplements tested didn’t contain the ingredients on the label and some contained sand instead of any active ingredients. His claim was based on DNA barcoding, an assay that is appropriate for identifying the herbs used in manufacturing the supplements, but is not valid for determining whether the finished product contains extracts prepared from those herbs. In short the Attorney General’s report identified a potential problem with those supplements, but further tests will be required to determine how significant that problem is.

Both reports serve to remind us that many supplement manufacturers fail to run adequate quality control tests on their products. Neither they nor you know whether their products actually contain any active ingredients. Your best bet is to choose food supplement companies that run appropriate quality controls on both their raw ingredients and on their final products.

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.

Protein Needs For Older Adults

February 10, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Much Protein Do We Need?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

What are the protein needs for older adults? In previous “Health Tips From the Professor” I have covered the optimal amount of protein for weight loss diets in high protein diets and weight loss and following workouts . In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I will review the latest information about protein needs as we age.

To put this in perspective, many Americans suffer from sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass) as they age.

Some of you may be saying “So what? I wasn’t planning on being a champion weight lifter in my golden years.” The “So what” is that loss of muscle mass leads to loss of mobility, a tendency to fall (which often leads to debilitating bone fractures) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all of the illnesses that go along with obesity.

How Can We Prevent Loss of Muscle Mass As We Age?

Fortunately, sarcopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. There are things that we can do to prevent it. The most important thing that we can do to prevent muscle loss as we age is to exercise – and I’m talking about resistance (weight) training, not just aerobic exercise.

But we also need to look at our protein intake and our leucine intake. Protein is important because our muscle fibers are made of protein.

Leucine is an essential amino acid. It is important because it stimulates the muscle’s ability to make new protein. Leucine and insulin act synergistically to stimulate muscle protein synthesis after exercise. I have covered the evidence behind leucine’s importance in maintaining and building muscle mass in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor”, Leucine Triggers Muscle Mass.

Do Our Protein Needs Increase As We Age?

Interestingly, our protein needs actually increase as we age. Campbell et al (Journal of Gerontolgy: Medical Sciences 56A: M373-M380, 2001) showed several years ago that RDA levels of protein were not sufficient to maintain muscle mass in both men & women aged 55 to 77 years old.

Many experts recommend that those of us in our golden years should consume the amount of protein in grams that is equivalent to half our body weight in pounds every day.

When Should We Eat Our Protein?

When we consume the protein is also important. Forget that continental breakfast, salad for lunch and protein-rich dinner. As we age we increasingly need high quality protein at every meal.

In one study, young adults (average age = 31), experienced increased muscle protein synthesis when they consumed as little as 15 grams of protein at a meal, but older adults (average age = 68) experienced no increase in muscle protein synthesis in response to the same low protein meal (Katsanos et al, Am J Clin Nutr 82: 1065-1073).

However, when the amount of protein in a meal was increased to 30 grams (equivalent to a 4 oz piece of chicken or beef) both younger and older adults were able to use that protein to build muscle (Symons et al,Am J Clin Nutr 86: 451-456, 2007).

But, 30 grams seems to be about optimal. Protein intakes above 30 grams in a single meal resulted in no further increase in muscle protein synthesis (Symons et al, J Am Diet Assoc 109: 1582-1586, 2009), which means you can’t hope to get all of the muscle building benefits of protein in a single meal.

As a consequence of these studies most experts recommend that we “golden agers” aim for 20 to 30 grams of high quality protein with every meal.

How Much Leucine Do We Need?

The story with leucine is similar. 1.7 grams of leucine was not sufficient to increase muscle protein synthesis following exercise in older adults, while 2.7 grams was sufficient (Katsanos et al, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 291: E381-E387, 2006). So the experts recommend that older adults get 3 grams of leucine in our diet following workouts to maximize the effect of the workout.

And, of course, if we want to maximize the effects of resistance training, both the protein and leucine need to be consumed after we exercise, not before (Fujita et al, J Appl Physiol 106: 1730-1736, 2009).

Where Do We Get the Protein and Leucine We Need?

So, where do we get the amount of protein and leucine that we are looking for?

If you want to get them from food alone, 4 oz servings of meat are a good starting place – with chicken being the best (35 grams of protein and 2.7 grams of leucine). Dairy, eggs and vegetable foods are much lower in leucine, protein or both.

Unfortunately, I keep running into seniors who are fully convinced that broccoli and tofu will meet their protein needs. I fully understand the rationale for choosing vegetarian protein sources, but you need a bit more than broccoli and tofu if you are going to meet your protein needs in your golden years.

For example, a 4 ounce serving of tofu provides only 10 grams of protein and 0.8 grams of leucine, and a 1.5 cup serving of broccoli provides only 4.2 grams of protein and a miserly 0.36 grams of leucine. That makes it very difficult to meet your target of 20-30 grams of protein and around 2.7 grams of leucine with each meal.

I’m not saying that you can’t get enough protein and leucine to maintain muscle mass on a vegetarian diet. However, you will need to plan that diet very carefully.

So, if you want to know what the old professor does, here it is:

I work out almost every day. On the days when I work out in the morning I rely on a protein shake immediately after the workout to meet my protein and leucine goals. On the days when I train at the gym in the late afternoon, I rely on 4 oz of chicken or fish with dinner to meet those goals.

Those of you who know me know that I will never be featured in muscle magazine, but at least I’m gaining muscle mass – not losing it.

The Bottom Line

As we age many Americans suffer from sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass). The loss of muscle mass leads to loss of mobility, a tendency to fall (and break things) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all of the illnesses that go along with obesity.

The most important thing that we can do to prevent muscle loss as we age is to exercise – especially resistance (weight) training exercise – at least 30 minutes every day. It is also important to make sure that we are getting adequate intake of protein and the essential amino acid leucine.

Our protein needs increase as we age. Recent studies suggest that the RDA levels of protein are not sufficient to maintain muscle mass in people over the age of 55. Many experts recommend that those of us in our golden years consume the amount of protein in grams that is equivalent to half our body weight in pounds every day.

Recent studies show that it is important to spread that protein out through the day rather than consume one protein rich meal at the end of the day. If we are over 50 we should be aiming at 20-30 grams of protein per meal. However, more than 30 grams of protein at a single serving appears to provide no additional benefit.

Seniors also appear to need more leucine in each meal than younger adults if they wish to preserve muscle mass. Young adults need only around 1.7 grams of leucine per serving to stimulate muscle protein synthesis, while mature adults may need as much as 2.7 grams per serving.

Well-designed protein shakes and 4 ounces of lean meats are the easiest way for seniors to meet their protein and leucine needs. Vegetarian diets can provide the protein and leucine needed to maintain muscle mass in seniors, but those diets need to be very well planned. Broccoli and tofu just don’t make the grade if you are serious about preserving muscle mass.

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

Does Exercise Make You Live Longer?

January 27, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Run Long and Prosper

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Does exercise make you live longer? If you are a fan of the original Star Trek series, you may remember the phrase “Live Long and Prosper”. That sounded great, but it was just a wish – a platitude. It said nothing about how you might accomplish the feat of living longer and prospering.

What if something as simple as increasing your exercise levels might help you live a longer, healthier life? A recent study provides pretty convincing evidence that exercise can increase longevity. If that is really true, maybe the proper phase should be “Run Long and Prosper”.

In my past “Health Tips From the Professor” I have talked about how hard it is to prove the value of any individual lifestyle change on improving our longevity – whether we are talking about more exercise, lower fat diets or individual nutritional supplements.

Most studies have too few subjects and last too short a time to show any significant effect. That’s why the study I’m featuring this week (Byberg et al, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43: 482-489, 2009) is so remarkable.

How Was The Clinical Study Designed?

The study was designed to answer the question of whether exercise can actually help people live longer.

But what was remarkable about the study was the number of people enrolled in the study and how long the study lasted. The study enrolled 2,204 men aged 50 from the city of Uppsala Sweden in 1970-1973 and followed the men for 35 years!

At the beginning of the study the participants completed a survey on leisure time physical activity and were categorized into low, medium or high activity groups. Participants were re-examined at ages 55, 60, 70, 77, and 82 years and changes in physical activity were recorded.

Other information, such as body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, smoking status and alcohol use, was also collected at each survey. And, of course, the researches recorded how many of the initial participants were still living at each of those ages.

Is Living Longer One of the Benefits of Exercise?

After adjusting for other risk factors (obesity, smoking, excess alcohol consumption, elevated cholesterol or blood pressure), the researchers found that men who reported high levels of physical activity from age 50 lived 2.3 years longer than sedentary men and 1.1 years longer than men who reported medium levels of physical activity.

They also looked at what happened to men who started at low or medium levels of activity and increased their exercise level during the study. After 5 years of increased activity there was no apparent benefit. But after 10 years of increased activity the risk of dying had been reduced just as much as if they had always been exercising at that level!

I find that last finding particularly significant because most studies of this type last 5 years or less. If this study had been concluded at the end of 5 years, you might be tempted to say: “Why bother. If I haven’t exercised before, there’s no point in starting now.” But, this study did last more than five years – so the conclusion was completely different.

The Bottom Line

We’ve known for years that exercise reduces the risks of several types of diseases and improves the quality of life. This study clearly answers “Does exercise make you live longer?” with a yes.

If you haven’t exercised before, it’s never too late to start. Just don’t expect instantaneous results.

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 Avocados Lower Cholesterol?

January 20, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Should Avocados Be On The Super Fruits List?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You may have seen the recent headlines suggesting that avocados lower cholesterol, are a miracle fruit, and reduce your risk of heart disease. Some of those articles are suggesting that you try to eat an avocado every day. Are those headlines true? Should you be eating more avocados?

If you are like me that would be a bit of a stretch. I prefer my fruits tastier and a bit less greasy, but I won’t let my personal preferences color my analysis of the data. Let’s start by looking at the rationale for testing the effect of avocados on cholesterol levels.

The 2013 American Heart Association Guidelines on Lifestyle Management to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk recommends reducing saturated fats to no more than 5% to 6% of total calories (In the typical American diet about 13% of calories come from saturated fat). The AHA recommends replacing the saturated fat with either monounsaturated fat or polyunsaturated fat (vegetable oils and fish oil).

In addition, a major clinical study has recently shown that a Mediterranean diet supplemented with either olive oil or mixed nuts (walnuts, hazelnuts and almonds) lowers cholesterol and reduces the incidence of major cardiovascular events by ~30% over 5 years in men and women aged 50 to 80 who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease (Estruch et al, N Engl J Med, 368: 1279-1290, 2013).

One avocado has about the same amount of oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat) as 2 tablespoons of olive oil or 1.5 ounces of almonds, so it is logical to suspect that avocados might have a similar effect as olive oil or nuts.

How Was The Clinical Study Designed?

Because there is still a lot of controversy as to whether diets in which the saturated fat is replaced with healthier fat or no fat at all (low fat diets) are better, this study (Wang et al, J Am Heart Assoc, 2015;4: e001355 doi:10.1161/JAHA.114.001355) compared 3 diets:

A low fat diet in which most of the saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24% total fat, 7% saturated fat, 11% monounsaturated fat, 6% polyunsaturated fat, 59% carbohydrate, 16-17% protein).

A moderate fat diet in which most of the saturated fat was replaced with pure oleic acid (34% total fat, 6% saturated fat, 17% monounsaturated fat from oleic acid, 9% polyunsaturated fat , 49% carbohydrate, 16-17% protein).

A moderate fat diet in which most of the saturated fat was replaced with avocado (34% total fat, 6% saturated fat, 17% monounsaturated fat from avocado, 9% polyunsaturated fat , 49% carbohydrate, 16-17% protein).

The study subjects were 45 healthy overweight or obese men and women (age 21 to 70, average = 45). Each subject was put on all 3 diets sequentially for 5 weeks each in a random order. That way each subject served as his or her own control.

The diets were carefully controlled to keep the calories the same so that none of the subjects lost weight during the study (weight loss would have confounded the results because weight loss lowers cholesterol in most individuals). The subjects were also told not to change their exercise habits. In short, it was a small study, but it was very well designed.

When the low fat diet was compared to the moderate (healthy) fat diets, the results were pretty similar to a number of other studies:

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol (the bad type) were lowered to about the same extent by both types of diets.

Triglycerides were higher and HDL cholesterol (the good type) was lower for the low fat diet compared to the moderate (healthy) fat diets.

Because this has been shown in previous studies, I won’t discuss it further here.

Do Avocados Lower Cholesterol?

When the authors compared the diet in which saturated fat was replaced with avocados to the diet in which saturated fat was replaced with oleic acid there were a number of significant differences.

Both LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol were significantly lower on the avocado diet than the oleic acid diet. The decrease was about 10%. Based on the metrics adopted by the American Heart Association this has the potential to translate into a 20% decrease in heart disease risk.

The avocado diet was the only one of the three diets that significantly decreased LDL particle number, small dense LDL cholesterol and LDL/HDL ratio, Many experts think that these parameters are better indicators of hearts disease risk than LDL cholesterol levels.

Do avocados lower cholesterol? The short answer is yes, eating an avocado a day can lower cholesterol levels and might possibly lower heart disease risk. But to understand the true implications of this study we need to dig a little deeper.

What Is the Significance of This Study?

This study has one important take home lesson and raises two important questions.

Take Home Lesson: Foods Are More Important Than Fats We often hear about the benefits of including more monounsaturated fats in our diet, but when you actually make a direct comparison, such as was done in this study, it turns out that it is the foods that contain monounsaturated fats that make the difference, not the monounsaturated fats themselves. The oleic acid diet was only marginally better than the low fat diet at lowering total and LDL cholesterol.

This was the major conclusion of the authors of the study. Everything else was made up by the non-experts who write the articles that you see in the papers and on the internet. It is yet one more example of the headlines getting ahead of the science.

The authors admitted that we have no idea why avocados are more effective at lowering cholesterol than an equivalent amount of oleic acid. They speculated that it could be due to the high content of phytosterols in avocados. However, while the 114 mg of plant sterols in an avocado makes it an excellent source of plant sterols, it is far below the 2,000 mg of plant sterols that the NIH considers optimal for lowering cholesterol levels.

The authors also mentioned soluble fiber and specialized sugars in an avocado, but none of those was present in sufficient quantities to explain the cholesterol-lowering effect of avocados by itself. It is likely that all of those constituents plus others that we have not yet identified are what make avocados more effective than oleic acid at lowering cholesterol.

Question 1: Do We Really Want To Eat An Avocado a Day?

We need to keep in mind that a single avocado weighs in at around 234 calories. That is:

2.5 times the calories in an apple
4.7 times the calories in a peach or a cup of strawberries
5.7 times the calories in a half cup of blueberries
7.3 times the calories in a half cup of raspberries or blackberries

You get the point. What made this study so effective is that all three diets were designed to provide exactly the same number of calories so that nobody gained or lost weight. If you are thinking of adding an avocado a day to your diet, you are going to need to significantly cut back on calories somewhere else, or your weight gain will drive your cholesterol levels in the wrong direction.

Question 2: What Are The Long Term Implications of This Study?

The bottom line is that this and previous studies suggest that avocados should rightfully be included along with olive oil and nuts as healthy sources of monounsaturated fats that can help you lower cholesterol levels and may reduce your risk of heart disease.

However, we need to keep in mind that while a major clinical study has shown that adding either olive oil or nuts to your diet can reduce heart disease risk, we don’t have a comparable study showing that adding avocados to your diet will have the same benefit. It is plausible, but has not yet been demonstrated.

The Bottom Line

A recent clinical study has shown that eating an avocado a day was more effective at lowering bad cholesterol than adding an equivalent amount of the monounsaturated fat oleic acid to the diet. This suggests that it is the foods that contain the monounsaturated fats that make the difference, not the monounsaturated fats themselves.

This and previous studies suggest that avocados should rightfully be included along with olive oil and nuts as healthy sources of monounsaturated fats that can help you lower cholesterol levels and may reduce your risk of heart disease.

However, we need to keep in mind that while a major clinical study has shown that adding either olive oil or nuts to your diet can reduce heart disease risk, we don’t have a comparable study showing that adding avocados to your diet will have the same benefit. It is plausible, but has not yet been demonstrated.

You also need to keep in mind that a single avocado contains 234 calories. What made this study work so well is that each diet was carefully designed to provide exactly the same number of calories. If you are thinking of adding an avocado a day to your diet, you are going to need to significantly cut back on calories somewhere else, or your weight gain will drive your cholesterol levels in the wrong direction.

Finally, the American Heart Association Guidelines are to reduce saturated fats to no more than 6-7% of total calories. So while the low-carbohydrate, butter, bacon, and steak diet may give you temporary weight loss, it is definitely NOT recommended if you want to reduce your risk of heart disease. For more on this important topic, see my previous health tip “Are Saturated Fats Good For You?”

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

Vitamin D Deficiency

January 13, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Real Vitamin D Story?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are like most people, you probably don’t know what to believe about vitamin D deficiency. Some experts tout vitamin D as a miracle nutrient that will help you lead a longer, healthier life. They leave you with the impression that everyone should be supplementing with vitamin D.

Other experts tell you that the supposed benefits of vitamin D are all hype. They tell you not to waste your money on vitamin D supplements.

When you pull back the curtain and look at the clinical studies behind the headlines, a pattern begins to emerge.

Most of the studies that support a role for vitamin D in preventing heart disease, preventing cancer and extending life have been population studies. They have compared populations with low vitamin D intake with populations with adequate vitamin D intake. While population studies are good for suggesting associations, they have their limitations:

Population studies are good at suggesting associations, but they do not prove cause and effect.

With population studies it is also very difficult to eliminate what scientists call “confounding variables”. Let me give you an example. Suppose someone had low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in their blood because they sat around all day watching TV and never got out in the sun. If they got sick you wouldn’t really know whether it was due to low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or due to inactivity. In this case, inactivity would be a confounding variable.

On the other hand, most of the studies that fail to find any benefit of vitamin D are double blind, placebo-controlled intervention studies in which one group was given supplemental vitamin D and the other group was given a placebo. While these studies are considered the most reliable clinical studies, they have their limitations as well.

In the case of vitamin D many of these studies were done with a cross section of the population in which most of the participants already had adequate blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D at the start of the study. Those studies are incapable of telling us whether correcting a vitamin D deficiency would have been beneficial.

Even when the intervention studies focus on participants with low vitamin D status at the start of the trial they have another significant limitation. They are all short term studies. Typically, the best of these studies last no more than a couple of years. Longer term studies are far too expensive. In contrast, diseases such as heart disease and cancer take decades to develop. A one or two year intervention with vitamin D simply may not be sufficient to correct the damage caused by decades of vitamin D deficiency

This is the current dilemma that is creating all of the confusion in the vitamin D story. For the most part, population studies and intervention studies are coming to very different conclusions. And both kinds of studies have inherent limitations that are difficult to overcome.

Fortunately, a new kind of clinical study has been developed in recent years that overcomes the limitations of both population studies and intervention studies.

A New Kind of Clinical Study

The new approach is something called mendelian randomization. I apologize for the scientific jargon, but let me explain. In this case you are separating your population based on genetic variation rather than on the basis of biochemical or behavioral differences.

For example, in the clinical study I will describe in a minute the population was separated into groups based on genetic variations in the DHCR7 and CYP2R1 genes. The first gene is involved in the biosynthesis of cholesterol, which is a precursor of vitamin D, and the second gene converts vitamin D to 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Both genes affect blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

This kind of study has several unique strengths:

Genetic variations are unaffected by confounding variables such as sun exposure, obesity, smoking, inactivity, and poor diet. If the study population is large enough, those confounding variables will be equally distributed among groups that are selected solely on the basis of genetic variations.

These studies are long term by definition. If someone has a genetic variant that lowers their 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, it will do so for their entire lifetime. They can increase their vitamin D status by sun exposure, for example, but their blood levels of 25 hydroxyvitamin D will always be less than someone with equal sun exposure who does not have that genetic variant.

Because these studies reflect lifelong exposure to 25-hydroxyvitamin D they are ideally suited for measuring the effect of vitamin D status on mortality and diseases that take decades to develop.

Do Vitamin D Genes Affect Mortality?

This study (S. Afzal et al, The British Medical Journal, 2014;p 349:g6330 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6330) combined the data from three clinical studies conducted in Copenhagen between 1976 and 2013. The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 100 years and the follow-up was 6-19 years. 95,766 participants in these studies were genotyped for variants in the DHCR7 and CYP2R1 genes which were known to affect 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. 35,334 of those participants also had blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels determined. By the end of the study 10,349 of the participants had died.

The individual genetic variants included in this study caused a relatively small (1.9 nmol/L) decrease in blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. However, because this was a very large study and the participants with those genetic variants were exposed to lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels for their entire lifespan, the decreased 25-vitamin D levels were associated with significant increases in all cause mortality and cancer mortality, but not with increased cardiovascular mortality.

When they extrapolated to a genetically caused 20 nmol/L decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the decrease in 25-hdroxyvitamin D was associated with a 30% increase in all cause mortality and a 30% increase in cancer mortality.

What Kind Of Studies Are Needed Next?

The authors noted that this is the first study of its kind, so it obviously needs to be confirmed by other large mendelian randomization studies that test the link between vitamin D status and mortality.

Ideally, it should also be verified by double blind, placebo controlled intervention studies, but that may not be possible. If one really wanted to verify this study, the intervention study should start with a population group with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at least 20 nmol/L below what is considered adequate and provide them with enough supplemental vitamin D to increase their 25-hydroxyvitamin D to the adequate range. That is difficult, but doable.

However, the intervention study would also need to be long enough (decades perhaps) to prevent cancer from developing. That kind of study will probably never be done.

The Bottom Line

The relationship between vitamin D status and mortality has been investigated with a new type of clinical study based on what is called mendelian randomization. Population groups were segregated based on genetic variations in two genes that affect blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (a measure of vitamin D status).

This study concluded that a genetically determined decrease of 20 nmol/L in blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D was associated with a 30% increase in all cause mortality and a 30% increase in cancer mortality, but had no significant effect on cardiovascular mortality.

This kind of study is particularly strong because it measures the affect of lifelong exposure to 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This is important when assessing the effect of vitamin D status on mortality and diseases such as cancer that take decades to develop. In contrast, the double blind, placebo controlled intervention studies that are consider the “Gold Standard” for clinical studies may be too short term to adequately assess the effect of vitamin D status on cancer or all cause mortality.

This study supports the benefit of maintaining optimal vitamin D status, but it is the first clinical study of its kind and needs to be confirmed by other studies.

In the meantime, there is no harm to in maintaining your blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the optimal range through diet, sun exposure and supplementation. This study suggests it just may help you live a longer, healthier life.

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.

No Viagra Side Effects?

January 6, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Big, Fat Problem With Testosterone

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You can’t turn on the TV nowadays without seeing ads for medications to prevent erectile dysfunction and allow you to be ready “when the moment is right.” You have probably also heard the ads for testosterone creams to treat “low T”. Similar ads seem to find their way into our email inbox almost every day. Evidently, we guys must have a problem. Drugs that increase sexual potency appears to be a topic of much relevance to many of us.

But if you listen to the ads carefully, you will discover that all of these drugs have serious side effects. Here are some of the viagra side effects.

Sudden drops in blood pressure
Sudden decreases or loss of vision or hearing
Chest pain, dizziness and nausea
And many more

What if there were a way to increase your testosterone levels and enhance your sexual potency without side effects? In fact, there is a proven way to do that, and it involves treating the cause of the problem – not just the symptoms.

Can Obesity Affect Your Sex Drive?

While millions of American women are on a diet at any one time, many men just ignore those extra pounds. Things like heart disease, cancer and diabetes seem to be much more distant threats to us. The male ego also allows us to stand in front of a mirror, pot belly and all, and visualize ourselves as we were in our college years.

But, what if obesity lowered your testosterone levels and caused erectile dysfunction? Would that get your attention?

That is why a recent study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism should be of great interest to all of us. This study looked at 1700 men of all weights and showed that weight gain of 30 pounds lowered testosterone levels as much as if the men had aged 10 years.

Low testosterone levels in men lead to depression, loss of muscle mass and bone density, feminization, and that all important loss of sexual drive and performance.

Viagra – Without The Side Effects

So guys, if you are concerned about your sexual performance, but don’t want to take drugs that may have viagra side effects, you have another option. Just take off some of that extra weight you have accumulated over the years. That may just increase your testosterone levels and your sexual performance naturally. And you won’t have any side effects, just side benefits.

The Bottom Line

So guys, if you are not motivated to lose those extra pounds by how you look or by the increased risk of heart disease, cancer & diabetes, now you have yet another reason to shed those extra pounds. Perhaps this should be the year that you actually stick to your new year’s resolution to lose weight.

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.