Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?

by

Is Sugar No Longer Your Best Friend?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

SugarSugar has gotten a lot of bad press in recent years. You’ve probably already heard that high sugar intake is associated with inflammation, obesity and diabetes. As if that weren’t bad enough, the latest headlines proclaim that added sugar may also increase our risk of fatal heart disease. Are those headlines true? And if they are true, what should you do about it?

Sugar Basics – The Truth About Sugar

There are three facts about sugar that almost every expert agrees with:

  • The sugars that occur naturally in foods like fruits and vegetables are generally not a problem unless you are a diabetic. It is the added sugars in our diet that we should be concerned with.
  • The amount of added sugars in the American diet has increased dramatically since the founding of this country. Based on data from the US Department of Commerce and the USDA, the amount of added sugar in the American diet has gone from 6.3 pounds/year in 1822 to over 100 pounds/year in 2000. Put another way, we have gone from consuming the amount of sugar in a 12 oz soda every 5 days in 1822 to every 7 hours in 2000.
  • The lion’s share of that added sugar is coming from sodas and similar sugary beverages. The amounts are: sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages (37.1%), grain-based desserts (13.7%), fruit drinks (8.9%), dairy desserts (6.1%) and candy (5.8%).

Beyond that there is little agreement among experts. When I was a young man the sugar “villains” were glucose and sucrose. Then it was sugar alcohols. Today it is high-fructose corn syrup and maltodextrin. Tomorrow it will be something else.

In reality there are no sugar heroes and no sugar villains. The harmful effects of added sugars are based almost entirely on:

  • The amount of added sugars in the diet…and…
  • The type of foods those added sugars are found in.

For more information, watch my video “The Truth About Sugar”.

Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?

The study behind the headlines (Yang et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, 174: 516-524, 2014) followed 11,733 participants in the 3rd National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) for an average of 14.6 years. (NHANES studies are designed to represent a cross section of the adult US population). Sugar intake was based on the average of two dietary surveys for most of the participants, and cardiovascular deaths were determined from the NHANES III Linked Mortality Files.

The average intake of added sugar in the American population was around 16% of total calories (compared to around 1% of total calories in 1822). For comparison purposes, the authors divided the population into three groups based on added sugar consumption:

  • Those consuming less than 10% of calories from added sugar (28.6% of the population).
  • Those consuming between 10% and 25% of calories from added sugars (46.4% of the population).
  • Those consuming more than 25% of calories from added sugars (25.0% of the population).

When the groups with the 10-25% and >25% of calories from added sugars were compared to the <10% group with respect to cardiovascular deaths, the results were pretty striking.

  • The group consuming 10-25% of calories from added sugars had a 30% increased risk of dying from heart disease
  • And the group consuming >25% of calories from added sugars had a 275% increased risk of dying from heart disease!

This association between added sugar consumption and risk of cardiovascular death was independent of age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, physical activity, HEI score (a measure of overall diet quality and BMI (a measure of obesity).

The Strengths And Weaknesses of This Study

Strengths:

  • This was a particularly large, well designed study.
  • This study is consistent with a number of early studies suggesting that added sugar intake increases the risk of cardiovascular death. See, for example “Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?”

Weaknesses:

  • The main weakness of this study is that it measures associations only. It does not prove cause and effect.

Should You Switch To Diet Sodas?

Diet SodaYou may be thinking that you should switch to diet sodas – and perhaps artificially sweetened snacks and desserts as well. It only makes sense that if sugar is the problem, artificial sweeteners must be the answer. Wrong! The latest research suggests that diet sodas may be just as bad as the sugar-sweetened sodas.

I have already shared one study with you that linked consumption of diet sodas with increased risk of heart disease (see “Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?”). The link between diet sodas and heart disease has now been supported by another major clinical study reported by Dr. Ankur Vyas from University of Iowa, March 30, 2014 at the American College of Cardiology’s 63rd Annual Scientific Session.

This study followed 60,000 women with an average age of 62.8 years who were enrolled in the Woman’s Health Initiative Observational Study for 9 years. They reported that compared to women who never or rarely drank diet sodas, those who consumed two or more diet sodas/day were:

  • 30% more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes…and…
  • 50% more likely to die from cardiovascular disease.

What Can You Drink?

By now you are probably asking yourself: “If regular sodas, diet sodas, other sugary and diet beverages, and even most fruit juices are out, what else can I drink? Is there anything left?”

It’s not quite as daunting as it seems at first. It may take some time to re-educate your taste buds, but your health is worth it. Here are some healthy alternatives:

  • My #1 recommendation is always water. If you crave some flavor, add lemon, mint, or your favorite fruits. Herbal teas are another flavorful, healthy choice.
  • If you crave caffeine, go for green tea, regular tea or coffee – without sweeteners, of course.
  • If you crave the carbonation, start with unsweetened mineral water or seltzer and add you favorite flavorings.

The Bottom Line:

1)    The evidence is getting stronger every day that too much added sugar in our diet is linked to increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. If you are consuming >25% of calories from added sugars the increased risk is almost 3-fold!

2)    The evidence from this study suggests that it would be prudent to keep added sugars below 10% of calories. For most Americans this represents around 200 calories/day from added sugars. That compares with the World Health Organization’s recommendation that added sugars be <10% of calories, the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that added sugars be <25% of calories, and the American Heart Association’s recommendation that added sugars be <100 calories for women and <150 calories for men.

3)    There are no sugar heroes and villains. The amount of added sugar in the diet is much more important than the kind of sugar. The food that the sugar is found in is also very important, with sodas and similar sugar-sweetened beverages being the worst offenders (See my video “The Truth About Sugar” for more information).

4)    Artificial sweeteners are not the solution. A recent study with postmenopausal women suggests that consumption of as few as two diet sodas a day increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes by 30% and cardiovascular death by 50%.

5)    Don’t despair. You won’t have to go thirsty. There are lots of healthy alternatives available (see 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.

Are The Benefits Of Resveratrol A Myth?

by

Is Resveratrol Dead?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Red WineIt seems like just a few years ago that the headlines were proclaiming that resveratrol, a polyphenol found in red wines, grapes and chocolate, was the latest “super nutrient”. It was going to make you younger, smarter and healthier. You probably knew that all of the claims being made at the time could not be true.

But the latest headlines are claiming that resveratrol health benefits are all a myth. Has the resveratrol bubble burst? Was it all just hype?

Before you decide that resveratrol supplements are just a waste of money, let me take you behind the scenes and evaluate the latest study objectively. Let’s talk about what it showed, and didn’t show. But, before we look at the study, let’s review the history of resveratrol.

How Did The Resveratrol Story Get Started?

The resveratrol story started in the 1990’s when Dr. Serge Renaud at Bordeaux University coined the term “French Paradox” to describe the fact that cardiovascular disease incidence was relatively low in the French population despite the fact that they consumed diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol.

People immediately started asking what could possibly explain this discrepancy between the US and French populations? In other words, what could be protecting the French population from their high fat diet? One obviously difference between the French and Americans is that the French consume a lot more red wine – or at least they did before the “French Paradox” publicity turned red wine into a health food. Based on that difference, Dr. Renaud proposed that the French Paradox was due to the high red wine consumption in France.

But, red wine is an alcoholic beverage and overconsumption of alcoholic beverages is a major health problem for many people. And, while alcohol does have some cardiovascular benefits, alcohol consumption was pretty constant across countries.

So the next logical question was what other ingredients in red wine might explain their supposed health benefits. Polyphenols appear to have numerous health benefits, and resveratrol is the major polyphenol in red wine. So resveratrol became the “poster child” for the health benefits of red wine.

Even so, for years resveratrol was a “niche” supplement. It had a loyal following, but it wasn’t a big player in the nutritional supplement market. All that changed in 2009. Dr. David Sinclair at Harvard University had been studying genes that slow the aging process. He had screened thousands of naturally occurring small molecules in hopes of finding some that could turn on those anti-aging genes.

He announced that resveratrol and a few related polyphenols were the most potent activators of those anti-aging genes, and he went on to publish studies showing that resveratrol could help obese mice live longer and lean mice be healthier. All of a sudden resveratrol became a superstar.

But, does resveratrol also work in humans? There are many clinical studies that suggest it does. That’s why I was surprised by the recent headlines proclaiming that the supposed health benefits of resveratrol were myths. So once again, let’s look at the study behind the headlines.

Are The Benefits Of Resveratrol a Myth?

The study behind the headlines (Semba et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternalmed.2014.1582) followed 783 men and women aged 65 years or older from the Chianti region of Italy for 9 years. None of the participants were taking resveratrol supplements. The investigators estimated resveratrol intake by measuring the concentrations of resveratrol metabolites in the urine.

The investigators measured all cause mortality and the prevalence of heart disease and cancer over the 9 year period and found no correlation between those outcomes and urinary resveratrol metabolites. From those data the authors concluded that “Resveratrol levels achieved with a Western diet did not have a substantial influence on health status or mortality risk of the population in this study.”

The Strengths And Weaknesses of The Study

There are really two important questions – what are the strengths and weaknesses of the study and what does the study actually show?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?

  • A major strength of the study was the measurement of urinary resveratrol metabolites rather than relying on the less accurate dietary recall – although it should be noted that the assays used are relatively new and could benefit from further validation.
  • The main weakness is that it was a relatively small study in a relatively homogeneous population. Most of the resveratrol consumed by this population came from red wine and even the group with the lowest resveratrol intake was drinking 2-3 glasses of red wine per week (You don’t find many teetotalers in the wine growing regions of Italy).

What does the study actually show?

  • The level of resveratrol metabolites in this population directly correlated with alcohol consumption. And, the authors of the study concluded that since the study was done in the Chianti region of Italy, most of the resveratrol came from red wine. So the study actually suggests that red wine consumption has no effect on heart disease, cancer or longevity – in direct contradiction to Renaud’s French Hypothesis.
  • The conclusion that the amount of resveratrol one can obtain from diet alone is unlikely to provide health benefits needs to be replicated in a much larger population group with a wider range of resveratrol intakes from a wider variety of foods before it can be considered definitive.
  • Even if the amount of resveratrol in food does offer no significant health benefits, that information provides little or no guidance when we consider resveratrol supplements, which generally provide much higher levels of resveratrol.

The Bottom Line:

1)    Don’t pay too much attention to the headlines saying that the health benefits of resveratrol are a myth. The study behind the headlines was a small study in a relatively homogeneous population. If anything, it debunked the hypothesis that red wine consumption is responsible for the French Paradox.

2)    The study did suggest that the amount of resveratrol one can obtain from diet alone is unlikely to provide significant health benefits. While that may be true, it is irrelevant when considering resveratrol supplements because they provide much higher amounts of resveratrol.

3)    The clinical studies on resveratrol supplements are very encouraging, but not yet definitive (see, for example, my “Health Tips From the Professor” article on resveratrol and blood sugar control. That’s to be expected at this stage. It generally takes decades of studies before the scientific community reaches consensus on anything. In the meantime you will continue to see alternating headlines proclaiming the miracles and the myths of resveratrol.

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 Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?

by

A Candy a Day Keeps The Weight Away?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

chocolateSometimes you come across news that just seems too good to be true. The recent headlines saying that you can lose weight just by eating chocolate are a perfect example. Your first reaction when you heard that was probably “Sure, when pigs fly!”

But, it’s such an enticing idea – one might even say a deliciously enticing idea. And, in today’s world enticing ideas like this quickly gain a life of their own. Two popular books have been written on the subject. Chocolate diet plans are springing up right and left. A quick scan of the internet even revealed a web site saying that by investing a mere $1,250 in a training course you could become a “Certified Chocolate Weight Loss Coach” earning $50,000/year.

If you like chocolate as much as most people you are probably wondering could it just possibly be true?

Can Eating Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?

The idea that chocolate could help you lose weight does have some support. There are actually three published clinical studies suggesting that chocolate consumption is associated with lower weight (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62: 247-253, 2008; Nutrition Research, 31: 122-130, 2011; Archives of Internal Medicine, 172: 519-521, 2012).

While that sounds pretty impressive, they were all cross-sectional studies. That means they looked at a cross section of the population and compared chocolate intake with BMI (a measure of obesity). Cross sectional studies have a couple of very important limitations:

1)    Cross sectional studies merely measure associations. They don’t prove cause and effect. Was it the chocolate that caused the lower weight, or was it something else that those populations were doing? We don’t really know.

2)    Cross sectional studies don’t tell us why an association occurs. In many ways this is the old chicken and egg conundrum. Which comes first? In this case the question is whether the people in the studies became obese because they ate less chocolate – or did they eat less chocolate because they were obese and were trying to control their calories? Again, we have no way of knowing.

If Pigs Could Only Fly

If Pigs Could FlyChocolate is relatively rich in fat and high in calories. It’s not your typical diet food. On the surface it seems fairly implausible that eating chocolate could actually help you lose weight.

Scientists love to poke holes in implausible hypotheses, so it is no surprise that a recent study (PLOS ONE, 8(8) e70271) has poked some huge holes in the “chocolate causes weight loss” hypothesis.

This study analyzed data from over 12,000 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) Study. This was also a cross sectional study, but it was a prospective cross sectional study (That’s just a fancy scientific term which means that the study followed a cross section of the population over time, rather than just asking what that population group looked like at a single time point).

The authors of the study assessed frequency of chocolate intake and weight for each individual in the study at two separate time points 6 years apart. The results were very interesting:

  • When they looked at a cross section of the population at either time point, their results were the same as the previous three studies – namely those who consumed the most chocolate weighed less. So the data are pretty consistent. Overweight people consume less chocolate. But, that still doesn’t tell us why they consume less chocolate.
  • However, when they followed the individuals in the study over 6 years, those who consumed the most chocolate gained the most weight. The chocolate eaters were skinnier than the non-chocolate eaters at the beginning of the study, but they gained more weight as the study progressed. And, the more chocolate they consumed the more weight they gained over the next 6 years. [No surprise here. Calories still count.]
  • When they specifically looked at the population who had developed an obesity related illness between the first and second time point, they found that by the end of the study those participants had:

– Decreased chocolate intake by 37%

– Decreased fat intake by 4.5%

– Increased fruit intake by 20%

– Increased vegetable intake by 17%

  • In short, this study is more consistent with the “obesity causes reduced chocolate intake” model than the “reduced chocolate intake causes obesity” model. Simply put, if you are trying to lose weight, sweets like chocolate are probably among the first things to go.

Of course, even prospective cross sectional studies have their limitations. Double blind, placebo controlled studies are clearly needed to resolve this question. The only published study of this type has reported a slight weight gain associated 25 g/day of dark chocolate, but the study was too small and too short in duration to draw firm conclusions.

In summary, more studies are needed, but the current evidence does not support the “miracle diet food” claims for chocolate.

The Bottom Line:

1)    Pigs still haven’t learned how to fly. As enticing as it may sound, the weight of current evidence does not support the claims that chocolate is a miracle diet food or that eating chocolate every day is a sensible strategy for losing weight.

2)    On the other hand, dark chocolate is probably one of the healthier dessert foods. There is no reason not to enjoy an occasional bite of chocolate as part of a healthy, calorie-controlled diet.

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 Resveratrol Improve Blood Sugar Control?

by

Is The Promise of Resveratrol True?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

blood sugar testIt was just a few years ago that resveratrol was the latest “miracle nutrient”. It was featured on Dr. Oz and on 60 Minutes. It was hot! Today you see dueling headlines. The headlines one week proclaim the benefits of resveratrol. Next week’s headlines say that it’s all hype. What’s a person to believe?

Let me take you behind the headlines to look at the actual studies and answer some important questions.

1)    What do we actually know about the benefits of resveratrol?

2)    Is the evidence for beneficial effects of resveratrol where it should be considering the number of clinical studies that have been published?

3)    What additional studies need to be done before we can be sure that resveratrol is beneficial?

4)    Should you wait until we are absolutely certain resveratrol is beneficial, before you start using it? This is perhaps the most important question of all.

To answer those questions, let’s examine the study behind one of the latest headlines, namely: “Resveratrol Improves Blood Sugar Control in Diabetics”. One of the promises of resveratrol has been that it might help diabetics and pre-diabetics who struggle with blood sugar control. However, this promise was based on animal studies. The study that generated the headlines in question was a meta-analysis of recently published human clinical trials in this area (Liu et al, Am. J. Clin. Nut., 2014, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.082024).

Does Resveratrol Improve Blood Sugar Control?

The meta-analysis included 11 published placebo controlled double blind clinical studies looking at the effects of resveratrol supplementation on fasting blood sugar levels, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control) and insulin resistance (a measure closely associated with type 2 diabetes).

A strength of this meta-analysis is the fact that it included 11 clinical studies. However, a weakness of this analysis is that these studies utilized a wide variety of resveratrol doses (10 mg/day to 1 gram/day), a wide variety of end points and both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. That means that there were only a few studies with common population groups, resveratrol doses, and end points.

The conclusions of the study (and the headlines you may have seen) were that:

•    Resveratrol appeared to improve blood sugar control (based on improvements in fasting blood sugar levels, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c and insulin resistance) in diabetics.

•    No consistent effect of resveratrol on blood sugar control was seen in non-diabetics.

How Good Are These Studies?

While these studies are very promising, they are bot definitive.  There were only 3 published clinical studies in diabetics. While all 3 of the studies showed a positive effect of resveratrol supplementation:

•    The doses used were different in each study (ranging from 10 mg/day to 1 gram/day)

•    Each study measured different end points (one measured blood glucose, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c and insulin resistance, one measured blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c and the third measured insulin resistance).

As a research scientist I would like to see more studies done at comparable doses and measuring the same end points – we scientists always want more studies.

Similarly, there was not enough consistency in the studies with non-diabetics to draw a firm conclusion. (3 were with obese patients, 3 were with patients with cardiovascular disease, 1 was with patients with metabolic syndrome and 1 was with perfectly healthy subjects.)

If you really wanted to see if something like resveratrol helps non-diabetics with blood sugar control, you would want to start with people who are already experiencing some difficulties with blood sugar control (pre-diabetics or patients with metabolic syndrome) and follow them for a couple of years to see if resveratrol reduces the number of them who become diabetic.

Are The Headlines Just Hype?

Newspaper HeadlinesDoes that mean that the blood sugar benefits of resveratrol are just hype? The answer is no. There is a difference between “very promising, but not yet definitive” and “hype”. We shouldn’t be surprised that human studies on the health benefits of resveratrol are not yet definitive. Science moves slowly. It often takes decades of scientific research before promising concepts are widely accepted by the scientific community.

When a research area is as young as this one, we sometimes need to go beyond the clinical studies and look at the totality of evidence. In this case:

•    In mice resveratrol exerts its beneficial effects by turning on a specific anti-aging gene called SIRT1 (Cell Metabolism, 15: 675-690, 2012). In humans, resveratrol appears to activate the same genetic pathways as in mice (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 96: 1409-1414, 2011).

•    In obese mice resveratrol improves markers of blood sugar control (Nature, 444: 337-342, 2006). Published clinical studies in diabetic humans also show improvements in blood sugar control (Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2014, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.082024).

So while more and better clinical studies are needed to be absolutely certain that resveratrol helps improve blood sugar control, the evidence supporting that effect is substantial.

What Should You Do?

The ONLY important question for each of you is probably: “Should I wait a decade or two until we are absolutely sure about the health benefits of resveratrol before I take a resveratrol supplement?” That question is ultimately yours to answer. It’s all about benefits and risk.

Benefits – In animal studies resveratrol clearly improves blood sugar control. The human clinical studies published to date are consistent with the animal studies.

Risk – Current data suggest that resveratrol appears to be safe, even at high doses. For example, one recent study indicated that up to 5 gm/day is safe (Cancer Epidemiology BioMarkers & Prevention, volume 16:1246-1262, 2007), but I wouldn’t personally recommend exceeding 100-200 mg/day.

The Bottom Line:

1)     Don’t get too excited about the headlines suggesting that resveratrol might help improve blood sugar control in diabetics. The few human clinical studies that have been published to date are consistent with previous animal studies. That is very promising, but more studies are needed before we can be absolutely confident that resveratrol supplementation is beneficial for diabetics.

2)     Similarly, don’t be discouraged by the headlines suggesting that resveratrol does not help with blood sugar control in non-diabetics. Those results are preliminary as well.

3)     That doesn’t mean that the headlines are just hype. It takes decades to accumulate definitive proof that any kind of food or nutrient offers proven benefits, and the bulk of human clinical research on reveratrol has occurred in the last couple of years. We are exactly where we should expect to be at this point in time.

4)     With something as promising as resveratrol, the real question becomes whether you can afford to wait a decade or two until you know whether the potential benefits have been definitely proven. That question is up to you. On the plus side, current data suggest that resveratrol is highly promising for blood sugar control. In addition, resveratrol appears to be safe, even at high doses, but I wouldn’t personally recommend exceeding 100-200 mg/day.

5)     We already know that weight control, exercise and a healthy diet improve blood sugar control. You should think of resveratrol as something you may wish to add to a healthy lifestyle, not as a substitute for a healthy lifestyle.

6)     If you are diabetic and decide to try a resveratrol supplement, be sure to work with your physician so they can modify your dose of insulin or blood sugar medication as necessary.

7)     Finally, you may be asking whether resveratrol supplements are even necessary. Can’t you just get all the resveratrol you need from a glass or two of red wine? Stay tuned. I’ll have the answer to that question in a couple of weeks.

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 Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?

by

When Do Omega-3 Supplements Make Sense?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Confused ChildWe know that the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil are critically important for brain development. But will they really help our kids learn better? Some studies suggest that they do, while other studies have come up empty. Why is this? More importantly, what does it mean for your children? Will fish oil supplements help or not?

I’ve selected today’s study (Portillo-Reyes et al, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35: 861-870, 2014) because it sheds some light on those important questions.

Can Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?

This study looked at the effect of supplementation for 3 months with 360 mg of EPA + DHA on cognitive function of malnourished Mexican children, ages 8-12 years old. The children came from poor neighborhoods where foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids were seldom available. Low intake of omega-3 fatty acids was confirmed by a food frequency survey.

Cognition was assessed based on a battery of 16 standardized cognition tests at the beginning of the study and again 3 months later.

The results were fairly clear cut. The children receiving the fish oil supplements showed significant gains in mental processing speed, visual-motor coordination, perceptual integration, attention span and executive function compared to children receiving a placebo. In case you were wondering, the first three most strongly affect a child’s ability to learn and last two affect their tendency to display ADHD symptoms.

What Is the Significance of This Study?

There are a lot of things not to like about the study:

  • It was a small study (59 children total)
  • Blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids were not determined.
  • It was a short term study (12 months would have been better).
  • Measuring the ability to learn is difficult. Experts in the field differ about which cognitive tests are best. I’m not taking a position on the adequacy of the tests they were using because that is not my area of expertise.
  • Because it was done in a poor region of Mexico, one could argue that its applicability to children in this country is uncertain.

 

So why even mention this study? That’s because it illustrates an important principle – one that is often ignored in the design and interpretation of clinical studies.

Simply put, the principle is that not everyone will benefit equally from supplementation. It is the malnourished and the sick who will benefit most. When you focus your clinical studies on those groups you are most likely to observe a benefit of supplementation. When you focus your study on well nourished, healthy individuals it will be much more difficult to observe any benefit. And if you perform a meta-analysis of all studies, without evaluating the studies on the basis of need – nutrition status and health status – benefits will also be much more difficult to demonstrate.

This study is just one example of that principle. In an earlier “Health Tips From the Professor” (Can DHA Help Johnny Read?) I reported on a study looking at the effect of DHA supplementation on reading ability of English schoolchildren. In that study, it was the children who were most deficient in DHA and started with the lowest reading skills who benefitted most from DHA supplementation.

What does all of this mean to you?

  • If you are a parent, you may be asking if a study done with Mexican children eating poor diets has any relevance for your kids. In today’s world of pop tarts and pizza it just might. Most children don’t order sardines on their pizza. As a consequence, many American children don’t get enough omega-3 fatty acids in their diet.
  • Should your children be getting more omega-3s in their diet? A recent study concluded that most American children only get 20-40 mg/day of DHA from their diet. So if your child’s food preferences don’t include salmon, sardines and the like – and if your child is experiencing learning issues or problems with ADHD, you might consider adding fish oil supplements to their diet. There’s no need to megadose. The international standard is around 200 mg/day of DHA for children 7 or older.
  • If you are one of those people who is confused by conflicting headlines about the benefits of supplementation, you may want to look at the studies behind those headlines and ask if supplementation would have been likely to provide any benefit in the subjects studied.

The Bottom Line:

1)     A recent study reported that supplementation with fish oil significantly improved learning skills in children consuming a diet that was deficient in omega-3 fatty acids.

2)     If your children are not consuming foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids such as coldwater fish, you might wish to make sure that they are getting adequate levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their diet. Most experts recommend around 200 mg/day for children over 7.

3)     This study also illustrates the principle that supplementation is most likely to be of demonstrable benefit to those who have the worst diets and the greatest need. That doesn’t mean that supplementation won’t benefit everyone, but it does mean that it may be difficult to prove the value of supplementation in healthy people consuming a good diet.

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.

 

Our Gut Bacteria Are What We Eat

by

We Grow What We Eat

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

BacteriaThe subtitle of this week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” is “We Grow What We Eat”.

No, this is not about each of us starting a backyard garden and literally growing what we eat – although that would probably be a good idea for most of us. I’m actually talking about the bacteria that we “grow” in our intestine.

Most of you probably already know about the concept of “good” and “bad” intestinal bacteria.

Evidence suggests that the “bad” bacteria and yeast in our intestine can cause all sorts of adverse health effects:

  • There is mounting evidence that they can compromise our immune system.
  • There is also evidence that they can create a “leaky gut” (you can think of this as knocking holes in our intestinal wall that allow partially digested foods to enter the circulation where they can trigger inflammation and auto-immune responses).
  • There is some evidence that they can affect brain function and our moods.
  • They appear to convert the foods that we eat into cancer causing chemicals which can be absorbed into the bloodstream.
  • Studies in mice even suggest that they can make us fat.

The list goes on and on…

The “good bacteria” are thought to crowd out the “bad” bacteria and prevent many of the health problems they cause.

In case you’re thinking that it seems a bit far-fetched to think that our intestinal bacteria could affect our health, let me remind you that we have about 100 trillion bacteria in our intestine compared to about 10 trillion cells in our body. They outnumber us 10 to 1.

For years we have thought of “bad” bacteria and yeast as originating from undercooked, spoiled or poorly washed foods that we eat and the “good” bacteria as originating from foods like yogurt and probiotic supplements.

But most of us have not thought that the kinds of foods we choose to eat on a daily basis can affect the kinds of bacteria we “grow” in our intestine – until now. You’ve heard for years that “We are what we eat”. Well it now appears that we also “grow what we eat”. I’m referring to a recent study by G. D. Wu et al (Science, 334: 105-108, 2011).

Our Gut Bacteria Are What We Eat

I’m going to get a bit technical here (Don’t worry. There won’t be a quiz). Scientists refer to the population of bacteria in our intestines as our “microbiome”. Previous studies have shown that people from all over the world tend to have one of two distinct microbiomes (populations of bacteria) in their intestines – Bacteroides or Prevotella. [Again, don’t let the specialized scientific terminology scare you. These are just the names scientists have given to these two distinctive populations of intestinal bacteria].

What this study showed was that people who habitually consumed high-fat/low-fiber diets (diets containing predominantly animal protein and saturated fats) tended to have the Bacteroides bacteria in their intestine, while people who habitually consumed low-fat/high-fiber diets (diets that are primarily plant based and are high in carbohydrate and low in meat and dairy) tended to have the Prevotella bacteria in their intestine. And surprisingly this appears to be independent of sex, weight and nationality.

Is This Important?

The research defining these two distinct microbiomes (populations of intestinal bacteria) and showing that they are influenced by what we eat is very new. At this point in time we know relatively little about the health benefits and risks associated with the Bacteroides and Prevotella microbiomes.

For example:

  • Most of the studies on the health effects of “bad intestinal bacteria” were based on the identification of one or two “bad bacteria” in the gut – not on the hundreds of bacterial species found in the Bacteroides microbiome. So we can’t say for sure that the Bacteriodes microbiome found in people with diets high in animal protein and saturated fats will cause the same health problems as the “bad bacteria”. Nor do we know for sure how important a role the Bacteriodes microbiome plays in the health consequences of consuming that kind of diet.
  • Similarly, many of studies on the health benefits of “good intestinal bacteria” have been based on probiotic supplements containing one or two bacterial species – not the hundreds of bacterial species found in the Prevotella microbiome. So we can’t really say if probiotics or even the Prevotella microbiome will convey the same health benefits seen in populations who consume vegetarian diets.

However, now that do we know that we “grow what we eat” there are numerous studies ongoing to define the benefits and risks associated with each type of bacterial population.

For example, I shared a study with you recently which shows that the intestinal bacteria in people who eat a lot of animal protein convert carnitine (which is also found in meat) to a compound called TMAO, which may increase the risk of heart attacks, and that the conversion of carnitine to TMAO does not occur in people who consume a vegetarian diet ( see “Does Carnitine Increase Heart Disease Risk”)

Stay tuned! I’ll keep you updated as more information becomes available.

The Bottom Line:

Most of the studies I report on are ones that you can act on right away. This one is different. This study introduces a whole new concept – one that raises as many questions as it answers. This makes us ask those “what if” questions.

1)     Previous studies have shown that most people have one of two different kinds of microbiomes (populations of bacteria) in their intestines. This study showed that diets high in animal protein and fat favored one kind of intestinal microbiome, while diets low in fat and high in fiber from fruits & vegetables favored another type of intestinal microbiome.

2)     With a few exceptions we don’t know yet how important a role these intestinal microbiomes play in determining the health consequences of different diets. However, because our intestinal bacteria outnumber the cells in our body by 10:1, it is tempting to ask “What if?”

3)     We also don’t yet know the extent to which probiotics (either from foods or supplements) can overcome the effects of a bad diet on our intestinal microbiome, but it is tempting to ask “What if?”

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

Do Omega-3s Lower Blood Pressure?

by

The Good News About Fish Oil

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High Blood PressureHigh blood pressure or hypertension is a major problem in this country. Over 60% of Americans have high blood pressure. Only 47% of those with hypertension are adequately controlled. 20% of them don’t even know that they have high blood pressure.

In this case, ignorance is definitely not bliss. That’s because high blood pressure significantly increases the risk of stroke, heart attacks and congestive heart failure.

The causes of high blood pressure are many. Genetics, obesity, lack of exercise, sodium, alcohol, saturated fats and too few fresh fruits and vegetables all play a role. Age also plays a role. As we age, our blood vessels become less flexible and our blood pressure rises by about 0.6 mm Hg per year.

Medications can help, but many of them have significant side effects and often aren’t fully effective in controlling blood pressure. That’s why natural approaches are so important.

Because there are so many causes of hypertension, natural approaches for lowering your blood pressure are not simple. Natural approaches start with weight loss, restricting sodium intake, increasing physical activity, moderating alcohol intake and something called the DASH diet. In short, there is not just one simple change that you can make that will totally eliminate hypertension. It requires a complete lifestyle change.

That’s why the latest study on the effect of omega-3s on blood pressure is so exciting. If the headlines are true, adding omega-3s to your diet may be one of the most effective things you can do to lower your blood pressure naturally. So let’s examine the study to see if the headlines are accurate.

How Was The Study Designed?

This study (Miller et al, American Journal of Hypertension, doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu024) was a very large, well designed study. It is a meta-analysis of 70 randomized, placebo controlled clinical studies. Key characteristics of these studies were:

  • The mean study duration was 69 days. That means these beneficial effects occur relatively quickly.
  • The mean EPA + DHA dose was 3.8 g/day (range = 0.2 – 15 g/day). A wide range of doses was included.
  • The EPA & DHA came from all sources (seafood, EPA+DHA fortified foods, fish oil, algal oil, and purified ethyl esters. The source did not affect the outcome.
  • Olive oil was the most commonly used placebo, with omega-6 vegetable oils being used as placebos in a few studies. The choice of placebo did not affect the outcome.
  • None of the people in these studies were taking blood pressure lowering medications. That means these studies were specifically designed to see whether omega-3s lowered blood pressure, not whether they had any additional benefit for people already taking medications. This is important because if you only focus on groups who are already taking multiple medications, you tend to obscure the beneficial effects of omega-3s (see my recent Health Tip “Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?”)

Do Omega-3s lower Blood Pressure?

Fish OilThe authors of the study reported that:

  • Compared to placebo, EPA+DHA reduced systolic blood pressure (that’s the upper reading) by 1.52 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (that’s the lower reading) by 0.99 mm Hg.
  • When they looked at those participants who already had high blood pressure, the numbers were even more impressive – a 4.51 mm Hg decrease in systolic blood pressure and a 3.05 mm Hg decrease in diastolic blood pressure. That’s important because for each 2 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure there is a 6% decrease in stroke mortality, a 4% decrease in heart disease mortality, and a 3% decrease in total mortality.

More to the point, the authors of the study concluded that “A decrease of 4.51 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure among those with high blood pressure could help an individual avoid having to take medication to control blood pressure levels”.

  • When they looked at the study participants who had normal blood pressure the numbers were still significant – a 1.25 mm Hg decrease in systolic blood pressure and a 0.62 decrease in diastolic blood pressure. The authors pointed out that this could prevent, or at least delay, the age-related progression towards hypertension.
  • The effect of omega-3s on systolic blood pressure (4.51 mm Hg decrease) was comparable to the most successful lifestyle interventions – 3-10 mm Hg decrease for 10 pound weight loss, 4-9 mm Hg decrease for increased physical activity, 2-8 mm Hg decrease for sodium restriction, and 2-4 mm Hg for decreased alcohol consumption.
  • A dose of at least 1 gm/day of EPA+DHA was required for a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure, and a dose of over 2 gm/day was required for a significant decrease in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure

While this is a single study, it is consistent with a number of previous studies in this area. Based on the existing body of literature I would recommend omega-3s as part of a holistic approach for keeping your blood pressure under control.

The Bottom Line:

1)     A recent meta-analysis of 70 published clinical studies (AJH, doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu024) has shown fairly convincingly that omega-3 fatty acids are effective at lowering blood pressure. Moreover, this study is consistent with a number of previous studies. The evidence appears to be strong enough for omega-3s to be considered as part of a holistic approach to keeping your blood pressure under control.

2)     If you already have high blood pressure, you should know that omega-3s caused blood pressure to decrease by 4.51 mm Hg in people like you. The authors of the study concluded that this decrease in blood pressure is large enough that some people may be able to avoid blood pressure medicines entirely. For others addition of omega-3s to their diet will likely allow their physicians to reduce the dose of medications required to keep their blood pressure under control – thus minimizing the side effects of the medications.

3)     If you already have slightly elevated blood pressure that has not yet progressed to clinical hypertension, you should know that omega-3s also give a modest decrease in blood pressure in people like you. The authors of the study concluded that this decrease was enough to prevent or delay the age-related onset of hypertension.

4)     The effect of omega-3s on reducing blood pressure is equivalent to the most successful lifestyle changes (weight loss, increased physical activity, sodium restriction and alcohol moderation). That doesn’t mean that you should pop fish oil pills and forget the other lifestyle changes. The idea is to combine as many of those lifestyle changes as possible so that you may never have to worry about high blood pressure again.

5)     You need at least 1 gm/day of EPA+DHA to reduce systolic blood pressure and more than 2 gm/day to reduce both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

6)     Contrary to the hype you may have been reading elsewhere, the source of EPA+DHA didn’t matter. The only caveat is that many people really struggle with trying to get 1-2 gm/day of EPA+DHA from fish. It’s a bit too much of a good thing.

7)     Don’t think of hypertension as a “Do it yourself” project. Hypertension is a silent killer. It’s one of those diseases where the first symptom is often sudden death – or, even worse, a life that is no longer worth living. Work with your physician. Let them help you find the right balance between lifestyle changes (including omega-3s) and medications 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.

Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?

by

Color Them Hyperactive

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

artificial food colorsEach year between 3 and 10% of school aged children are diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), also known as hyperactivity.

Most of these children are currently being treated with drugs. And these drugs have side effects – ranging from relatively minor (loss of appetite, weight loss, insomnia and mood swings) to major (suicidal thoughts, psychotic behavior and drug abuse).

So it is only natural for parents to ask whether there is a more natural approach that they could follow and, more specifically, whether diet could make a difference.

The Feingold Diet And Hyperactivity

To answer that question let’s start by looking at just one aspects of children’s diets – the increasing prevalence of artificial food colors and preservatives in the diet. The average child today is consuming over 10 pounds of food additives every year!

The idea that food additives – specifically artificial colors and preservatives – might be responsible for hyperactivity was first raised by Dr. Ben Feingold over 30 years ago. He devised the Feingold Diet – a diet that was free of artificial food colors, preservatives
and other artificial food additives.

Some small scale clinical studies suggested that the diet might be successful and millions of parents used the diet for their hyperactive children with great success.

But the medical authorities pooh-poohed the Feingold Diet. They pointed out that when parents are putting their child on a special diet they are also giving that child more attention – and it might be the parent’s increased attention that decreased the child’s hyperactive behavior.

They also pointed out when you eliminate food additives from the diet you are decreasing the “junk” food and increasing fresh fruits and vegetables – in short the child’s diet is much healthier.

So eventually the Feingold Diet lost popularity – but the idea that artificial food colors & preservatives might trigger hyperactivity has refused to go away.

Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?

Angry boy portraitIn fact, a couple of recent studies have substantially strengthened the link between artificial ingredients and hyperactivity.

The first study was a meta-analysis of 15 previous studies looking at the effect of artificial food colors and preservatives on hyperactivity (Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 25: 423-434, 2004).

This meta-analysis concluded that artificial food colors & preservatives caused an increase in hyperactivity in 28% of the children tested.

Almost all of the children in those previous studies were selected for the study because they had been diagnosed as hyperactive (ADHD). However, a more recent study looked at 297 children from Southampton England who had not been diagnosed as hyperactive (Lancet, 370: 1560-1567, 2007).

After an 8 week elimination phase in which artificial food colors and preservatives were removed from their diets, they were given a one week challenge consisting of fruit juice containing one of two different mixtures of four artificial food colors and the preservative sodium benzoate or a placebo.

The amount of artificial food colors and sodium benzoate in the fruit juice drinks was designed to match the average amount found in the English diet (which isn’t all that different from the American diet).

Once again, the results were clear. The amount of artificial food colors and preservatives found in the typical child’s diet is enough to trigger hyperactivity in many children.

The Bottom Line

So what does that mean to you if you have a hyperactive child? Could the simple act of eliminating artificial colors, flavors & preservatives from your child’s diet eliminate hyperactivity and give you back that calm, sweet child that you love?

  • The available data suggest that removing artificial food additives from your child’s diet can make a difference in their behavior, but I tend to side with experts who suggest that a holistic approach is best.
  • Eliminating food additives from your child’s diet is important, but also make sure the diet is a healthy one, that your child is getting all of the nutrients that they need and that they are getting all of the attention and support that they need.

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

Is Vitamin D Overhyped?

by

Are Clouds Gathering For the Sunshine Vitamin?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Clouds Obscuring The SunWe’ve known for years that vitamin D plays an essential role in calcium metabolism and is important for bone health. In fact, the use of vitamin D to prevent and cure rickets is one of the greatest success stories in the field of nutrition.

However, in recent years a number of studies have suggested that adequate vitamin D status was also important in reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, infectious diseases and autoimmune diseases – as well as overall mortality. Suddenly it seemed as if vitamin D could leap over tall buildings in a single bound (I realize that I’m probably dating myself with that analogy).

So when I saw the headlines about a new study (Theodoratou et al, BMJ, 2014;348:g2035 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2035)  that concluded all of those benefits of vitamin D were unconfirmed, I was not surprised. After all there have been many examples of periods in which individual vitamins were reported to have miraculous benefits – only to have most of those benefits debunked by subsequent studies. I fully expected that would be the theme of this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

But when I read the article I found that the study had multiple flaws (more about that latter). I also discovered that the same issue of the British Medical Journal had another, much better designed, study that came to the exact opposite conclusion (Chowdhury et al, BMJ 2014;348:g1903 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1903).

Funny how only the first study made it into the headlines. It’s only the negative news that sells.

Is Vitamin D Overhyped?

The first study was a very large meta-analysis that included 107 systematic reviews, 74 meta-analyses of observation studies (studies that compare population groups) and 87 meta-analyses of randomized, placebo controlled trials. In case you were wondering, the total number of patients enrolled in these studies must have numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

The authors of the study reported that:

  • There was no relationship between vitamin D intake and cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disease, infectious diseases, diabetes and other diseases. In other words, they concluded that most of the recent excitement about vitamin D was just hype.
  • There was also no evidence that vitamin D increased bone density or reduced the risk of fractures and falls in older people – in contrast to many previous studies.

Based on this evidence the authors said “universal conclusions about vitamin Ds benefits cannot be drawn [from current data]” and that vitamin D “might not be as essential as previously thought in maintaining bone mineral density”.

Both of those statements are pretty revolutionary, but a study this large has to be true – right? The answer is a definite maybe. The problem is that many of the studies included in this meta-analysis were poorly designed by today’s standards. Remember the old saying “garbage in, garbage out”.

The Study Is Flawed

My specific criticisms of the study are:

1)     The conclusions about vitamin D and bone density were seriously flawed. The authors acknowledged that previous studies have shown that calcium and vitamin D together increased bone density, but they considered calcium to be a confounding variable and only included clinical trials using vitamin D supplementation alone. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the biochemical role of vitamin D.

The purpose of vitamin D is to maintain constant levels of blood calcium, not to build strong bones.

  • When blood levels of calcium are high, vitamin D lowers it by depositing the calcium in bones.
  • When blood levels of calcium are low, vitamin D raises it by leaching calcium from bone.

That’s why vitamin D and calcium work together. It is utter nonsense to expect vitamin D to increase bone density or prevent fractures unless you make sure that calcium intake is at least adequate.

2)     Most studies of vitamin D supplementation did not stratify the data based on low versus high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D at the beginning of the study. That’s important because you would only expect vitamin D supplementation to be of benefit in people with low levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to begin with. If their 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are already optimal, vitamin D supplementation is unlikely to be of additional benefit.

3)     Finally, the authors did not separate the studies based on whether vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 was used. That’s important because some recent studies have suggested that D3 is more beneficial than D2.

Is Vitamin D Beneficial After All?

SunThe second study came to the exact opposite conclusions. It was also a very large study. It included 73 observational studies (849,412 participants) and 22 randomized, placebo controlled studies (30,716) participants. Here is what the authors of this study concluded.

  • High blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D decreased the risk of heart disease by 35%, cancer by 14% and overall mortality by 35%.
  • Supplementation with vitamin D3 reduced overall mortality by 11%, while supplementation with vitamin D2 increased overall mortality by an insignificant 4%.
  • 65% of the US population can be classified as vitamin D insufficient (blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of below 30 ng/ml) and 4% as severely deficient in vitamin D (blood levels below 10 ng/ml)
  • Vitamin D deficiency contributes to 13% of the deaths in the United States. For comparison the corresponding numbers for other major risk factors are: smoking – 20%, physical inactivity – 11% and alcohol – 9%.
  • About the only point on which the two studies agreed was that there is a need for more, better designed studies to clarify the benefits of vitamin D.

The Bottom Line:

1)     Two studies were published in the April 2014 issue of the British Medical Journal. The first concluded that all of the supposed benefits of vitamin D – including increasing bone density – were not supported by the available data. The second study concluded that adequate intake of vitamin D significantly reduced deaths due to heart disease and cancer and also significantly reduced overall mortality. Somehow, only the first study made it into the headlines. Why does that not surprise me?

2)     The suggestion in the first study that vitamin D may not be essential for strong bones is based on a complete misunderstanding of the role of vitamin D in the body. There are ample clinical studies showing that vitamin D and calcium together are essential for strong bones. Nobody who understands biochemistry would expect vitamin D to increase bone density in the absence of calcium, but the authors only considered studies that excluded calcium in drawing their conclusion that vitamin D did not increase bone density.

3)     The only point of agreement between the two studies is that more and better studies are needed to sort out the benefits of vitamin D and what levels of vitamin D are optimal. I wholeheartedly agree.

4)     My advice is to ignore the headlines telling you that vitamin D is dead. On the other hand, don’t get caught up in the hype and buy megadoses of vitamin D supplements. While the evidence is rock solid that vitamin D and calcium together are essential for strong bones, the jury is still out on some of the other health benefits of vitamin D.

5)     If you are supplementing with vitamin D you should know that the RDAs for vitamin D are 600 IU for ages 1-70 and 800 IU over 70. The safe upper limit has been set at 4,000 IU. You should only go above that on a doctor’s advice.

6)     However, people metabolize vitamin D with different efficiencies, so I strongly recommend that you get your blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D tested and let your doctor help you determine how much vitamin D you should be getting.

7)     Finally, a number of recent studies suggest that vitamin D3 may be more effective than vitamin D2, so I only recommend supplements that contain D3.

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 High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

by

How Much Protein Should We Eat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Animal Protein FoodsThe recent headlines suggesting that high protein diets may cause cancer, diabetes and premature death in middle aged Americans are downright scary. You are probably asking yourself:

  • “Is this new information?”
  • “Does this apply to me?”
  • “Should I radically change what I eat?”

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I will address each of these questions.

Do High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

The study in question (Levine et al., Cell Metabolism, 19: 407-417, 2014) suggested that high protein diets were associated with increased risk of cancer, diabetes and premature death in Americans in the 50-65 age range. I will touch on all three of these observations, but it is the increased risk of cancer that generated the most headlines – and the most concern (The consequences of diabetes take years to manifest, and death seem to be a more distant concern for most people. Cancer is immediate and personal).

The study looked at 6,381 adults aged 50 and older (average age 65) from the NHANES III data base. (NHANES is a comprehensive database collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that consists of surveys and physical examinations and is designed to be representative of the health and nutritional status of the US population.)

The data collected consisted of a single diet questionnaire conducted when the subjects were enrolled in the study. Based on the diet questionnaire the authors of the study divided the group into those with low protein intake (<10% of calories), those with moderate protein intake (10-19% of calories) and those with high protein intake (>20% of calories). Overall death and mortality from various diseases over the next 18 years was obtained by linking the NHANES data with the National Death Index.

Based on preliminary data suggesting that the age of the population might influence the results (I won’t go into details here) the authors of the study decided to subdivide the dataset into people aged 50-65 and people over 65. When they did that, they came to the following conclusions:

1)     In the 50-65 age group diets high in animal protein were associated with a:

  • 45% increase in overall mortality
  • 4-fold increase in cancer death risk
  • 4-fold increase in diabetes death risk.

Diets with moderate protein intake were associated with intermediate increases in risk. Surprisingly, there was no increase in cardiovascular disease risk.

Protein Shakes2)     When they looked at people in the 50-65 age group consuming diets high in vegetable protein:

  • the increased overall mortality and increased in cancer mortality disappeared
  • the increased diabetes mortality was still seen.

3)     In the 65+ age group high protein diets were associated with a:

  • 28% decrease in overall mortality
  • 60% decrease in cancer mortality.

The increased risk of diabetes related deaths was still observed. The authors did not distinguish between animal and vegetable protein in the over 65 age group.

All of that may seem to be a bit too complicated. At the risk of gross oversimplification I would summarize their message as follows:

  • Diets high in animal protein may be bad for you if you are in the 50-65 age range, but might actually be good for you if you are over 65.
  • Diets high in vegetable protein appear to be good for anyone over age 50 (The study didn’t look at younger age groups).

Is This New Information?

Let’s start by assuming that the conclusions of the authors are correct (more about that below).

When you boil their message down to its simplest components, the information isn’t particularly novel.

  • The idea that vegetable proteins may be better for you than animal proteins has been around for decades. There are a number of studies suggesting that diets high in animal protein increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and overall death – although it is still not clear whether it is the animal protein itself or some other characteristic of populations consuming mostly animal protein that is the culprit.
  • Evidence has been accumulating over the past decade or so that protein needs increase as we age, so it is not surprising that this study found high protein diets to be beneficial for those of us over age 65.

What Do Other Experts Say?

ScientistSince this study has been released it has been roundly criticized by other experts in the field. Let me sum up their four main criticisms and add one of my own.

1)     The protein intake data were based on a single dietary survey taken at the beginning of an 18 year study. The authors stated that a single dietary survey has been shown to be a pretty accurate indicator of what an individual is eating at the time of the survey. However, it is problematic to assume that everyone’s diet remained the same over an 18 year period.

2)     The choice of less than 10% of calories from protein is also problematic. According to the Institute of Medicine standards anything below 10% is defined as inadequate protein intake, which can have long term health consequences of its own.

More importantly, only 7% of the population being studied (437 individuals) fell into this group. This is the baseline group (or put another way, the denominator for all of the comparisons). The conclusions of this study were based on comparing the other two groups to this baseline, and there were too few individuals in this group to be confident that the baseline is accurate.

This does not necessarily invalidate the study, but it does decrease confidence in the size of the reported effect – so forget the reported numbers like 45% increase in mortality and 4-fold increase in cancer deaths. They probably aren’t accurate.

3)     The number of people in this study who died from diabetes was exceedingly small (68 total) and most of them already had diabetes when the study began. The experts concluded that the numbers were simply too low to draw any conclusions about protein intake and diabetes related deaths, and I agree with them.

4)     While the study controlled for fat intake and carbohydrate intake, it did not control for weight. That is a huge omission. Overweight is associated with increased risk of cancer, diabetes and death, and vegetarians tend to weigh less than non-vegetarians.

5)     I would add that there are many other differences between vegetarians and non- vegetarians that could account for most of the differences reported between diets high in animal and vegetable protein. For example:

  • Vegetarians tend to be more health conscious and thus they tend to exercise more, consume more fiber, consume more fruits and vegetables, consume less fried food, and consume less processed and convenience foods – all of which are associated with decreased risk of cancer, diabetes and death.

The Bottom Line:

This is not a particularly strong study. Nor is it particularly novel. In fact, when you strip away the scary headlines and focus on what the data really show, the conclusions aren’t that different from what nutrition experts have been saying for years.

1)     This study suggests that if you are in the 50-65 age range, diets high in animal protein may not be good for you (this study focused on increased risk of cancer death and overall mortality. Other studies have suggested that diets high in animal protein may increase the risk of cardiovascular death).

This is not a new idea. These data are consistent with a number of other studies. However, none of these studies adequately assess whether the increased risk is from the animal protein alone or from other characteristics of populations that consume a lot of animal protein.

2)     This study also suggests that diets high in vegetable protein do not increase either cancer risk or all cause mortality. That’s also not new information. We’ve known for years that people who consume primarily vegetable protein appear to be healthier. Once again, it is not clear whether it is the vegetable protein itself that is beneficial or whether the benefit is due to other characteristics of populations who consume a lot of vegetable protein.

3)     Does that mean that you need to become a vegetarian? It probably reflects my personal bias, but I am reminded of a Woody Allen Quote: “Vegetarians don’t live longer. It just seems that way”. I am also encouraged by studies suggesting that most of the health benefits of vegetarianism can be achieved by diets that consist of around 50% vegetable protein.

I would never discourage anyone from becoming a vegetarian, but if you aren’t ready for that, I would highly recommend that you aim for at least 50% vegetable protein in your diet.

4)     Finally, this study suggests that a high protein diet is beneficial for people over 65. This is also not a completely novel idea. It is consistent with a lot of recent research.

My advice to those of you who, like me, are over 65 is to pay attention to high protein foods and make sure that they are an important part of your diet. I’m not suggesting that you go for the double bacon cheeseburger just because you are over 65. I would still aim for a significant percentage of vegetable protein as a part of a healthy diet at any age.

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

Health Tips From The Professor