How Stretching Can Hurt Your Muscles

March 20, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Preventing & Healing Repetitive Strain Injuries – Part 3

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT

These past two weeks we took a look at how muscles move the body, and why muscles cause pain. Then we looked at why strengthening isn’t always the best thing to do, in fact how it could even cause more pain. And finally today we’ll discuss why stretching can actually cause muscles to tear. I call this the Stretching Misconception.

Stretching Shouldn’t Hurt!

Have you ever felt so tight when you tried to move a joint that you decided to stretch? The odds are that you answered “yes” to that question. However, many people complain that they feel worse after stretching than they did before stretching.

Before getting into the specifics of the stretching misconception there are two words that need to be clarified. Many people confuse the word “spasm” with “cramp”. A cramp (also called a “Charlie horse”) normally involves all of the fibers of a muscle, and is when a muscle suddenly contracts totally. A spasm is like tying a knot in the center of the muscle and while it may only involve a few fibers; there can be multiple spasms throughout the muscle.

Each spasm feels like a bump when you slide your fingers deeply down the length of the muscle. These spasms normally form over an extended period of time, often from repetitive strain on the muscle fibers. Spasms are at the heart of the stretching misconception, so it is important that you think of a spasm as a knot in the muscle fibers in order to understand why it can hurt to stretch.

As I mentioned in Part I of this series, a muscle begins on a stationary bone, crosses over a joint, and then inserts into a moveable bone. When the muscle pulls on the moveable bone, the joint moves, however, if the muscle has a “knot” in it you can actually cause micro-tears to the fibers as you stretch.

How Stretching Can Hurt Your Muscles

Think of this analogy: visualize a strong tree with a rope tied to it. The rope is the perfect length to attach to a flexible tree without bending the second tree. You can imagine if you pulled on the rope the flexible tree would bend over, and if you let go of the rope, the flexible tree would stand up straight again. This is a simple explanation of how a muscle pulls on a bone and causes the joint to move.

However, if you tied a knot in the rope, the tree would bend. If you tied a second knot, the tree would bend even further. If you then tried to stretch the rope so the flexible tree was standing straight, you would cause the knot to get tighter and the remaining rope would have to overstretch on both sides of the knot in order for the flexible tree to stand up straight.

This is exactly what is happening when you have a spasm, or multiple spasms, in your muscle. As you stretch you are causing the knot within the muscle to get tighter, and you are also causing the fibers on either side of the spasm to overstretch. This overstretching may cause the fibers to actually tear either along the length of the muscle, or where the fibers attach to the bone at either end of the muscle. This can be avoided by simply massaging the muscle to release the spasm before you stretch.

It’s now easy to understand why the repetitive movements that you do on a regular basis will cause the muscle to ultimately shorten into knots that we call spasms or trigger points. As I mentioned, when you try to stretch a spasm you can be causing yourself potential problems, and may even tear the muscle fibers.

Fortunately there is a solution. First you need to release the spasms that are causing the muscle to tie up into a knot, and then you can safely stretch. TriggerPointYoga was designed and developed to first eliminate the spasms in the muscle you will be stretching, and then continues to give four separate session of traditional yoga poses – two for the upper body and two for the lower body. You will gain flexibility and range-of-motion without injuring your muscle fibers.

Julie Donnelly is an internationally respected muscular therapist specializing in the treatment of chronic pain and sports injuries. She has co-authored several self-treatment books, including The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-What You Don’t Know CAN Hurt You. Julie is also the co-developer of TriggerPoint Yoga. She teaches Julstro self-treatment workshops nationwide and is a frequent presenter at Conventions and Seminars. Julie may be contacted through her websites: http://www.julstro.com and http://www.TriggerPointYoga.com.

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 Dietary Supplements Safe?

March 18, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

It’s a Jungle Out There

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It’s a jungle out there. You probably already know that there are some bad players in the food supplement industry. There are companies that make products that don’t work, products that haven’t been tested for safety and efficacy, products are contaminated, and even products that are dangerous. There are some companies that even make products that contain dangerous drugs – drugs that can kill you.

Are Dietary Supplements Safe?

A recent report (Harel et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamaintermed.2013.379) states that between January of 2004 and December of 2012 there were 465 drugs that were subject to a class I recall by the FDA. A class I recall is for cases in which there is a reasonable probability that use of or exposure to a product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Now here’s the scary part: 98% of those recalls were for dietary supplements. The worst offenders were sexual enhancement products (40%), bodybuilding products (31%) and weight loss products (27%). And these weren’t all foreign-made products. 74% were manufactured in the United States.

[Note: If you are good at math, you will have noticed that leaves 0% for recalls of all other dietary supplements].

It’s A Jungle Out There

A perfect example of this scandalous behavior in certain segments of the food supplement industry is the DMAA saga. You may recall that I mentioned this in a recent “Health Tips From the Professor” titled “Are Fat Burning Supplements Safe?” Let me give you a very brief overview of that report, followed by the latest developments.

DMAA is short for dimethylamylamine. It is a stimulant that is chemically very similar to the ephedrine class of chemicals. The less reputable supplement manufacturers often add stimulants to their weight loss and bodybuilding products.

Stimulants do raise metabolic rate so they help with weight loss. They have no effect on athletic performance, but the athletes often feel like they have more energy – so they are popular in bodybuilding products. The problem is that many stimulants are dangerous. They can increase heart rate, cause arrhythmia, and they can kill people.

Because supplements with ephedra, another close realative of ephedrine, killed a bunch of people, the FDA forced supplement manufacturers to remove it from their products a number of years ago. You might have thought that the manufacturers would decide that adding stimulants to their products wasn’t a good idea. But no, they just substituted DMAA for ephedra. And guess what? The inevitable happened again. Two US soldiers died following DMAA usage in 2012.

The DMAA Scandal

The story really gets scandalous from here. The military ordered the removal of all DMAA containing products from U.S. Army and Air Force exchanges, but the FDA did not act. So what happened? Just about what you’d expect. Companies like GNC pulled their DMAA containing products from military bases, but continued to sell them from all their other stores.

Several months later the FDA finally acted. It sent a warning letter to all US manufacturers of DMAA containing products asking them to stop using DMAA as an ingredient in their supplements. All of the companies agreed to stop using it except one – USPLabs.

USPLabs claimed that DMAA could be found in geranium, which is an approved herbal ingredient, so they continued to use it. And GNC continued to sell their DMAA containing products in all its nonmilitary stores.

Finally, on April 11, 2013 the FDA issued a strongly worded warning about DMAA. The FDA warning said that by then there had been 86 reports of illnesses and deaths associated with supplements containing DMAA, and the preponderance of scientific evidence showed that DMAA was not a natural constituent of geranium.

The FDA said that they would take all possible means to get DMAA containing products off the market. A cynic might point out that the FDA did not act until the night before a high profile exposé on DMAA was scheduled to appear on NBC.

Finally, USPLabs threw in the towel and said that they would reformulate their DMAA containing products. A cynic might suspect that they will just substitute yet another stimulant for DMAA.

And, what about GNC? They said “It [DMAA] will be positioned out of stores, probably over the next five or six months as we sell existing inventory”. You don’t need a cynic to interpret that statement.

It wasn’t until the FDA raided their warehouses and removed all remaining DMAA-containing products that the DMAA story was over.

So what’s the bottom line for you? It is a jungle out there. Don’t fall for the hype and fancy claims. Do your homework, and stick with a company you can trust.

The Bottom Line:

1) When you hear headlines about dietary supplements killing people, you should realize that the bad players are found in only 3 types of dietary supplements – sexual enhancement products, bodybuilding products and weight loss products.

2) Just for perspective you should contrast any concerns about the safety of dietary supplements with:

The more than 35,000 deaths/year from properly prescribed medications…and…

The 8,000 deaths/year in US hospitals due to medication errors (Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25: 774-779, 2010)

3) When choosing supplements in that class use your common sense. Avoid those supplements promising magical gains in sexual prowess, increased muscle mass or weight loss.

4) Stick with a supplement company you can trust – one that is committed to only making supplements of proven benefit, and never making supplements that could cause any harm.

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.

How Strengthening Can Hurt Your Muscles

March 13, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Preventing & Healing Repetitive Strain Injuries – Part 2

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT

In part I of this series we explored “how” muscles cause joint pain and prevent us from moving easily and without pain. In Part II we’ll take a look at the “why.”

When a person can’t freely move a joint they are frequently told they need to strengthen the muscle that moves the joint, but this is often a serious misconception. Let’s look at this further so it will become clear.

Most people have heard the term Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), but they don’t have a clear concept of how that affects them on a daily basis.

Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSIs)

Repetitive strain injuries happen when a muscle does the same movement over and over, causing the muscle to develop an excess of Hydrogen ions (H+), which is a part of lactic acid. Lactic acid was once thought to be the “bad guy” that created spasms/knots in your muscles. Then research showed that lactic acid has two components, one is called lactate and it is an important piece of energy production, and the other is H+, which is the acid byproduct of energy production and is the cause of the spasms.

Your body has the ability to flush out H+, but if you are exercising, or repetitively doing the same movement, you are creating more H+ than your body can eliminate. The scales tip and the excess lactic acid will cause the muscle fibers to contract into a spasm. The spasm is usually formed slowly so you don’t notice it until it is so evolved that the fibers are twisted into a knot and are putting a strain on the insertion point at the joint.

Strengthening vs Lengthening

When you can’t bend a joint, such as your elbow, you are often told to strengthen the muscle that pulls on the joint, in this case, the biceps. However, you actually need to lengthen your triceps.

In fact, I tell my clients to first look at the area where they are feeling pain, and then find out which muscle inserts at that point. If you can’t bend a joint, I tell people to look at what muscles should be stretching to enable the joint to move. The likelihood is great that the tight muscle is the cause your problem.

You’ll be amazed at how quickly you will regain full range-of-motion when you release the “straps that are holding you bound” by lengthening the contracted muscles.

Another piece of the strengthening misconception occurs when a person feels they are losing power in their muscle. Many times the person isn’t feeling any pain in their body, just a general feeling of loss of strength. You know you are exercising, but still you aren’t as strong as you were, so you feel you need to increase your strengthening exercises.

How Strengthening Can Hurt Your Muscles

To demonstrate this topic we’ll use the biceps of the upper arm as our example. I do a lot of my work with endurance athletes, athletes who are power lifters or simply individuals who exercise to the extreme. I’ve seen how they are in severe pain, sometimes to the point where they can’t do even the simplest movements without having not only pain but also losing power.

Often they lose power because the pain is too sharp when they go to lift the weight, or do pull ups. Other times they just feel like they are having weakness in the muscle, which makes them more determined to exercise that muscle even more. What has happened is the muscle is now too short to have any pulling power.

Look at the graphic to the left. Many endurance athletes look just like this drawing, and some people think this is the picture of strength. However what is happening is the biceps muscles have been shortened to the point where he can’t completely straighten his arm, so he has actually lost power.

But you don’t need to be an endurance athlete to have this experience. If any muscle in your body is shortened by spasms, whether they are from doing a repetitive movement or from exercise, you will also lose strength in those muscle fibers.

Consider this: if you couldn’t move your body, but you wanted to pull a heavy object toward you, you would stretch your arm out all the way and then pull on the object. If you stepped closer to the object so your arm is now bent, you can see that you wouldn’t have as much strength to move the heavy object. In the same way, when a muscle is already shortened by either a spasm or a static contraction, it won’t have the full pulling power it needs to function properly. You need to lengthen the fibers to their optimal length so they can pull with full strength.

You stretch, but often people will complain that the muscles aren’t stretching, or they hurt worse after the stretch than they did before stretching. This brings us to the “stretching misconception,” which will be explained in Part III of this trilogy.

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 Selenium & Vitamin E Increase Prostate Cancer Risk?

March 11, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Should Men Avoid Those Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve probably seen the headlines saying “Supplementation with selenium and vitamin E increases the risk of prostate cancer.” The authors of the study even said “Men aged greater than 55 should avoid supplements with either vitamin E or Se (selenium) at doses that exceed recommended dietary intakes.”

In a recent “Health Tips From The Professor” I debunked the headlines saying “Omega-3 fatty acids increase prostate cancer risk“.

What about vitamin E and selenium? Is it true that they increase prostate cancer risk? If you are a man over 55, should you be concerned? Should you stop using supplements containing vitamin E and selenium?

Do Selenium & Vitamin E Increase Prostate Cancer Risk?

Previous Studies On Selenium, Vitamin E And Prostate Cancer Risk

The study that generated the initial excitement in the field was the Nutrition Prevention of Cancer (NPC) Trial that ended in 1998 (Clark et al, British Journal of Urology, 81: 730-734, 1998; Duffield-Lillico et al, British Journal of Urology, 91: 608-612, 2003).

That study showed that supplementing men who had low blood levels of selenium with 200 ug/day of selenium decreased their prostate cancer risk by 65%.

It was followed by a second, much larger trial called the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) (Lipmann et al, JAMA, 301: 39-51, 2009). It looked at supplementation with 200 ug/day of selenium and/or 400 IU/day of synthetic alpha-tocopherol.

The SELECT study found no protective effect of either selenium or vitamin E on prostate cancer risk, but did suggest that vitamin E might actually cause a slight increase in prostate cancer risk.

The Study That Generated The Headlines

The authors of the study that generated the recent headlines (Kristal et al, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt456, 2014) were attempting to find a simple explanation for the unexpected results of the SELECT study.

They hypothesized that the baseline selenium status at the beginning of the study might have influenced the outcome of supplementation. Kristal et al reanalyzed the data from the SELECT trial, comparing the effect of selenium and vitamin E supplementation in men with low selenium status and men with high selenium status.

However, at face value their data were confusing rather simplifying. They found:

Supplementation with selenium had no effect on prostate cancer risk in men with low selenium status, but increased prostate cancer risk by 91% in men with high selenium status.

Conversely, supplementation with 400 IU of vitamin E had no effect on prostate cancer risk in men with high selenium status, but increased prostate cancer risk by 63% in men with low selenium status.

Based on this hodge-podge of data, they concluded that “Men aged greater than 55 should avoid supplements with either vitamin E or Se (selenium) at doses that exceed recommended dietary intakes.” That was the statement that generated the headlines. Was that recommendation justified?

What Do Other Experts Say?

There was an editorial evaluation of the paper by some of the top expects in the field in the same journal (Frankel et al, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju005, 2014) that provided thoughtful explanations of the confusing data in the paper by Kristal et al. They examined three questions:

1) Why did the SELECT study find no effect of selenium supplementation in men with low selenium status, while the earlier NPC trial found a 65% decrease in prostate cancer risk?

The authors of the editorial pointed out that the lowest baseline selenium status in the SELECT trial was much higher than the lowest baseline selenium status in the previous NPC trial. In fact the baseline selenium status in the SELECT trial was at a level in which no effect of selenium supplementation would have been expected based on the results from the NPC trial.

The authors speculated that the addition of selenized yeast to animal feed has improved selenium status in the US population to the point where selenium supplementation can no longer be expected to reduce prostate cancer risk.

2) Why did selenium supplementation increase prostate cancer risk in men with high selenium status, but not in men with low selenium status?

The authors pointed out that for selenium there is a very narrow range between sufficient intake and toxicity. The daily value (DV) for selenium is 90 ug/day and the recommended upper limit (UL) for selenium intake is 400 ug/day.

The average selenium intake for adult men in this country is 151 ug/day. That’s just the average. It’s not hard to imagine that adding 200ug/day of selenium to men at the highest selenium intake could move them into the toxic range.

3) Why did vitamin E supplementation increase prostate cancer risk in men with low selenium status, but not in men with high selenium status?

In part, the authors felt that the pure alpha-tocopherol used in the SELECT trial was not optimal. Pure alpha-tocopherol interferes with the absorption of the other naturally occurring forms of vitamin E, such as gamma-tocopherol – which is the form of vitamin E that decreases prostate cancer risk in animal studies.

The authors also noted that vitamin E and selenium work together to inactivate free radicals in cell membranes. Vitamin E reduces the free radicals to a chemically unstable intermediate that still has the potential to damage membranes. A selenium-containing enzyme is required to convert that unstable intermediate into a completely harmless compound.

So when vitamin E is present in much higher levels than selenium, as it was in the group with low baseline selenium status, unstable radicals can accumulate and membrane damage can occur. The authors felt that this was the most likely explanation of the increased prostate cancer risk when men with low selenium status were supplemented with high dose vitamin E.

The authors of the editorial had a much more nuanced interpretation of the data reported by Kristal et al. If you read their evaluation carefully you would likely conclude that you should avoid high dose selenium supplements. However, rather than simply avoiding vitamin E supplements, you should choose vitamin E supplements that contain all of the naturally occurring vitamin E forms and contain near DV amounts of selenium.

These recommendations would be a much better fit to the data, but don’t lend themselves to dramatic headlines – so the editorial has been largely ignored by the press.

The Bottom Line:

1) Ignore the scary headlines about selenium and vitamin E causing prostate cancer. You can continue to use your supplements as long as you choose ones that are well balanced.

2) Conversely, if you are at risk of prostate cancer, there is no good evidence that supplementation with either selenium or vitamin E will reduce your risk.

3) The results of this study are fully consistent with my longstanding recommendation to follow a holistic approach to supplementation and to avoid high dose single nutrient supplements.

4) There is no reason to supplement with 200 ug/day of selenium. If you are already getting good amounts of selenium from your diet, that dosage could be toxic and may actually increase your risk of cancer. Make sure that your supplements have no more than the DV (70 ug) of selenium.

5) Avoid high purity alpha-tocopherol supplements. Look for vitamin E supplements containing the full spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols in addition to alpha-tocopherol. In addition, make sure that your vitamin E supplement also contains selenium at near DV levels.

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.

How Muscles Cause Joint Pain

March 6, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Preventing & Healing Repetitive Strain Injuries – Part 1

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT

Using the words “pain” and “free” in the same sentence causes people who love to exercise laugh since it seems to be a contradiction of terms, but it is not only possible, it’s easy to achieve. It is understood that exercising, or even just daily living, causes muscles to ache and will also put stress on joints.

When the pain begins you are told to use “RICE” (Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation) – but you don’t have the time, or you simply don’t want to rest! So, you keep going and just as you’ve been told, it gets worse, even to the point where you may need to stop your world!

You’ve also come to realize that resting (when you do decide to rest) only lasts for a short time, and then the pain returns. The good news is you can be a pain-free; you just need to know how to find the source of your pain and then how to effectively treat it.

How Muscles Cause Joint Pain

RICE certainly works immediately after having a traumatic injury, but repetitive stress on your muscles requires treatment of the knots that are putting tension onto the tendons and joints. Getting back to basic anatomy will help to unravel the misconceptions that plague both athletes and non-athletes alike. Once you understand the logic of why you are feeling pain, you will know exactly what needs to be done to immediately release a muscle-related pain anywhere in your body.

This is NOT going to be a complicated lesson in Anatomy & Physiology, but I’ve found that a little knowledge of the body goes a long way. I’m going to put the proper names for the muscles and tendons into a parenthesis so if you want to actually see the muscles that are causing you pain you’ll be able to look them up.

I always tell the clients I work with “the most challenging part is finding where the source of the pain is located, and then treating it is easy”. This article will help you to find the source of your problem. Let’s begin at the beginning…

The Basics – How a Joint Moves

Movement is a simple process:

1. A muscle originates on a bone.

2. It then merges into a tendon.

3. The tendon crosses over the joint to insert into a movable bone.

4. When the muscle contracts it pulls on the tendon. The tendon then pulls on the moveable bone and your joint moves.

Example: The Muscles of Your Upper Leg

All joints have two (or more) muscles that determine the degree and angle that the joint will move. While one muscle is contracting, the other muscle must relax and stretch. A good example of this principle are the muscles of your upper leg. (quadriceps and hamstrings).

The quadriceps originate on the front of your hip (pelvis), merge into a thick tendon (patella tendon) and cross over the knee cap to insert onto the front of your shinbone (tibia). When they contract normally you fully extend your leg so it becomes straight. Meanwhile, your hamstrings originate on the lower edge at the back of your pelvis; go down the back of your thigh, with the tendons crossing over the back of your knee and inserting onto the back side/top of the lower leg bone.

Consider this analogy, if you attached your pants to the front of your shinbone, and then pulled up at the waist, you would feel the pressure at your knee and you also wouldn’t be able to bend your knee. Likewise, since your quadriceps originate up at the front of your pelvis and insert into your shinbone, when your quadriceps are tight they can’t stretch and you can’t bend your knee.

For example, to demonstrate an analogy of what tight hamstrings would do, consider what would happen if you bent your leg and then attached your pants to the bottom of your posterior pelvis (the bone you sit on, at the top of your thigh) and the back of your knee, you wouldn’t be able to open your leg up straight. But, clearly, you don’t have a knee problem, you have tightness in the upper thigh (hamstring) preventing your knee from moving.

When this has happened you begin to feel stiffness and a lack of your full strength. Some therapists will tell you that you need to strengthen your thigh (quadriceps) muscles. You may also think you need to stretch your hamstrings, but stretching a spasm is counter-productive and can actually make the spasm become more complicated while over-stretching the rest of the muscle fiber.

In Part II we’ll look at the first misconception – strengthening the muscle will heal the pain.

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.

Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?

March 4, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Unintended Consequences of the Proposed Non-GMO Labeling Laws

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Post Foods recently announced that their Grape Nuts cereal will be completely non-GMO. General Foods followed suit by announcing that their Original Cheerios will also be non-GMO. That’s good news, right?

Maybe, but it turns out that the new non-GMO Grape Nuts will no longer contain vitamins A, D, B12 or riboflavin, and the amount of riboflavin in a serving of Cheerios decreased from 25% of the daily recommended value (DV) to 2% of the DV.

The cereal manufacturers claim that their new cereals are more wholesome, but one nutrition expert said “The new products are arguably less healthy given their lower vitamin content.”

I’ve never been one to claim that throwing a few vitamins into a serving of cereal turns it into a nutrition powerhouse, but the decreased vitamin content of the new non-GMO cereals does raise a few questions.

Why were the vitamins removed?

Did it have anything to do with the cereals being non-GMO?

Does this mean that the non-GMO processed foods of the future will be less nutritious than the foods they replace?

The cereal manufacturers were mum when asked these questions, so we will need to rely on some scientific sleuthing and a bit of intuition to get the answers.

The Flaw in The Proposed Non-GMO Labeling Laws

I first discussed this topic a few months ago in a “Health Tips From The Professor” article titled “When is GMO Non-GMO?” I received a lot of irate comments from people who take every word on the non-GMO websites and videos as the gospel truth. (The professor has never been one to shy away from controversy when he sees claims that aren’t based on good science.)

However, I think my article was misunderstood by some of my readers, so let me review my conclusions briefly:

There are definitely environmental concerns around the widespread use of GM crops – especially those that allow heavy pesticide and herbicide usage.

There are potential health concerns related to the consumption of unprocessed GM foods and proteins derived from GM foods – although those heath concerns have been blown way out of proportion in the media.

If the proposed Non-GMO labeling laws stopped there, they would be scientifically justified. But they go one step further by requiring that processed foods labeled as non-GMO cannot contain any ingredient obtained from a GM source. There is no scientific justification for this.

Nutrients (sugars, oils & vitamins) derived from GM sources are chemically and biologically indistinguishable from those same nutrients derived from non-GMO sources.

The intentions of the proposed non-GMO labeling laws are good, but whenever you go beyond what good science supports there are often unintended consequences – such as the vitamin-depleted non-GMO cereals that the food manufacturers have just announced.

Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?

To understand the answer to that question, let’s look at what probably happened to the vitamins in the non-GMO cereals.

In today’s world many vitamins are purified from genetically modified microorganisms – bacteria & yeast that have been modified to overproduce certain vitamins. In evaluating the significance of that statement, here are a few facts to consider:

1) We have gotten vitamins from these sources for many years.

B vitamins have been obtained from yeast for at least a hundred years.

A significant portion of the vitamins we absorb on a daily basis are made by bacteria in our gut.

2) The only difference today is that these microorganisms have been genetically modified to overproduce the vitamins.

3) These are naturally sourced vitamins.

The microorganisms are the same ones that have provided these vitamins for generations.

The enzymes used by the microorganisms to make the vitamins are the same.

4) There is no downside to the use of GM organisms as a source of natural vitamins.

There is no environmental risk from the use of these GM microorganisms. They don’t contain any dangerous genes that could wreak havoc if they escaped from the food processing plants.

Because the purified vitamins are indistinguishable from those obtained from non-GMO sources, there are also no health risks.

5) The advantage of using these GM organisms is clear. It substantially lowers the cost of vitamins and allows them to be used in the mass market – for example, in popular breakfast cereals.

6) Most food manufacturers can’t simply use non-GMO sourced vitamins and raise their prices.

A recent poll showed that 53% of Americans prefer non-GMO foods, but only 11% are willing to pay more for those foods

What Does the Future Hold?

Even though they are scientifically flawed, the proposed non-GMO labeling laws will probably become the law in several states in the near future. (Good science has never played much of a role in political decisions.)

Currently, there simply aren’t enough non-GMO vitamins available to supply the mass market – even if price were no concern. So, in the short term, many non-GMO processed foods are likely to be less nutritious than the foods they will replace – as we just saw with Grape Nuts and Cheerios.

However, most people feel that American ingenuity and the law of supply and demand will eventually result in a bigger supply of reasonable priced non-GMO vitamins. When that happens non-GMO processed foods will be just as nutritious as the older GM versions.

However, at this point nobody knows how long that will take.

The Bottom Line:

1) There is a scientific basis for environmental and potential health concerns regarding genetically modified whole foods and the protein extracted from these foods.

2) However, proposed non-GMO labeling laws would require that a processed food be labeled as genetically modified if it contains any nutrient purified from a genetically modified organism.

3) There is no scientific justification for this requirement. Purified vitamins from GM and non-GM microorganisms are chemically and biologically indistinguishable. Furthermore, the GM microorganisms used to produce the vitamins pose no environmental or health risks.

4) Non-GMO vitamins (vitamins prepared from non-GMO microorganisms) are currently in short supply and are very expensive compared to vitamins prepared from GM microorganisms.

5) Consequently, the unintended consequence of these proposed non-GMO labeling laws will likely be that many of the new non-GMO processed foods will contain fewer vitamins and, therefore, will be less nutritious than the foods they replace – at least in the short term. The new non-GMO Grape Nuts and Cheerios may be just the tip of the iceberg.

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 Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?

February 25, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Chemical Brain Drain A Pandemic?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In a past issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I examined the evidence suggesting that toxic chemicals in the home could cause childhood asthma. That is alarming because asthma can predispose individuals to other diseases and affects quality of life.

But, what if that were only the tip of the iceberg? For example, a recent headline stated: “More Toxic Chemicals [In Our Environment] Are Damaging Children’s Brains”. If that headline is true, it’s downright scary.

The authors of this study suggested that toxic chemicals which are abundant in our environment can cause decreases in IQ and aggressive or hyperactive behavior in children – and that those changes may be permanent.

The Study Behind The Headlines

The paper that generated the headlines (Grandjean & Landrigan, The Lancet Neurology, 13: 330-338, 2014) was a review of the literature, not an actual clinical study.

Based on published clinical studies, the authors identified 12 chemicals commonly found in the environment as developmental neurotoxins (toxins that interfere with normal brain development) based. [If you would like to find out what those “Dirty Dozen” chemicals are and where they are found, click here.]

This finding compares with 6 developmental neurotoxins that they were able to identify in a similar study in 2006.

The authors were not claiming that the number or amount of toxic chemicals changed between 2006 and 2014. They were saying that science has advanced to the point where we can classify six more chemicals that have been in our environment for years as developmental neurotoxins.

Even more worrisome, the authors postulate that many more environmental neurotoxins remain undiscovered.

Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?

To answer that question, you need to look at some of the studies they cited in their review. For example:

Elevated blood lead levels in children are associated with as much as a 7 point decrease in IQ (Lamphear et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113: 894-899, 2005).

Elevated fluoride levels in drinking water are also associated with as much as a 7 point decrease in IQ (Choi et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 120: 1362-1368, 2012).

The effects of many of the toxic chemicals on IQ were difficult to quantify, but the authors estimated that exposure of US children to just 3 of the chemicals (lead, methymercury and organophosphate pesticides) was sufficient to lower their average IQ by 1.6 points.

What Are The Potential Consequences?

The authors spoke of the environmental neurotoxins they identified as representing a “silent pandemic of a chemical brain drain” that could cost the US economy billions of dollars.

One of the blog posts I read on this topic summarized the consequences in a very graphic manner. It said:

If one child’s IQ is reduced by 5 points, it doesn’t appear to make a big difference. For example, that child might be:

A little slower to learn
A little shorter of attention
A little less successful at tests and at work

That might result in $90,000 in lost lifetime earnings

However, if the average IQ of every child in the US were decreased by 5 points, the effect becomes significant:

Only half as many members of the next generation would be “intellectually gifted”.
Twice as many of the next generation would be “intellectually impaired”
Lost productivity could be in the billions

Of course, statements like that are a bit over the top. Drs. Grandjean and Landrigan did not claim that the net effect of the chemicals they identified was a 5 point drop in IQ. Nor did they claim that all US children were affected equally.

Still, it’s enough to make you think.

Are Toxic Chemicals Causing Behavior Problems?

The authors cited numerous studies linking the chemical neurotoxins they identified to aggression and hyperactivity. But perhaps the most compelling reason to suspect that environmental chemicals may be affecting brain development is the spiraling incidence of developmental disorders such as autism and ADHD. For example:

Autism has increased by 78% since 2007 and now affects 1 of 88 eight year old children.

ADHD has increased by 43% since 2003 and now affects 11% of children age 4-17.

Some of this increase could be due to better diagnosis of these conditions, but nobody believes that all of it is due to improved diagnosis. The authors claim that much of this increase is likely due to environmental exposure to the kinds of developmental neurotoxins they identified.

Is The Science Solid?

This is a difficult area of research. You can’t do the gold standard double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Nobody in their right mind would give one group of children toxic chemicals and the other group a placebo.

The studies cited in this paper were mostly population studies. Basically this means that they compared children with exposure to certain toxic chemicals to a control group that was as similar as possible to the first group except that their exposure to the toxic chemicals was less.

The limitation of this kind of study is obvious. We are usually comparing children from different locations or of different backgrounds. We almost never know if we have controlled for all possible variables so that the groups are truly identical.

As a consequence it becomes important to ask how many studies come to the same conclusion. For some of the toxic chemicals, such as lead, methymercury and organophosphate pesticides, the weight of evidence is very strong. For some of the newer additions to their list of developmental neurotoxins, it is pretty clear that the chemicals have neurotoxic properties, but the significance of those effects on the developing human brain are hard to quantify at this point.

The Bottom Line:

1) A recent review claims that there is a good scientific basis for classifying at least 12 environmental chemicals as developmental neurotoxins that are likely to reduce IQ and contribute to behavioral problems in US children. [If you would like to find out what those “Dirty Dozen” chemicals are and where they are found, click here.]

2) The science behind the claims in this review is solid, but not iron-clad.

3) However, there are times when we need to simply ask ourselves: “What if it were true?” The consequences of lowered IQ and developmental behavioral problems are so significant that it may not make sense to wait until we have unassailable scientific evidence before we act.

4) We all need to be guardians of our personal environment. But, it is not easy. The “Dirty Dozen” chemicals identified in this study come from many sources:

Some are industrial pollutants. For those, we need lobby for better environmental regulation.

Some are persistent groundwater contaminants. For those we need to drink purified water whenever possible.

Some are insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture. For those we need to buy organic, locally grown produce when feasible.

Some are found in common household products and furnishings. For those we need to become educated label readers and use non-toxic products in our home whenever possible.

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.

The Dirty Dozen

February 25, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Environmental Toxins That Affect Brain Development

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In a recent review, Drs. Grandjean and Landrigan (The Lancet Neurology, 13: 330-338, 2014) identified 12 toxic chemicals which are abundant in our environment and are developmental neurotoxins.

These are all chemicals that damage brain development. They can cause decreases in IQ and aggressive or hyperactive behavior in children – and that those changes may be permanent.

Let’s look at these developmental neurotoxins and where they are found.

The Dirty Dozen

In their review Grandjean & Landrigan identified 6 developmental neurotoxins that were known in 2006, and 6 more chemicals that have been confirmed to be developmental neurotoxins between 2006 and 2023.

Developmental Neurotoxins Known in 2006 and their sources:

Lead

Main Sources: paint, gasoline, solder and consumer products such as toys & jewelry

Current status: Lead has been banned in paint since 1978 and from gasoline since 1996. Millions of houses still contain lead paint. Other current sources are inexpensive toys and costume jewelry imported from China and other countries without tight regulations.
The EPA estimates that 1 million children in the US are affected by elevated lead levels.

Methylmercury

Main Sources: discharges into air & water from coal-burning power plants, mining, pulp & paper industries.

Polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Main Sources: transformers and many commercial products

Current status: Banned in 1979, but continues to be a common environmental contaminant because this group of chemicals is very long-lived.

Arsenic:

Main Sources: extraction of metals from rock (smelting), algaecides, herbicides, pesticides and pressure-treated wood.

Current status: Pressure treated wood banned in 2003 for residential use. Still found in some playgrounds and older buildings.

Toluene:

Main Sources: gasoline. It is also a solvent for paints, paint thinners, spot removers, adhesives, antifreeze, & some consumer products like fingernail polish removers.

Current status: Common in consumer products. Read labels and make sure windows are open if you use.

Developmental Neurotoxins Identified Since 2006 and their sources:

Manganese

Main Sources: municipal wastewater discharge, emissions generated during alloy, steel & iron production, emissions from burning of fuel additives

Flouride

Main Sources: naturally elevated in groundwater in certain regions, added to municipal water supply, most bottled beverages and toothpaste.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that children drinking fluoridated water, fluoridated beverages, using fluoridated toothpaste and receiving fluoride treatments for their teeth may be receiving excess fluoride.

Chlorpyrifos

Main Sources: insecticide

Current status: Banned for use in homes in 2001. Still one of the most widely used insecticides in agriculture.

DDT

Main Sources: insecticide

Current status: Banned for use in this country in 1972. DDT and its breakdown products still found in our water supply. DDT still in use in agriculture and insect control in some countries.

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Main Sources: widely used in dry cleaning fabrics, the textile industry and metal degreasing

Current status: Found in groundwater due to discharge from factories and dry cleaners.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)

Main Sources: flame retardants – used in building materials, electronics, mattresses & household furniture, plastics, polyurethane foams & textiles.

Current status: Readily leached into the environment. Found in dust, water, food & human breast milk

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 Obesity Begin In Kindergarten?

February 18, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Obesity Caused By Bad Genes Or Bad Lifestyle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In past issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared some common sense weight loss tips. But what if it is all for naught? What if there is nothing you can do about your weight?

You may have seen the headlines suggesting that obesity in kindergarten is a very strong predictor of obesity later in life. If so, you are probably wondering what that means for your kids or grandkids – and what it means for you. You are probably asking questions like:

Should you be worrying about that your toddler’s baby fat?

What can you do as parents and grandparents to protect the ones you love from a lifetime of obesity and all of the health challenges that involves?

Is there anything you can do about overweight and obesity? Are some people just fated to be obese from childhood on?

What Does the Study Actually Show?

This was a very well done study. It followed 7738 children of all socioeconomic classes who were enrolled in kindergarten (mean age 5.6) in the US in 1998 and followed them through the 8^th grade (mean age 14.1) (Cunningham et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 370: 403-411, 2014).

When the children entered kindergarten, 12.4% of them were obese, and another 14.9% of them were overweight. By the time they reached the 8^th grade 20.8% were obese and 17% were overweight. Those results didn’t make the headlines. They are similar to many previous studies.

The results that made the headlines were:

Overweight 5 year olds were 4 times more likely to become obese by age 14 than normal weight 5 year olds.

87% of obese 8^th graders (14 year olds) had a body mass index above the 50^th percentile in kindergarten, and 75% had a body mass index above the 70^th percentile.

Only 13% of overweight 8^th graders had been normal weight (<50^th percentile) in kindergarten, and only 13% of the normal weight 8^th graders had been overweight in kindergarten.

These results are fully consistent with earlier studies showing that overweight toddlers are likely to become overweight teens, and overweight teens are likely to become overweight adults. What was unique about this study (and generated the headlines) was the precision of the statistics.

Does Obesity Begin In Kindergarten?

The answer to that question is clearly yes. However, the more important question is what message we, as responsible health advocates, should be sharing with the general public. Let me break that down to some of the most important questions that you are probably asking.

Is Obesity Caused By Bad Genes Or Bad Lifestyle?

Taken on face value, the results of this study might seem to suggest that genetics is the primary cause of obesity. However, if that is the message we convey to the public, it is likely to simply fuel the perception that most overweight individuals are genetically destined to be obese. There is nothing they can do about it. So, why even bother trying?

However, the authors of the study also noted that the percentage of children aged 6 to 11 who are above the 95% percentile of weight has increased 4-fold between 1963 and 2000. Genetics does not change in a mere 37 years (37 generations maybe). That 4-fold increase in severe childhood obesity is clearly driven by lifestyle changes over the past 30 or 40 years.

While nobody knows the exact percentages, a reasonable interpretation of recent research in this area might be:

10-15% of us are genetically destined to be obese. There is little we can do to change our weight, but a healthy lifestyle can significantly reduce our risk of disease.

10-15% of us are genetically predestined to be lean no matter what we eat (Yes. Your suspicions are true). Once again, lifestyle has relatively little influence on our weight, but a healthy lifestyle can significantly reduce our risk of disease.

The other 70-80% of us are genetically predisposed to become obese if we adapt the typical American lifestyle. For most of us lifestyle choices can make a big difference in our weight as well as our health.

So the answer to this question is BOTH. For most of us, obesity is caused by bad genes AND bad lifestyle.

When Should We Intervene?

You probably already know that any extra fat cells we develop in childhood never go away. They are always with us, looking for those extra calories they can store as fat.

This study suggests that by the time we are in kindergarten, the die may already be cast. Those extra fat cells may have already developed.

And, for many people, the time to intervene may be even sooner. This study also showed that birth weight plays an important role as well. Children who weighed 9 pounds or more at birth were 2-fold more likely to be obese in kindergarten than children who weighed less than 9 pounds at birth.

Once again, a small percentage of overweight babies is due to genetics, but it is lifestyle choices during pregnancy that lead to the majority of overweight babies.

The authors of the study noted that most public health initiatives (school lunch programs, lifestyle education programs, etc.) are targeted at school aged children. The authors went on to say that by then it may be too late to have any significant effect on the incidence of obesity in our children.

They suggested that we need to place a stronger emphasis on influencing lifestyle changes that affect the weight of babies at birth and are likely to influence whether or not they become obese by the time they reach kindergarten.

That’s not the realm of public health policy. That’s our responsibility.

What Should We Do?

If You Are Pregnant:

The old adage “You are eating for two” was never true.

Aim for an extra 150 calories during the 1^st trimester, 300 during the 2^nd and 3^rd trimesters (That’s 1 or 2 servings of healthy foods).

Aim for little or no weight gain during the 1^st trimester and a total of 20-26 pounds during the last two trimesters (a bit less if you are overweight).

If You Have a Young Child Who Is Overweight:

Don’t restrict calories. Restricting calories can stunt growth and interfere with normal mental and physical development.

Encourage your kids to exercise rather than watching TV and playing video games. You may need to set the example, and that’s a good thing for you as well as for them.

Provide your kids with a healthy diet. For most kids, that means more fruits and vegetables and less sugary beverages, fruit juices, and processed snack foods. That may simply mean that you don’t bring those kinds of foods into your house. Again, that would probably be a good thing for everyone in the family.

I know some of you are saying “My kids won’t eat healthy stuff”. Let me give you my take on that.

When I was a kid, my mom had a pretty simple policy. If I didn’t like what she cooked, I didn’t have to eat it. I could simply wait until the next meal – when she would be serving the same kinds of healthy foods again.

I got the message pretty quick. It wasn’t eat healthy or eat junk food. It was eat healthy or go hungry. I decided early on that healthy was better than hungry.

Now, let me step down from my soapbox and summarize.

The Bottom Line:

1) The latest research suggests that if a child is overweight by kindergarten, they are likely to be overweight for the rest of their lives. So if you want to spare your kids and grandkids from a lifetime of obesity, you want to intervene early.

2) A small percentage of those kids are destined to be obese no matter what they do. However, for the vast majority of them obesity can be prevented by a healthy lifestyle.

3) If you are pregnant, don’t “eat for two”. That is terrible advice. If your pre-pregnancy weight is stable (neither increasing or decreasing), you only need to add a serving or two of healthy foods to your diet during pregnancy. Check with your doctor about the amount of weight gain that is right for you and follow their advice.

4) If you have a young child who appears to be overweight, don’t restrict their calories. Instead, provide them with healthy food choices and encourage them to exercise.

5) Finally, if you have been overweight since childhood, don’t despair. For most of us obesity is a combination of genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices. You can’t your genes, but you can change your lifestyle.

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 Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?

February 11, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Fish Oil Reduce Heart Disease Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

One of my readers recently sent me a video titled “Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil?” and asked me to comment on it. The doctor who made the video claimed that the most recent studies had definitively shown that omega-3 fatty acids, whether from fish or fish oil, do not decrease the risk of heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular death. He went on to say that the case was closed. There was no point in even doing any more studies.

My reader, like many of you, was confused. Wasn’t it just a few years ago we were being told that clinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids significantly reduce the risk of heart disease? Hadn’t major health organizations recommended omega-3 fatty acids as part of a heart health diet? What has changed?

The answer to the first two questions is a resounding YES, and “What has changed?” is THE story. Let me explain.

Fish Oil And Heart Disease Risk In Healthy People

If we look at intervention studies in healthy people (what we scientists refer to as primary prevention studies) the results have been pretty uniform over the years. In a primary prevention setting, fish oil cannot be shown to significantly reduce the risk of heart disease (Rizos et al, JAMA, 308: 1024-1033, 2012).

That’s not unexpected because it is almost impossible to show that any intervention significantly reduces the risk of heart disease in healthy populations. For example, as I pointed out in recent Health Tips From the Professor (“Do Statins Really Work?” and “Can An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?”) you can’t even show that statins significantly reduce heart attack risk in healthy populations.

If you can’t prove that statins reduce the risk of heart attacks in a healthy population, it should come as no surprise that you can’t prove that fish oil reduce heart attacks in a healthy population. To answer that question we need to look at whether fish oil reduces the risk of heart attacks in high risk populations.

Fish Oil And Heart Disease Risk In Sick People – The Early Studies

Most of the early studies looking at the effect of fish oil in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (what we scientists refer to as secondary prevention studies) reported very positive results.

For example, the DART1 study (Burr et al, Lancet, 2: 757-761, 1989) and the US Physician’s Health Study (Albert et al, JAMA, 279: 23-28, 1998) reported a 29% decrease in total mortality and a 52% decrease in sudden deaths related to heart disease in patients consuming diets rich in omega-3 containing fish.

Even more striking was the GISSI-Prevenzione study (Marchioli et al, Lancet, 354: 447-455, 1999; Marchioli et al, Eur. Heart J, 21: 949-952, 2000; Marchioli et al, Circulation, 105: 1897-1903, 2002). This was a very robust and well designed study. It looked at the effect of a fish oil supplement providing 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of a second heart attack in 11,323 patients who had survived a non-fatal heart attack within the last 3 months – a very high risk group.

The results were clear cut. Over the next 3.5 years supplementation with fish oil reduced overall death by 15% and sudden death due to heart disease by 30% compared to a placebo. And, if you looked at the first 4 months, when the risk of a second heart attack is highest, the fish oil supplement reduced the risk of overall death by 41% and sudden death by 53%.

The authors estimated that treating 1,000 heart attack patients with 1 g/day of fish oil would save 5.7 lives per year. That is almost identical to the 5.2 lives saved per 1,000 patients per year by the statin drug pravastatin in the LIPID trial (NEJM, 339: 1349-1357, 1998).

No wonder the American Heart Association said that patients “could consider fish oil supplementation for heart disease risk prevention.”

Fish Oil And Heart Disease Risk In Sick People – The Latest Studies

However, the most recent studies have been uniformly negative. For example, the ORIGIN trial (Bosch et al, NEJM, 367: 309-318, 2012) treated 12,536 patients who were considered at high risk of heart disease because of diabetes or pre-diabetes with either 1 g/day of fish oil or a placebo. This was also a robust, well designed study, and it found no effect of the fish oil supplement on either heart attacks or deaths due to heart disease.

Similarly, a recent meta-analysis looking at the combined effects of 14 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients at high risk of heart disease found no significant effect of fish oil supplements on overall deaths, sudden death due to heart disease, heart attacks, congestive heart failure or stroke (Kwak et al, Arch. Int. Med., 172: 686-694, 2012).

No wonder you are confused by all of the conflicting studies. You must be wondering: “Is the American Heart Association wrong?” “Are fish oil supplements useless for reducing heart disease risk?”

What Has Changed Between The Early Studies & The Latest Studies?

When a trained scientist sees the outcome of well designed clinical studies change over time, he or she asks: “What has changed in the studies?” It turns out that a lot has changed.

1) In the first place the criteria for people considered at risk for heart attack and stoke have changed dramatically. Not only has the definition of high cholesterol” been dramatically lowered, but cardiologists now treat people for heart disease if they have inflammation, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood pressure, diabetes, pre-diabetes or minor arrythmia.

For example, the GISSI-Prevenzione study recruited patients who had a heart attack within the past three months, while the ORIGIN study just looked at people who had diabetes or impaired blood sugar control. While both groups could be considered high risk, the patients in the earlier studies were at much higher risk for an imminent heart attack or stroke – thus making it much easier to detect a beneficial effect of omega-3 supplementation.

2) Secondly, the standard of care for people considered at risk for heart disease has also changed dramatically. In the earlier studies patients were generally treated with one or two drugs – generally a beta-blockers and/or drug to lower blood pressure. In the more recent studies the patients generally receive at least 3 to 5 different medications – medications to lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides, reduce inflammation, reduce arrhythmia, reduce blood clotting, and medications to reduce the side effects of those medications.

Since those medications perform many of the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids, it is perhaps no surprise that it is now very difficult to show any additional benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in patients on multiple medications.

The bottom line is that we are no longer asking the same question. The earlier studies were asking whether fish oil supplements reduce the risk of heart attacks or cardiovascular death in patients at high risk of heart disease. The more recent studies are asking whether fish oil supplements provide any additional benefits in a high risk population that is already on 3-5 medications to reduce their risk of heart disease.

However, the people who are writing the headlines you are reading (and the videos you are watching) are not making that distinction. They are pretending that nothing has changed in the way the studies are designed. They are telling you that the latest studies contradict the earlier studies when, in fact, they are measuring two different things.

Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?

Was the doctor who made the video “Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil?” correct in saying that omega-3 fatty acids are ineffective at reducing the risk of heart disease? The answer is yes and no.

If you take the medical viewpoint that the proper way to treat anyone at the slightest risk of heart disease is with 3-5 medications – with all of their side effects, the answer seems to be pretty clear cut that adding fish oil to your regimen provides little additional benefit.

However, that is not the question that interests me. I’d like to know whether I can reduce my risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death by taking omega-3 fatty acids in place of those drugs – as the original studies have shown.

I’m sure many of my readers feel the same way.

The Bottom Line

Studies performed prior to 2000 have generally shown that fish oil supplements reduce the risk of a second heart attack in patients who have previously had a heart attack. One study even suggested that they were as effective as statin drugs at reducing heart attack risk in this population.

Recent studies have called into question the beneficial effects of fish oil supplements at reducing the risk of heart disease. However, these studies were performed with lower risk patients and the patients were on 3-5 medications to reduce their risk of heart attack or stroke.

The recent studies are no longer evaluating whether fish oil supplements can reduce the risk of heart disease. They are asking whether they have any additional beneficial effects for people taking multiple medications. That’s a totally different question.

So ignore the headlines saying that fish oil is snake oil. If you are content taking multiple medications to reduce your risk of heart disease, it is probably correct to say that omega-3 fatty acids provide little additional benefit.

However, if you are interested in a more holistic, drug-free approach to reducing your risk of heart disease, I still recommend omega-3 fatty acids as part of a heart healthy diet, as does the American Heart Association.

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.