Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?

November 12, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

When Is GMO Not GMO?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I’m probably going to get lots of hate mail for this week’s “Health Tips from the Professor” because I’m finally going to tackle the GMO controversy.

You see, the GMO controversy is very much like Washington politics. On one side of the aisle, you have the people who are absolutely convinced that anything GMO is terrible. On the other side of the aisle, you have people who are absolutely convinced that there are no problems with GMO foods. And both sides are convinced that their opponents have absolutely nothing of intelligence to say on the topic.

So almost anything I say about GMO is bound to offend somebody. But nobody ever accused me of being timid, so let’s get started.

What Are The Health Risks Of Genetically Modified Foods?

I’m going to start with the supposed health risks of GMO foods because that’s my area of greatest expertise, and I’m going to evaluate those health risks from the viewpoint of a card-carrying biochemist. I’ve seen the scary pictures and alarming statements posted on many anti-GMO web sites, but objective evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful to humans is underwhelming at present.

Modifications to DNA And Health Risks

Let’s start at the beginning. Genetic modification occurs in the DNA, and on that basis GMO foods have some potential, but yet unproven, risks. Let me give you an example:

Some genetically modified foods carry genes for naturally occurring pesticides so that if bugs try to eat the leaves of those plants they will die.

When we eat foods occasionally small pieces of their DNA will find their way into our intestinal track.

We have bacteria in our intestinal tracts that excel at picking up small pieces of DNA and inserting them into their genome.

So it is theoretically possible that those bacteria might start producing in our intestines the same pesticides produced by the genetically modified foods we ate.

It is an interesting idea, but to my knowledge one that has not yet been shown to have actually occurred in a human being.

Modifications to Proteins And Health Risks

A more likely risk comes from the proteins contained in genetically modified foods:

Genetic modifications in the DNA result in the production of modified proteins, so GMO foods, GMO protein powders and foods made from GMO protein sources can be a source of unsuspected food allergies.

Unfortunately, food allergies, especially those from genetically modified protein sources, are very difficult to quantify, so we have no good data on how big a problem this actually is.

However, it would be very surprising if there weren’t some individuals with food allergies to genetically modified proteins.

When Is GMO Not GMO?

Many of the GMO opponents take it one step further and want to label as GMO any food or supplement that contains any ingredient made from a genetically modified food. This is where the science is clearly on the other side of the aisle. With respect to purified sugars, purified oils, vitamins and other purified nutrients obtained from foods there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO because these purified nutrients contain neither DNA nor protein.

Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?

For the most part, it isn’t even possible for most manufacturers to produce foods or supplements with all non-GMO ingredients. When the whole GMO issue first entered public awareness the food industry was guided by the science. It made good business sense for them to create a capacity, a pipeline if you will, to make sure that non-GMO protein sources were available to meet the market demand for companies that wanted to make non-GMO protein products for this new GMO-adverse market.

But, nobody anticipated the emotional demand for non-GMO sugars, oils and the like. There was no scientific basis for that demand, so none of the suppliers created the capacity to meet that demand. Currently there is only enough of those kinds of non-GMO ingredients to meet the needs of the bit players in the market. There simply aren’t enough of those ingredients to satisfy the requirements of any manufacturer who deals in the mass market. That, for example, is the reason big players in the market lobbied against the recent California and Washington State propositions that would have required a food product to be labeled GMO if any ingredient in the food was GMO.

Genetically Modified Foods And The Environment

Now that I have managed to alienate almost everyone, I should point out that there are some non-health issues around GMO foods.

The biggest issue is that many of the genetically modified foods contain modifications that make them resistant to herbicides, and that encourages overuse of those herbicides with the resultant pollution of air, soil, and water.
Another concern is that the increasing reliance on genetically modified food crops is leading to a decrease in the genetic diversity of those crops, which could make them more susceptible to a new virus or pest in the future. This is a theoretical concern, but there is historical precedence for believing that it could happen.
Finally, laws that prevent subsistent farmers from saving their own seed for next season’s planting is a major concern in Third World countries. But, that is more an issue of corporate greed than it is of genetic modification.

The Bottom Line:

What is the take-home lesson for you?

From a health perspective:

Genetically modified proteins are likely to be a food allergy risk for some people, but we have no good data on how many people are affected by this kind of food allergy

Genetically modified DNA is a theoretical concern because of the ability of intestinal bacteria to pick up pieces of DNA, but we have no evidence at present that this has actually ever caused a problem in people.

With respect to sugars, oils, and other nutrients extracted from foods it makes no difference whether the food was GMO or non-GMO

From an environmental perspective:

Genetic modifications leading to herbicide resistance are a significant environmental concern because it encourages overuse of herbicides.

Lack of genetic diversity from the overuse of GMO food crops is a theoretical concern, but one with historical precedence.

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.

Heal Your Plantar Fasciitis Naturally

November 7, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

You Can Make Your Foot Pain Go Away

Author: Julie Donnelly

Just a couple of weeks ago I taught you how to make your hip pain go away. Today’s topic is foot pain. And, yes, you can make your foot pain go away as well. But, let’s start at the beginning.

How Does Foot Pain Get Started?

You feel it coming on gradually. Maybe your lower leg aches a bit, but you’re busy so you ignore it. After a while every time you take a step you feel a burning that spreads along the entire lower leg and into your arch. Still you ignore it. But it doesn’t go away, in fact, it gets worse.

Now your arch just doesn’t feel “right.” Then it starts to hurt, but not every time you put pressure on your foot. Again, you ignore it until finally you are experiencing foot pain all the time. Then eventually you can’t ignore it any more, it’s like a knife being jabbed into your arch. Now it’s not just hurting when you run or drive your car, your foot hurts with every step.

Almost every day you do something that causes you to lift the front of your foot while your heel is still resting on the floor. For most people it comes from straining your lower leg muscles when you are driving a car, especially if you drive often. It is even more evident if you are doing any type of city driving because you are off and on the gas and break constantly, repetitively straining all of your lower leg muscles. You just know that your foot hurts and it’s affecting your life. You must find a solution!

What is Plantar Fasciitis?

You’ve been told you have plantar fasciitis, and you may have been told you need expensive orthotics. Perhaps you’ve even tried them and while they worked for a short time, eventually the pain returned and then it started to hurt worse. Now you’re told you need to replace the orthotics, but you’ve come to realize that isn’t the answer. And it’s not the answer. The orthotics are focusing on the symptom, but totally ignoring the source of the problem.

The good news is that you can heal your plantar fasciitis naturally. Most people, including too many medical professionals, don’t realize that foot pain is frequently coming from outside the foot. The muscles of your lower leg actually are there to move your ankle and foot, not to move your lower leg (that comes from your upper leg).

The reason is simple. First let’s use an analogy that I use all the time because it’s so perfect to explain how muscles work to move a joint. If you pull your hair at the end, it hurts at your scalp. You don’t need to massage your scalp, you don’t need to take pain medications to stop the tension in your head, and you certainly don’t need brain surgery, you just need to stop pulling your hair! Now substitute the muscle for your hand, the tendon for your hair, and the joint for your scalp.

Muscles originate in one place, they merge into a tendon that crosses over a joint, and then the tendon inserts into a point on the other side of the joint. When the muscle pulls, the tendon tightens and the joint moves, but if the muscle is tight it will continue pulling on the joint even when you don’t want it to move. In the case of the lower leg muscles and the foot, the muscles are pulling your foot up from the ground, but you are pressing it down and causing the tendons to put a strain on the insertion points, which in this case are all in your arch.

How the Muscles Get Strained

Every time you take a step you are using all of the muscles of your lower leg. As you work you contract these muscles every time you step on the pedal. Lifting the front of your foot up you are using your tibialis anterior and then you press down on the pedal you are using your calf muscles. If you walk a lot, or you are a runner, you are causing a repetitive strain on the same muscle fibers. Also, while driving your car your foot is picked up in the front to go from the gas to the brake, again straining the same muscles. You do this over and over until you have strained the muscle fibers. Eventually the fibers shorten due to a phenomenon called muscle memory.

Muscle memory will hold your muscles in the shortened position even when you don’t need them contracted. This puts pressure on the insertion point, in this case, the arch.

The Result is Arch Pain

The two primary muscles that cause arch pain are the tibialis anterior and the peroneals. They originate at the top of the lower leg, merge into tendons where your ankle begins to slim, and then insert into the bottom of your foot.

The tibialis anterior goes along the outside of your shin bone, crosses over the front of your ankle and then inserts into your arch. When it contracts normally you lift up the inside of your foot so you are resting on the outside of your foot.

The peroneals originate at the top/outside of your lower leg, run down the leg and merge into a tendon that goes behind the outside of your ankle and inserts in two places; the outside of your foot, and under your arch to the inside of your foot. When it contracts normally you pull up the outside of your foot so you are resting on your big toe.

An Easy Treatment that Works

The goal with this Julstro self-treatment is to force the toxins out of the muscle fibers, drawing in blood to nourish the muscles. As the blood fills the muscle, the fibers lengthen and the strain is removed from the arch.

Begin by treating the tibialis anterior on the front of your leg.

#1 – kneel on the floor and put a ball just outside of your shin bone.

#2 – Move your leg forward so the ball rolls along the outside of your shin bone.

Then treat the peroneals on the outside of your lower leg, sit on the floor with the leg you are treating bent and resting on the floor. Put the ball on the outside of your leg (so it is actually on the floor and your leg is on top of it) and then press the outside of your leg into the ball. Move your leg so the ball starts to roll down the outside of your lower leg. Your intention is to do the same as you did for the tibialis anterior (above)

Or, sit on the floor or a bed and position your leg as shown in picture #3. While using either a dowel or a length of PVC pipe, slide the pipe from just above your ankle bone to just below your knee joint.

#3 – Using a dowel or piece of PVC pipe, put pressure on the outside of your leg and slide along the peroneals muscle from your knee to above your ankle bone.

The treatments will feel sore but that’s because you’re forcing H+ ions through the muscle fibers, and acid burns. But, it’s better to have the toxins out of the muscles and fill the fibers with blood, plus the lymphatic system will pick up the toxins and eliminate them from your body.

There are several other treatments that work to eliminate arch pain and plantar fasciitis, but I’ve found these to be the most productive, and they may be all that is necessary to eliminate the problem completely.

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 Fat Burning Sports Supplements Safe?

November 5, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

It’s Buyer Beware in the Sports Supplement Market

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

For many athletes it’s all about being bigger, faster, stronger. That’s what makes the fat burning sports supplements so appealing. If you believe the ads, they will burn fat, increase muscle mass and give you an energy boost. But, are fat burning sports supplements safe? Are they effective?

What Are Fat Burning Sports Supplements?

Simply put, most of the fat burning sports supplements contain metabolic stimulants of some kind. That’s where the energy and fat burning claims come from. The stimulants range from clearly ineffective to downright dangerous.

Are Fat Burning Sports Supplements Effective?

Because sports supplements are considered to be foods rather than drugs, the FDA cannot require sport supplements manufacture to prove that their products are either safe or effective. As a consequence, most sports supplement manufacturers don’t conduct clinical trials to prove the effectiveness of their products. Their claims are based on animal studies and testimonials. However, in most cases there is no objective evidence that their supplements actually work.

Are Fat Burning Sports Supplements Safe?

All stimulants carry some risk. Even small amounts of caffeine can be problematic for some individuals, and many sports supplements contain massive amounts of caffeine. But, it is not caffeine containing sports products that are the most worrisome.

Many sports supplement manufacturers are firm believers in the “better living through chemistry” motto.

They start with an herbal ingredient that has stimulant properties
They synthesize what they think is the active ingredient
Perhaps they chemically modify it a bit….
..and, Voila! They have a proprietary new sports supplement
They label it a fat burner, prepare their claims and they’re ready to go to market

And, why bother testing it? Unless the product kills or seriously harms people, the FDA can’t step in and tell a manufacturer to take their product off the market.

And, if you think that the manufacturers and sellers of the product are looking after your best interests, think again.

Case Study #1: Jack3D and DMAA

I told you about this story last year, so I’ll just give you a brief recap here.

After a couple of marines died after using Jack3D prior to a workout, the US military ordered that the product not be sold on their bases. The manufacturer continued to make the product. GNC stopped selling it on military bases, but continued to sell it in all its other stores.
Eventually the FDA stepped in and recommended that Jack3D not be sold. The manufacturer claimed that the active ingredient, DMAA, was found in the geranium extract they used in their product. Since that was a food ingredient, they claimed the FDA did not have jurisdiction.
The FDA denied that claim based an extensive testing of geranium extract. At that point the manufacturer stopped making it (They have since resuming making the product with yet another poorly tested stimulant). GNC said they would stop selling Jack3D “as soon as their inventory was used up”.
The FDA finally had to raid the GNC warehouses to get the product off the market.

Case Study #2: OxyElite Pro and Aegeline

In case you thought that was an isolated case, the same sports supplement manufacturer has recently been involved in a second case that sounds all too familiar.

The FDA recently advised consumers to stop using OxyElite Pro after reports of 24 cases of acute non-viral hepatitis (a very rare disease) in users of that sports supplement in Hawaii. Two of those patients required liver transplants, and one of them died.
In this case the manufacturer stopped domestic distribution of the product, but argued that the product is safe. They claimed that counterfeit versions of OxyElite Pro were being sold in the US market.
On October 11, 2013 the FDA sent a warning letter to the manufacturer stating that the active ingredient, aegeline, was not a lawful dietary ingredient. The manufacturer replied that it was a natural constituent of the citrus fruit tree Bael. (I’m not sure why that makes it safe. I don’t know about you, but I don’t eat a lot of Bael fruit.)
As of a few days ago England, Denmark, Spain, Australia & New Zealand have warned consumers in those countries not to use OxyElite Pro.

It’s too early to tell how this story is going to turn out, but my money is with the FDA.

Case Study #3: Craze and DEPEA

And, in case you thought the problem was with a single rogue manufacturer, there is a developing story around yet another popular sports supplement, Craze, made by a different manufacturer.

Researchers from the NSF, Harvard and the National Institute for Public Health in the Netherlands recently published a paper claiming that Craze contained DEPEA, a methamphetamine-like compound.
The manufacturers claimed that the researchers did the chemical analysis incorrectly and their product actually contained a close analog of DEPEA that is found in dendrobium orchids. (Again I’m not sure why that makes it OK. I don’t think people eat a lot of dendrobium orchids either).

Stay tuned. I’m sure this story will have some interesting twists before it’s finished.

The Bottom Line:

1) In the sports nutrition industry, it is buyer beware. There are lots of rogue manufacturers out there who care more for their bottom line than your well being. Do your homework and search for reputable companies with a long track record of product quality and ethical standards. There are some out there.

2) Ignore the outlandish claims, no matter how appealing. Once again, stick with establishing companies with a track record of product integrity. Only use sports supplements that are backed by clinical studies showing that they are both safe and effective.

3) Be particularly cautious about sports supplements that claim to burn fat or give you energy. They generally contain metabolic stimulants, and often those stimulants are poorly characterized. Most have not been proven to be effective, and some have the potential to do more harm than good.

4) Fat burning supplements are often cross marketed as weight loss supplements. They are just as dangerous for dieters as they are for athletes.

5) Don’t assume that just because the ingredients supposedly come from a natural source (geraniums, Bael trees or dendrobium orchids, for example) they are safe.

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.

Use of Sports Supplements By Young Athletes

October 31, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Sports Supplements Effective? Are They Safe?

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

In recent years, the use of sports supplements by young athletes has increased dramatically. The most commonly used sports supplements among teenagers of all ages were vitamins and minerals, though “ergogenic aids” are used by some teen athletes specifically to enhance performance. Among these performance-enhancing supplements are substances such as caffeine, creatine, ephedra and other stimulants, human growth hormone (HGH) and anabolic steroids.

Of the vitamin and mineral supplements, mutivitamins, vitamin C, calcium and iron were reported as being taken most often. While the risks of taking vitamin supplements is relatively low, there is some concern that young athletes may then progress to taking more dangerous substances under the impression that they are as harmless as vitamins and minerals. And while the risk of overdose with vitamins and minerals is low, it is not nonexistent, and some vitamins can be toxic when too much is taken (such as iron and vitamin A) or may interact with other vitamins or drugs.

Although many performance-enhancing supplements are advertised as being safe – especially those made from natural compounds – a great number of them have not been tested by any regulatory agency, so their actual safety is not known. In addition, there are no formal guidelines for dosage in many cases, so there could be adverse side effects if too much is inadvertently taken.

The pressure to excel at sports is greater than ever, and there is increasing competition to get into elite sports programs where they have a better chance of being discovered by professional sports scouts looking for the next big star. The possibility of fame and fortune can be a strong enticement to young athletes to try performance-enhancing supplements to give them an edge over their competition. And often it is their coach that suggests or encourages this practice.

According to studies done on high school athletes, they report taking supplements to not only enhance performance, but also to encourage growth and muscle development, prevent illness and reduce fatigue. Supplement use was greatest among athletes who practiced two or more different sports and those who were required to “bulk up”, such as wrestlers and weight lifters.

While the opinions of friends, teammates and coaches were a big influence on the decision of young football players to take supplements (particularly creatine), it was their parents who had the greatest amount of influence on their decision. So it is incredibly important for parents to be educated as to the benefits and drawbacks of each of these supplements for young athletes.

The Bottom Line:

There is tremendous pressure on teenage athletes to qualify for elite programs that will increase their chances of being selected for the top college teams and eventually getting onto professional teams. Because of that, the use of sports supplements by teenage athletes is commonplace.

Vitamin and mineral supplements are generally harmless unless taken in excessive amounts.

Performance-enhancing sports supplements, on the other hand, are poorly regulated. Many are useless and others are potentially harmful. In next week’s “Health Tips From The Professor”, I’ll give you some examples of sports supplements you might want to avoid.

If you are the parent of a teen athlete, have a conversation with your child about supplements. Don’t lecture, but involve them in the process of doing research. You may be surprised what you both find.

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.

Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality

October 29, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can A Multivitamin A Day Keep Breast Cancer At Bay?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

A few weeks ago I wrote about soy and breast cancer survival. You’ve probably seen the latest headlines: “Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality” and are wondering if they could possibly be true. After all, wasn’t it just a short time ago that the headlines said “Multivitamin supplements have no effect on breast cancer mortality” or that “Multivitamins may increase your risk of death”?

With all the conflicting headlines, you have every right to be skeptical about the latest news. So perhaps we should start with looking at the previous studies and discussing why they disagree.

What do we know about multivitamin use and breast cancer survival?

Three very large studies have reported no correlation between multivitamin use and breast cancer incidence. So it is pretty clear that multivitamins don’t prevent breast cancer.

However, breast cancer incidence and breast cancer survival are two different things. In the first case you are starting with healthy women and asking how many of them develop cancer. That is what we scientists call a primary prevention study. It is very difficult to prove the effectiveness of any intervention in a primary prevention study. In the second case you are starting with a sick population and asking if an intervention provides a benefit. It is much easier to prove whether or not an intervention is effective in this kind of study.

There, have been several small studies looking at the effect of vitamin supplementation in women who already had breast cancer. While the results have been mixed, the majority of the studies showed that vitamin supplementation did appear to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality.

What makes this study different?

The women in this study were part of 161,608 women enrolled the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study to investigate the effects of multivitamin use in post-menopausal women. In fact, this was one of the studies to report no effect of multivitamin use on the incidence of breast cancer (Neuhouser et al, Arch. Intern. Med., 169: 294-304, 2009).

What the present study did was to look at the those women in the WHI who did develop breast cancer during the previous study and followed them for an additional 7.9 years to see if multivitamin use affected breast cancer survival (Wasserthiel-Smoller et al, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 141: 495-505, 3013).

This is the largest study of its kind (7,728 women). It started with an older and sicker group of women than previous studies. All of the women were 50-79 years old at the time the study began, and all of them had invasive breast cancer at the time of enrollment into the study.

The results were quite impressive. Multivitamin use improved survival by 30%, and the results were highly significant.

Strengths of the Study:

This was a large and very well controlled study. The authors did an excellent job of controlling for confounding variables that might have affected the outcome.

Multivitamin use was measured at multiple time points. It was assessed at enrollment into the original WHI study and at each subsequent doctor visit. The multivitamin usage for the purpose of data analysis was the usage at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, but the authors also corrected for any change in vitamin use post-diagnosis.

The study was in agreement with the majority of previous studies, further strengthening the conclusion that multivitamin use in women with breast cancer improves the likelihood of survival.

Weaknesses of the Study:

Because previous studies have been mixed with respect to the effect of multivitamins on breast cancer survival, further placebo controlled intervention studies will be required before multivitamin use becomes part of the standard of treatment for breast cancer patients.

Most of the women in the study were post-menopausal. It is unclear if multivitamins will provide the same benefit to pre-menopausal women with breast cancer.

This study measured consistent multivitamin use before and after the diagnosis of breast cancer. It did not look at women who began multivitamin use after diagnosis. So we have no idea whether starting multivitamin use after diagnosis would have also been beneficial.

The Bottom Line:

1) This study strongly suggests that multivitamin use may help improve your chances of survival if you are unlucky enough to develop breast cancer. While more studies are still needed, this study certainly strengthens the argument for multivitamin use.

2) The rap on multivitamins has always been that they aren’t needed by healthy people who have a good diet. However, multivitamins are important for assuring good nutritional status if your diet is not optimal or if you have increased nutritional needs – either because of your genetic makeup or because of illness.

3) The difficulty is that you usually don’t know if your genetics increases your vitamin needs, and once your disease has progressed far enough to be diagnosed it may be too late to improve disease outcome. That’s why many experts consider a multivitamin supplement as an inexpensive form of nutritional and health insurance. I concur.

4) As for the fear that multivitamins might just kill you, that hypothesis has been disproven by several subsequent studies including one published just a couple of weeks ago (Macpherson et al, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.o49304).

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.

Functional Fitness Training

October 24, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are You Doing Your Workouts Wrong?

Author: Kai Fusser, MS

We’ve all heard about “functional exercises” by now, but what does functional fitness training really mean?

Playing a sport, doing yard work or even day to day activities, requires the whole body to move all at the same time. Do you know of any sport (with the possible exception of arm wrestling) where only part of the body is in action?

A good workout is the sum of all muscles in our body working together. Not only do they need to work together but also at the right time. This ensures great efficiency as the loads on the body are distributed throughout the whole system, every muscle does its part, and they all help each other. This requires the nervous system to be trained to give the command to each muscle to work at the right time and at the right “volume”. This can be learned and practiced.

Knowing this fact, it is hard to understand that anyone would want to work out on a machine. Most gyms are now stuffed with all those high tech, futuristic looking, color coordinated machines, some even come with a belt to buckle up. Seated or strapped in you immediately isolate part of your body, therefore that isolated part cannot help the part that has to perform the movement.

This teaches the nervous system the wrong pattern. Not only that, the guided motion in machines are mostly “one size fits all”, our joints all move in slightly different angles but the machine will keep them from moving freely so they are pressed into a motion different from your individual movement pattern. This can result in extra stress on the joints, the surrounding ligaments and tendons.

It will also neglect to strengthen the surrounding tissue and stabilizing muscles, as the guided motion will not require your body to stabilize that joint. This can result in injury latter on as the “machine strengthened” muscle will pull against the still weak surrounding stabilizing tissue.

So in order to get a fully functional body for our sport (or even yard work etc. for that matter) we need to exercise functionally. This means we need to be standing up and perform movements where our whole body is involved, using our own body weight, dumbbells, barbells, cables and balls, there are literally thousands of ways we can move our body functionally.

By the way, our body was designed to move freely since the beginning of time, so who ever came up with the idea of restricting our movement?

The Bottom Line:

Get up on your feet and either move an object or yourself, that’s what our ancestors did.

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 Polyphenols Associated With Longevity?

October 22, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Polyphenols The Fountain of Youth?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve probably heard that resveratrol and other polyphenols in red wine can help mice live longer. But what about us? Are dietary polyphenols associated with longevity in humans?

Until recently nobody knew the answer to that question. However, a recent study (Zamora-Ros et al, J. Nutr. 143: 1445-1450, 2013) suggests that polyphenols may just help us live a bit longer.

Of course, the news headlines make it sound like a sure thing, and many of the manufacturers of polyphenol-containing supplements are already citing the study as “proof” that their products will make you live forever.

Polyphenols Are Everywhere:

So, let me give you some background information before I start diving into the study.

The term polyphenols includes some names you may recognize, such as flavonoids, isoflavones, anthrocyanidins and resveratrol, and many more that might look like the kind of names you might expect to find on a processed food label.

Polyphenols don’t just come from red wine. There are several hundred polyphenols in edible foods. Many fruits, vegetables (including beans like soybeans) and whole grains – the kinds of foods that every expert recommends for a healthy diet – are also great sources of polyphenols.

Most polyphenols are excellent antioxidants. Studies suggest that they may also exert antiinflammatory effects and may reduce the risk of heart disease, neurodegenerative disease and cancer. So it is not unreasonable to assume that they might enhance longevity.

An In-Depth Analysis Of The Study:

The study enrolled 807 men and women over the age of 65 (average age = 74, range = 67-81) from the Chianti region of Italy and followed them for 12 years. At the beginning of the study polyphenol intake of the participants was analyzed from a dietary recall form (polyphenol intake based on what they remembered eating) and from a 24 hour urine specimen (actual polyphenol intake).

During the 12 year follow-up, 34% of the participants died. Based on the dietary recall, there was no association between dietary polyphenol intake and mortality. However, based on urinary polyphenol content there was a 30% decrease in mortality for those with the highest dietary polyphenol intake (>650 mg/day) compared to those with the lowest polyphenol intake (<500 mg/day).

Strengths of the Study:

This is the very first study to actually investigate the relationship between dietary polyphenols and longevity in a meaningful way. The study was well designed and well executed.

The measurement of urinary polyphenol content is a strength of this study. Dietary recalls are often inaccurate. In fact, this study suggests that dietary recalls should probably not be used to estimate dietary polyphenol intake in future studies.

Weaknesses of the Study:

This was a first study of its kind, and like any other first study it needs to be confirmed by additional studies.

The study only measured associations, not cause and effect. Of course, it would be almost impossible to conduct a double blind, placebo controlled study of this duration – especially if one is using urinary excretion as a measure of polyphenol intake.

The study did not report the dietary sources of the polyphenols, although this information was presumably available from the dietary recalls. Because the study was conducted in the Chianti region of Italy it is probably pretty safe to assume that red wine contributed to the polyphenol intake. However, people in that region of Italy also tend to consume diets rich in fruits and vegetables. Hopefully, future studies will help determine whether some polyphenols are more important for longevity than others.

The Bottom Line:

1) Eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. They’ll make you healthier, and you just may live longer.

2) If you like red wine, drink it in moderation. Just don’t assume that it can substitute for a healthy diet. This study measured total polyphenols, not just red wine polyphenols.

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 There Really Such A Thing A Positive Stress?

October 17, 2013October 17, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Stress Can Be Your Friend

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

Do you consider yourself an optimist or a pessimist? When the going gets tough, the optimists among you can take heart—new research that has found that viewing stress positively can be of benefit to both the mind and body.

When the brain perceives stress (either physical or psychological), it reacts by releasing cortisol, adrenaline and norepinephrine to prepare the body for a “fight or flight” response. Fortunately for us, this response is not triggered in most people today as frequently as it once was or for the same kinds of reasons.

After all, relatively few of us are in life-threatening situations on a regular basis. Today’s “modern” stresses are more likely to be caused by wrestling with the IRS, trying to escape a traffic jam or competing with a coworker for a promotion.

It is interesting to note that stress, in itself, is not necessarily a negative thing. It is how we perceive it that makes it either good or bad for us. This is a hopeful discovery, as most people have only limited control over how much stress they experience. The everyday stresses of modern life are difficult to escape. But if we can train our minds to view them as a challenge rather than a threat, it could actually help to bring about better health.

Scientists from a handful of universities, including Yale University and Columbia University, examined the effects of stress on 300 investment bankers who had just emerged from a round of layoffs (I know it’s difficult to feel bad for the stress of investment bankers, but stay with me here). In the study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, scientists divided the participants into two groups, and tried to alter the perception of half of them to view stress as debilitating and the other half to view it as an enhancement.

The first half of the participants were shown videos of people succumbing to stress. The other half were shown videos of people meeting challenges, such as sports figures accomplishing a difficult goal. The results showed that those who had a more optimistic view of stress had fewer health problems, including headaches and muscle pain, and performed better at work than the pessimistic group. In addition, levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) were lower in those who viewed stress as potentially enhancing.

There is actually a term for positive stress, called eustress, which was coined by endocrinologist Hans Selye in the 1970s. It has been proven that stress in moderation improves cognitive performance and improves memory.

Good stress involves the kind of challenges where we feel that we are in control and are accomplishing something. It boosts the immune system and can improve heart function. So eliminating all stress from our lives is probably not a good idea.

The stress to watch out for is the chronic, long-term emotional stress, which causes stress hormones to remain at persistently high levels, leading to many chronic ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure and depression.

However, viewing certain stressors as challenges rather than threats can be a positive thing and can help ensure that you have a healthy, satisfying and exciting life.

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

Soy And Breast Cancer Recurrence

October 17, 2013October 15, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve probably heard the warnings: “Soy may increase the risk of breast cancer!” “Women with breast cancer shouldn’t use soy!”

The first warning was never true. Numerous clinical studies have shown that consumption of soy protein is associated with a lower risk of developing breast cancer.

Furthermore, the science behind the second warning has never been very strong. The concerns that soy might stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells was based primarily on cell culture experiments and one experiment in mice – even though a second experiment in mice came to the exact opposite conclusion.

Was The Hypothesis That Soy Could Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer Recurrence Plausible?

The possibility that soy isoflavones could stimulate the growth of estrogen- responsive breast cancer was biochemically plausible because soy isoflavones bind to the estrogen receptor and have a very weak stimulatory effect (much weaker than estrogen itself).

Even that evidence was not definitive because soy isoflavones also turn on several tumor suppressor pathways in breast cells and help strengthen the immune system – so they could just as easily inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells.

However, because the concerns were plausible and had not been definitively disproved, most experts, including me, recommended for several years that women with estrogen- responsive breast cancer might want to avoid soy protein.

Has The Hypothesis Been Rigorously Tested?

In fact, the definitive clinical studies have been performed, and it turns out for women who are breast cancer survivors, consumption of soy foods does not increase either the risk of breast cancer recurrence or of dying from breast cancer.

The first of these studies was reported in the December 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association by researchers at Vanderbilt University and Shanghai Institute of Preventive Medicine (Shu et al, JAMA, 302: 2437-2443, 2009).

It was a large, well designed, study that enrolled 5042 Chinese women aged 20 to 75 years old who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and followed them for an average period of 3.9 years.

The women were divided into four groups based on the soy content of their diet (ranging from 5 grams/day to 15 grams/day). The results were clear cut. Breast cancer survivors with the highest soy intake had 25% less chance of breast cancer recurrence and 25% less chance of dying from breast cancer than the women with the lowest soy intake.

The effect was equally strong for women with estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor negative cancers, for early stage and late stage breast cancer and for pre- and post-menopausal women. In short this was a very robust study.

The study also showed that soy protein intake did not interfere with tamoxifen, a drug that blocks the binding of estrogen to its receptor on cancer cells. Tamoxifen is used for both for treating estrogen-responsive breast cancer and preventing its recurrence. In this study, the reduction in the risk of breast cancer recurrence & death was just as great whether the breast cancer survivors were taking tamoxifen or not.

In fact, tamoxifen was protective only for women with low soy intake. It conferred no extra protection for the women at the highest level of soy intake because the soy isoflavones were also blocking the binding of estrogen to its receptor.

Other Clinical Studies

If that were the only published clinical study to test the soy-breast cancer hypothesis, I and other experts would be very cautious about making definitive statements. However, at least four more clinical studies have been published since then, both in Chinese and American populations. The studies have either shown no significant effect of soy on breast cancer recurrence or a protective effect. None of them have shown any detrimental effects of soy consumption by breast cancer survivors.

A meta-analysis of all 5 studies was published earlier this year (Chi et al, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev., 14: 2407-2412, 2013). This study combined the data from 11,206 breast cancer survivors in the US and China. Those with the highest soy consumption had a 23% decrease in recurrence and a 15% decrease in mortality from breast cancer.

The Bottom Line:

What does this mean for you if you are a breast cancer survivor?

1) There are many reasons to include soy protein foods as part of a healthy diet. Soy foods are one of the highest quality vegetable protein sources and provide a great alternative to many of the high fat, high cholesterol animal proteins in the American diet.

2) I personally feel that these studies are clear cut enough that breast cancer survivors no longer need to fear soy protein as part of a healthy diet.

3) The responsible websites agree with this assessment. For example, WebMD and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) both say that breast cancer survivors need no longer worry about eating moderate amounts of soy foods.

4) The irresponsible websites (I won’t name names, but you know who they are) are still warning breast cancer survivors to avoid soy completely. As a scientist I really have problem with people who are unwilling to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

5) Of course, some of those bloggers have now shifted their arguments to say that it is unfermented or genetically modified soy that causes breast cancer. Those statements are equally bogus – but that’s another story for another time.

6) Finally, I want to emphasize that the published studies merely show that soy does not increase the risk of breast cancer and is safe to use for breast cancer survivors. None of those studies suggest that soy is an effective treatment for breast cancer. The protective effects of soy are modest at best. If you have breast cancer, consult with your physician about the best treatment options for you.

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

How to turn everyday activities into high calorie burning activities

October 10, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Burn Lots Of Calories Without Going To The Gym

Author: Kai Fusser, MS

Any physical activity will burn calories. The question is “How can we maximize the amount of calories burned? How can we burn lots of calories from everyday activities –without ever going to the gym?”

Let’s take some everyday activities like washing your car, mowing the lawn, yard work, going up stairs etc., these all burn a good amount of calories as you are using your whole body.

Now to maximize the amount of calories burned we need to understand a formula:

Power = Work / Time

This means that the less time you take to complete a certain activity the more power output you produce and the more calories you burn. So there is a big difference in power output if you wash your car in 45 min. or do the same job in 25 min. Or if you mow a ¼ acre yard in 60 min. verses in 40 min. (no riding mower please…).

With that in mind you can burn up to twice as many calories performing the same activity just by “speeding it up”.

Another factor is that our body reacts and changes much better to intensity rather than duration. It’s also better for our cardiovascular system as your heart rate has to adapt to the demand of the intensity of the activity.

So let’s get your chores done “faster” (while still maintaining quality and safety) and you not only burn more calories but also have time for other activities and score points with your significant other.

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.