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

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

June 13, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I talked about one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method – namely that investigators constantly challenge, and occasionally disprove, existing paradigms. That allows us to discard old models of how things work and replace them with better ones.

Last week I shared a study that disproved the paradigm that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than total abstinence. This week I share several studies that challenge the belief that HDL cholesterol is good for your heart.

The belief that HDL is good for your heart has all the hallmarks of a classic paradigm.

It is supported by multiple clinical studies.

Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support the paradigm.

It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.

It is the recommendation of most health professionals.

It has been repeated so often by so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

Once we accept the HDL/heart health paradigm as true, we can construct other hypotheses on that foundation. For example:

Raising your HDL levels naturally takes effort. Pharmaceutical companies have been pursuing the “magic pill” that raises HDL levels without any effort on your part.

Low carb diets like the Keto and Paleo diets are high in saturated fat. The low carb enthusiasts claim this is a good thing because saturated fat raises HDL levels, and HDL is good for your heart.

But what if the underlying HDL/heart health paradigm weren’t true? These hypotheses would be like the parable of a house built on a foundation of sand. The paradigm will be washed away as soon as it is critically tested.

So, let’s look at experiments that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Do Drugs That Increase HDL Levels Work?

The first hint that the HDL/heart health paradigm might be faulty happened when a pharmaceutical company developed a drug that selectively increased HDL levels.

The drug company thought they had found the goose that laid golden eggs. Just imagine. People wouldn’t have to lose weight, exercise, or change their diet. They could simply take a pill and dramatically decrease their heart disease risk. A drug like that would be worth $billions.

The problem was that when they tested their drug (torcetrapib) in clinical trials, it had absolutely no effect on heart disease outcomes (AR Tall et al, Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 27:257-260, 2007).

The pharmaceutical company couldn’t believe it. Raising HDL levels just had to reduce heart disease risk. They concluded they didn’t have the right drug, and they continued to work on developing new drugs.

That was 16 years ago, and no HDL-increasing drug has made it to market. Have they just not found the right drug, or does this mean the HDL/heart health paradigm is incorrect?

Does Saturated Fat Decrease Heart Disease Risk?

Now let’s turn to two claims of low carb enthusiasts.

#1: Saturated fats decrease your risk of heart disease in the context of a low carb diet. I have debunked that claim in several previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. But let me refer you to two articles here – one on saturated fat and heart disease risk and one on low-carb diets.

#2: Saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels. This is the one I will address today.

The idea that saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels is based on a simplistic concept of HDL particles. The reality is more complex. Several clinical studies have shown:

The type of fat determines the property of the HDL particles.

- When polyunsaturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have an anti-inflammatory effect. When saturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have a pro-inflammatory effect.

Anti-inflammatory HDL particles relax the endothelial cells lining our blood vessels. That makes the lining of our blood vessels more pliable, which improves blood flow and reduces blood pressure.

- Anti-inflammatory HDL particles also help reduce inflammation of the endothelial lining. This is important because an inflamed endothelial lining is more likely to accumulate fatty plaques and to trigger blood clot formation that can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

So, the question becomes, “What good is it to raise HDL levels if you are producing an unhealthy, pro-inflammatory HDL particle that may increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks, and strokes?”

In short, these studies suggest it isn’t enough to just focus on HDL levels. You need to ask what kind of HDL particles you are creating.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

Once the studies were published showing that…

Drug-induced increase of HDL levels without any change in health habits is not sufficient to decrease heart attack risk, and…

Not all HDL particles are healthy. There are anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory HDL particles, which likely have opposite effects on heart attack risk…

…some people started to question the HDL/heart health paradigm. And one group came up with the perfect study to test the paradigm.

But before I describe the study, I need to review the term “confounding variables”. I described the term and how it affects clinical studies in last week’s article. Here is a brief synopsis:

The studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm are association studies. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (in this case, increase in HDL levels) and an outcome (in this case, heart disease events, heart disease deaths, and total deaths).

Associations need to be corrected for other variables known to affect the same outcome (things like age, gender, smoking, and diabetes would be examples in this case).

Confounding variables are variables that also affect the outcome but are unknown or ignored. Thus, they are not used to correct the associations, which can bias the results.

The authors of this study (M Briel et al, BMJ 2009:338.b92) observed that most interventions that increase HDL levels also lower LDL levels. Lowering LDL is known to decrease the risk of heart disease deaths. But this effect had been ignored in most studies looking at the association between HDL and heart disease deaths.

They hypothesized that the change in LDL levels was a confounding variable that had been ignored in previous studies and may have biased the results.

To test this hypothesis the authors searched the literature and identified 108 studies with 299,310 participants that:

Compared the effect of drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, or diet with either a placebo or usual care.
Measured both HDL and LDL levels.
Measured reduction in cardiovascular risk.
Had a randomized control design.
Lasted at least 6 months.

They found that every 10 mg/dl decrease in LDL levels in these studies was responsible for a:

7.1% reduction in heart disease events (both heart disease deaths and non-fatal heart attacks).

7.2% reduction in heart disease deaths.

4.4% reduction in total deaths.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on these heart disease outcomes, the increase in HDL levels had no statistically significant effect on any of the outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating HDL cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in LDL cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.”

In other words, this study:

Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Does that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective.

Don’t focus on HDL levels. Peek behind the curtain and focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For example:

Losing weight when overweight increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to weight loss than to the increase in HDL levels.

Exercise increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to exercise than to the increase in HDL levels.

Reversing pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the reversal of diabetes than to the increase in HDL levels.

High-dose omega-3 fatty acids increase HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the omega-3 fatty acids than to the increase in HDL levels.

The Mediterranean diet increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the diet than to the increase in HDL levels.

And if you want to go the drug route:

Statins and some other heart drugs increase HDL levels, but the reduction in heart disease outcomes is probably due to their effect on LDL levels rather than their effect on HDL levels.

On the other hand:

Saturated fats increase HDL levels. But saturated fats increase heart disease risk and create pro-inflammatory HDL particles. So, in this case the increase in HDL levels is not a good omen for your heart.

Drugs have been discovered that selectively increase HDL levels. However, there is nothing of value behind this increase in HDL levels, so the drugs have no effect on heart disease outcomes.

The Bottom Line

In this article I discuss several studies that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm – the belief that HDL is good for your heart.

For example, one group of investigators analyzed the studies underlying the HDL/heart health paradigm. They hypothesized that these studies were inaccurate because they failed to account for the effects of LDL levels on heart disease outcomes.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on heart disease outcomes in the previous studies, the authors showed that increases in HDL levels had no significant effect on any heart disease outcome.

In other words, this study:

Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Does that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective. Don’t focus on HDL levels. Focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For more information on that, read the article above.

For more information on this study, and what it means for you, read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Is Low Alcohol Consumption Healthy?

June 6, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Scientific Method In Action

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You have probably heard that low alcohol consumption is healthier than complete abstinence from alcohol. It is certainly a popular viewpoint.

It is also a scientific paradigm. By that I mean:

It is supported by multiple clinical studies.

Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support this paradigm.

It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.

It is the recommendation of most health professionals.

It has been repeated so often from so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

So, you may have been surprised when you saw recent headlines saying, “Having an alcoholic drink or two per day is not healthier than abstaining.”

Today I will review the study (J Zhao et al, JAMA Network Open, 6(3): e236185, 2023) behind the headlines and tell you what it means for you.

But first, I want to explain to you how the scientific method works. That’s because this study is a perfect example of the scientific method in action.

The Scientific Method In Action

I have described the scientific method in detail in my books “Slaying The Food Myths” and “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, which you will find here.

Today, I will just give you a brief synopsis of the scientific method.

Most scientific studies are designed to disprove existing scientific paradigms.

- In the scientific world, there is no glory in being the 10^th person to prove that a scientific paradigm is correct. The glory comes from being the first person to disprove a scientific paradigm and create a new paradigm in the process.

- This constant testing of existing paradigms is one of the most important strengths of the scientific method.

2) There is no perfect study. Every study has its flaws.

- “Confounding variables” are flaws that can be the Achilles Heel of any association study.

Now let me explain the significance of these statements in the context of the current study:

- All the studies supporting the current study were association studies. Association studies measure the association between a selected variable and an outcome. For these studies, the selected variable was alcohol consumption, and the outcome was increased mortality.

- - Association studies try to statistically correct for other variables known to affect the outcome. For example, diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer increase the risk of premature death. These are known variables that would be corrected for in any well-designed study of alcohol consumption and mortality.

- - “Confounding variables” are unknown variables that also affect the outcome of the study. But since they are unknown, they are not corrected for.

Let me give you a simplistic example of a confounding variable. Let’s say you were doing a study of dietary habits and you found an association between ice cream consumption and mortality. You might conclude that ice cream consumption is bad for you. It increases your risk of dying.

But then you might remember that ice cream consumption increases during the summer. And then you might reason that people swim more during the summer, and there is a correlation between swimming and drowning deaths.

Swimming could be a confounding variable. To make sure that your initial conclusion that ice cream increases the risk of dying was correct, you would need to correct your data for swimming deaths during the summer and see if you still found a correlation between ice cream consumption and mortality.

Could The Current Paradigm Be Incorrect?

You might be thinking, “What does this have to do with studies on the correlation between alcohol consumption and increased mortality?” Let me explain.

The baseline group for these comparisons was the abstainers – the group consuming no alcohol. Previous studies have compared the mortality risk associated with various amounts of alcohol consumption with the mortality risk of the abstainer group. This sounds like a reasonable approach.

But the investigators challenging the current paradigm noted that the “abstainer group” in previous studies included both lifetime abstainers and former drinkers who had become abstainers. They hypothesized that the “former drinkers” group may have become abstainers because of health issues related to excess alcohol consumption.

In short, they hypothesized that the “former drinkers” group was a confounding variable that biased the results of the previous studies. They hypothesized that the “lifetime abstainers” group was a more appropriate baseline group for this kind of study. They then set out to prove their hypothesis.

How Was This Study Done?

The investigators searched the literature and found 107 studies with 4.8 million participants published between 1980 and July 21, 2021, that:

Assessed the correlation between alcohol consumption and mortality.

Had data that allowed the investigators to separate lifetime abstainers from former drinkers who had become abstainers.

The investigators divided alcohol consumption into low, moderate, high, and very high categories based on the ounces of alcohol consumed per day. Since ounces of alcohol is not an easy measure for most of us, I have converted ounces/day to drinks/day based on the CDC definition of a drink (a 12-ounce beer, 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of a distilled spirit like gin or vodka). And to make it even simpler, I have rounded to the nearest whole number. With that said, here are the classifications.

Low alcohol intake = 1-2 drinks/day.
Moderate alcohol intake = 2-3 drinks/day.
High alcohol intake = 3-4 drinks/day.
Very high alcohol intake = >4 drinks/day.

The risk of death associated with each of these intake levels was compared the risk of death of their preferred baseline group, the “lifetime abstainers”.

Finally, the data were corrected for other variables known to influence the correlation between alcohol consumption and mortality, namely age, sex, heart health, social status, race, diet, exercise, BMI, and smoking status. [These are known variables and had been adjusted for in most previous studies.]

Is Low Alcohol Consumption Healthy?

When the investigators compared the mortality risk of former drinkers who had become abstainers with lifetime abstainers:

The former drinkers were 31% more likely to die, and this difference was highly significant.

This is consistent with their hypothesis that the “former drinkers” group was a confounding variable that may have biased the conclusions of previous studies.

When they compared the mortality risk of various levels of alcohol consumption with lifetime abstainers instead of all abstainers, they found:

The risk of mortality associated with low (1-2 drinks/day) and moderate (2-3 drinks/day) alcohol intake was statistically identical to the risk of mortality for lifetime abstainers.

The high alcohol intake group (3-4 drinks/day) was 24% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.

The very high alcohol intake group (>4 drinks/day) was 39% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.

In short, when lifetime abstainers were used as the baseline group, low to moderate alcohol intake did not reduce the risk of dying, as previous studies had suggested. This study disproves the existing paradigm.

Finally, there was a significant gender difference in the effect of alcohol consumption on mortality. For women:

Even moderate alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of mortality.

The increased risk of mortality for women was significantly higher than for men with every level of alcohol consumption.

The authors concluded, “In this…meta-analysis, daily low or moderate alcohol intake was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality risk, while increased risk was evident at higher consumption levels, starting at lower levels for women than for men.”

Of course, this isn’t the end of the story. The scientific method will continue. Old paradigms don’t die easily. Other investigators will challenge the conclusions of this study. Stay tuned. I will give you updates as future studies are published.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

If you like to imbibe, there are two important takeaways from this study.

The bad news is that you can no longer claim that a drink or two a day is healthier than total abstinence from alcohol.

The good news is that this and every study preceding it have found that a drink or two a day is no less healthy than total abstinence. The studies found no increase in mortality associated with low to moderate alcohol intake.

[However, low to moderate alcohol intake may increase your risk of specific diseases. For example, many studies suggest that even low alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.]

This study also agrees with previous studies that high alcohol intake increases your risk of death, and women are more susceptible to adverse effects of alcohol intake than men.

So, while this study challenges the existing paradigm that low to moderate alcohol intake is beneficial, it does not change the current recommendations on alcohol intake by most health organizations.

For example, the current CDC guidelines are:

Adults of legal drinking age should limit alcohol intake to 2 drinks or less per day for men and one drink or less per day for women.

Adults who do not drink alcohol should not start. [The current study strengthens this recommendation because it takes away the excuse that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than abstinence.]

Drinking less is better than drinking more.

The CDC guidelines also note that the risk of some cancers increases even at very low levels of alcohol consumption.

Finally, the CDC recommends that some people never consume alcohol, including:

Women who are pregnant or might become pregnant.

Anyone younger than 21.

Anyone with medical conditions or medications that interact with alcohol.

Anyone recovering from an alcohol use disorder or who has trouble controlling the amount they drink.

The Bottom Line

A recent study is a perfect example of the scientific method in action. Scientists are constantly challenging the existing scientific paradigms, and this is an important strength of the scientific method.

A group of scientists recently published a study challenging the paradigm that low to moderate alcohol intake is healthier than total abstinence from alcohol.

They hypothesized that previous studies supporting this paradigm had a common methodological flaw, corrected for the flaw, and reanalyzed the data from 104 studies with a total of 4.8 million participants.

The revised data showed no health benefit of low to moderate alcohol consumption compared to total abstinence.

This is a major change to the existing paradigm because it removes the justification for low to moderate alcohol consumption.

However, the revised data did not differ from previous studies in the following ways:

There is no health risk associated with low to moderate alcohol intake compared to total abstinence.

High alcohol intake (>3 drinks/day) is associated with increased mortality.

Women are more sensitive to the adverse effects of alcohol than men.

So, this study does not change current guidelines for alcohol consumption.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and the CDC guidelines on alcohol consumption read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Which Vitamins Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?

May 30, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Can You Reduce Your Risk Of Breast Cancer?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Breast cancer is scary. The good news is that treatment has gotten much better. Breast cancer is no longer a death sentence. But most women would prefer to avoid breast cancer surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy if they could.

Could something as simple as supplementation reduce your risk of developing breast cancer? If so, which vitamins should you be taking? Or, put another way, which vitamins reduce breast cancer risk?

If you ask your doctor, they will tell you, “Supplementation is a waste of money. Vitamins don’t reduce your risk of getting cancer.” And they will be correct! That’s because these are the wrong questions.

Let me explain. These are “one size fits all” questions. Studies to answer these questions start with healthy women and asks if vitamin supplementation reduces breast cancer risk for all of them. The answer to that question is, “No”. Multiple studies have confirmed this.

But the truth is more complicated. We should be asking, “Who benefits from vitamin supplementation”, instead of, “Does everyone benefit from supplementation?”

I have summed up this concept with the Venn diagram on the right. Every woman does not need supplementation. But those with poor diet, increased need, genetic predisposition, and/or certain diseases may benefit from supplementation. That is why we should be asking, “Who needs supplementation?”.

Unfortunately, while this concept of individualized treatment has led to dramatic advances for cancer drug development, it has been virtually ignored for studies on supplementation and breast cancer risk.

The current study (H Song et al., Nutrients, 14: 2644, 2022) is an exception. It asks whether obese women who wish to reduce their risk of breast may benefit more from certain micronutrients than women of normal weight.

How Was This Study Done?

The data for this analysis came from the KoGES study. This was a study administered by the Korea Agency for Disease Control and Prevention between 2004 and 2016. It was designed to provide a scientific basis for personalized prevention of chronic diseases in the Korean population.

Of the 211,721 participants enrolled in the original KoGES study, this study included data from 41,593 women who:

Underwent a health examination at 38 health examination centers upon enrollment between 2004 and 2013 and a follow up health examination between 2012 and 2016. The average follow-up period was 4.9 years.

Were cancer-free when they enrolled in the study and developed breast cancer prior to their follow-up health examination.

Had reliable diet data.

Dietary intake was based on a food frequency questionnaire administered during their initial health screening. Dietary intake of 15 micronutrients (calcium, phosphorous, iron, potassium, vitamin A, sodium, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, niacin, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, and cholesterol) and 4 macronutrients (energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate) was determined from the food frequency data and compared to the Korean Dietary Reference Intakes (KDRIs). [Note: The Korean DRIs are slightly different than US standards.]

The women were then divided into two groups based on whether they consumed more or less than the Korean DRIs for each nutrient.

Which Vitamins Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?

There were two major findings from this study.

1) When the investigators grouped all the women in the study together:

- none of the 15 micronutrients and 4 macronutrients analyzed in this study influenced breast cancer risk.

- This confirms most previous studies that have been designed as a “one size fits all” study. So, if your doctor was relying on this kind of study, they were technically correct in saying that vitamin supplements don’t appear to reduce breast cancer risk.

2) But when the investigators separated the women by weight, an interesting dichotomy was observed:

- For obese women (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²):

- - Vitamin C intake above the recommended Korean DRI (100 mg/day) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 46%.

- - Vitamin B6 intake above the recommended Korean DRI (1.4 mg/day) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 52%.

- For women of normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m²) neither vitamin C nor vitamin B6 had any effect on breast cancer risk.

The authors concluded, “In obese women, exceeding the recommended daily intake levels of vitamin C and vitamin B6 was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer. However, other micronutrients were not associated with breast cancer risk in these women.” [Note: Supplement use was not included in the diet survey, so above recommended intake of C and B6 was from foods consumed, not from supplements.]

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study is a perfect example of why we should be asking, “Who benefits from vitamin supplementation”, instead of, “Does everyone benefit from supplementation?”

In terms of the Venn diagram I introduced above, some people consider obesity a disease.

But whether you consider obesity a disease or not, it does increase the need for many nutrients. So, it is conceivable that extra vitamins C and B6 might provide benefits in obese women that are not seen in non-obese women.

This is, of course, a ground-breaking study. It is the first study of its kind and deserves to be followed by other studies to confirm this observation. Ideally, these studies would test whether the same effect is seen in other population groups and determine the optimal dose of vitamin C and B6 to reduce breast cancer risk.

However, I am not optimistic that these studies will be done. It is easy to get funding for the “do vitamin supplements benefit everyone?” studies that confirm the existing prejudice against vitamin supplementation.

It is much harder to obtain funding for “who benefits from vitamin supplementation?” studies that challenge the existing paradigm. But these are the kind of studies that are needed most.

How Can You Reduce Your Risk Of Breast Cancer?

As I said, this is the first study of its kind, so you could consider the results as preliminary. However, assuming it might be true:

I do not recommend megadoses of vitamins C and B6. The above average intake of C and B6 in this study came from food alone. And we do not have any dose response studies that might define an optimal dose of C and B6.

I do recommend balance. Based on this study, multivitamins should provide enough C and B6 to have a meaningful effect on breast cancer risk. And multivitamins are inexpensive and risk-free.

In addition, there are things you can do that are proven to reduce breast cancer risk. Here is what the American Cancer Society recommends:

Get to and stay at a healthy weight.

Be physically active and avoid time sitting.

Follow a healthy eating plan.

It is best not to drink alcohol.

Think carefully about using hormone replacement therapy.

I provide more detail about each of these recommendations in a recent article in “Health Tips From the Professor”.

The Bottom Line

Most doctors will tell you that supplementation does not reduce your risk of breast cancer. And that opinion is backed up by multiple published clinical studies.

But the problem is that these studies are all asking the wrong question. They are asking, “Does supplementation reduce the risk of breast cancer for all women?”. A better question would be, “Which women benefit from supplementation?”

A recent study asked both of those questions. They looked at the effect of 15 micronutrients on breast cancer risk.

When the investigators grouped all the women in the study together:

- None of the 15 micronutrients influenced breast cancer risk.

2) But when the investigators separated the women by weight, an interesting dichotomy was observed:

- For obese women (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²):

- - Vitamin C intake above the recommended intake reduced the risk of breast cancer by 46%.

- - Vitamin B6 intake above the recommended intake reduced the risk of breast cancer by 52%.

- For women of normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m²) neither vitamin C nor vitamin B6 had any effect on breast cancer risk.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and proven methods for reducing breast cancer risk read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

Does The Mediterranean Diet Improve Pregnancy Outcomes?

May 23, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is The Mediterranean Diet Overrated?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You may have noticed that certain celebrities are singled out for fame and acclaim, while others of equal talent and accomplishment are virtually ignored.

The same thing occurs in the scientific realm. At present, the Mediterranean diet is the darling of the diet world. Study after study is designed to test the benefits of the Mediterranean diet while other excellent diets are ignored. I will discuss this phenomenon and ask whether the Mediterranean diet is overrated at the end of this article. But let’s start at the beginning.

Multiple studies have shown that the Mediterranean diet is associated with lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Some studies suggest it is associated with lower risk of kidney disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

Studies also suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with an increase in lifespan (how long you live) and healthspan (how long you enjoy good health). In other words, these studies suggest that following a Mediterranean diet adds years to your life and life to your years.

Most of these studies have been done with men. However, there are enough studies with women to be confident that the beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet on disease risk and lifespan apply to women as well as to men.

But what about pregnancy? Does the Mediterranean diet support a healthy pregnancy? Here the data are less clear. Three studies have been published showing that pregnant women who follow the Mediterranean diet are less likely to experience gestational diabetes (diabetes during pregnancy).

But what about other adverse pregnancy outcomes that can affect the health of both the mother and her baby such as:

Gestational hypertension (high blood pressure during pregnancy).
Preeclampsia (high blood pressure and protein in the urine that occurs late in pregnancy. It may be associated with liver and/or kidney damage).
Eclampsia (a severe form of preeclampsia where the mother also has seizures).
Preterm birth (birth prior to 37 weeks).
Low birth weight infant.

This study (N Makarem et al, JAMA Network Open. 5(12): e2248165, 2022) was designed to look at the effect of the Mediterranean diet on all seven of these adverse pregnancy outcomes.

How Was This Study Done?

The data for this analysis came from a large clinical trial called the Nulliparous Pregnancy (first time pregnancy) Outcomes Study. The study enrolled 7798 women in their first trimester of pregnancy from 8 medical centers across the country. The women were racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse.

Diet around the time of conception was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire administered at the mother’s first visit to the clinic (usually around 6-13 weeks after conception). The participants were asked to indicate their usual intake of 120 foods and beverages during the past 3 months. In other words, the participants were asked to indicate their diet prior to conception through early pregnancy.

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet was assessed using something called the aMed or Alternative Mediterranean Diet Score (a version of the Mediterranean diet that considers US food preferences). Each participant was assigned one point for:

Above average intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish, and the ratio of monounsaturated fat to saturated fat.

Below average intake of red meat and processed meats.

Alcohol intake was a bit more complicated:

Participants were given 1 point for one 12-ounce can of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of liquor and 0 points for consumption above or below that amount.

The points for all these dietary components were added up to give an aMed score of 0-9, with 9 representing the best adherence to the Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.

Does The Mediterranean Diet Improve Pregnancy Outcomes?

The authors started out by dividing the pregnant moms into thirds according to adherence to an Americanized Mediterranean diet based their aMed score. When they compared those in the top third (aMed scores of 6-9) with those in the lowest third (aMed scores of 0-3) the risk of developing:

Any adverse pregnancy outcome was reduced by 21%.

Preeclampsia or eclampsia were reduced by 28%.

Gestational diabetes was reduced by 37%.

Other adverse pregnancy outcomes were not statistically different.

Next, they asked whether stricter adherence to the Mediterranean diet would be even more beneficial. To do this they divided the pregnant moms into fifths. When they compared those in the top fifth (aMed scores of 7-9) with those in the lowest fifth (aMed scores of 0-2) the risk of developing:

Any adverse pregnancy outcome was still reduced by 20%, but…

- Preeclampsia and eclampsia were reduced by 35%.

- Gestational diabetes was reduced by 54%.

- Other adverse pregnancy outcomes were not statistically different.

When they broke the results down into participant subgroups:

The effect of the Mediterranean diet on any adverse pregnancy outcomes was not affected by prepregnancy BMI (a measure of obesity), race, or ethnicity.

However, it was significantly affected by age. Any adverse pregnancy outcome was reduced by:

- 48% in women over 35.

- 15% in women younger than 35.

The authors concluded, “We demonstrate that a Mediterranean diet pattern is associated with lower risk of developing any APO [adverse pregnancy outcome] and multiple individual APOs in US women…Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that the Mediterranean diet pattern may play an important role in preserving the health of women across the lifespan, including during pregnancy.”

Is The Mediterranean Diet Overrated?

At the beginning of this article, I posed the question, “Is the Mediterranean diet overrated?” When the authors broke the results down by food group, it suggested the answer may be, “Yes”.

The reduction in any adverse pregnancy outcome was associated with:

Above average consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, and fish.

The reduction in preeclampsia and eclampsia was associated with:

Above average consumption of vegetables, fruits, and fish.

The reduction in gestational diabetes was associated with:

Above average consumption of vegetables, and…

Below average consumption of red meat and processed meats.

If you are saying to yourself, “Wait a minute. Doesn’t this pattern of food consumption describe almost any whole food, primarily plant-based diet”, you would be correct. In theory, this pattern of food consumption is also consistent with the DASH diet, Mind diet, Scandinavian diet, flexitarian diet, pesco-vegetarian diet, and semi vegetarian diet, just to name a few.

In my opinion there is nothing about this study that restricts beneficial pregnancy outcomes to the Mediterranean diet. However, I do have a few caveats about that statement.

A good prenatal supplement is a good idea to make sure you are getting the vitamins and minerals required for a successful pregnancy. However, as I have described in a previous article finding a good prenatal supplement may not be as easy as it should be.

Choline is important for a healthy pregnancy, and it is missing in many prenatal supplements. While choline is found in many plant foods, the best sources of choline are fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy. You want to be sure to include some of these in your diet and/or look for a prenatal supplement containing at least 200 mg of choline.

The long chain omega-3s DHA and EPA are important for a healthy pregnancy and are also missing or present in inadequate amounts in many prenatal supplements.

The best dietary sources of DHA and EPA are cold water fish like salmon, tuna, sardines, and herring. That means:

- If you are following the DASH diet or something similar, you will want to substitute fish for red meat.

- A pesco-vegetarian diet is probably a better choice for you than a semi-vegetarian because it focuses on fish as the main protein source in place of poultry and red meat.

- If you are not a big fish lover, you should consider an omega-3 supplement supplying at least 250 mg of long chain omega-3s with most of it as DHA.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Let me close by putting a few things into perspective.

1) When I said that the Mediterranean diet may be overrated, I did not mean it wasn’t an excellent diet. I simply mean it is probably not any better than other whole food, primarily plant-based diets (with the caveats I listed above).

2) The pregnancy benefits of the Mediterranean diet (and other healthy diets) are related to the overall health of the mother. A good prenatal supplement is still important to assure adequate amounts of all the nutrients essential for a healthy pregnancy.

For example, the authors pointed out that most women do not change their dietary habits when they become pregnant, and that their pregnancy is more likely to be successful if they are in good health at the time of conception.

3) Most diets of women of childbearing age do not provide adequate amounts of choline and omega-3s, so it is important to choose a prenatal supplement program that provides adequate amounts of choline and omega-3s.

4) Adequate calories and protein are also important for a healthy pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not the time to lose weight, even if you are overweight.

A vegan diet may not provide enough protein unless it has been designed by a dietitian.

You should discuss your current diet with your health care provider, and they may refer you to a dietitian if necessary.

The Bottom Line

The Mediterranean Diet is currently the darling of the nutrition world. Yes, numerous studies have shown that people consuming the Mediterranean diet are healthier and live longer. But we find ourselves in a situation where study after study is being designed to look for other benefits of the Mediterranean diet while equally healthy diets are being ignored.

The study discussed in this article is a perfect example. It was designed to determine whether adherence to the Mediterranean diet prior to and during pregnancy reduced the risk of experiencing adverse outcomes during pregnancy – outcomes that could affect the health of the mother and her baby.

The answer to that question was, “Yes”. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of:

Any adverse outcome during pregnancy by 20%.

Preeclampsia and eclampsia by 35%.

Gestational diabetes by 54%.

And the risk reduction was even greater for women over 35.

However, when the investigators looked at the foods responsible for the reduction in adverse pregnancy outcomes, it appears likely that any whole food, primarily plant-based diet would provide the same results.

In short, this study showed that adherence to the Mediterranean diet improves pregnancy outcomes. The authors chose to focus on the Mediterranean diet because of its popularity. But their data show it is likely that other whole food, primarily plant-based diets would be equally beneficial.

For more information on this study and what it means for you, read the article above.

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

___________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

The Iliopsoas And Lower Back Pain

May 16, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Relief From Lower Back Pain

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

May was the start of the beautiful weather when I lived up in New York. April showers began to bring May flowers. Of course, here in Florida we have flowers all year, so it’s our friends to the north that are enjoying a glorious array of colors during this month. For us May is the beginning of the hot weather.

The Snowbirds are leaving Florida and heading back up north. Safe journey. I’ll miss you! It’s funny having friends that are gone 6 months of the year.

But it also means that life is beginning to slow down for us. With most of the snowbirds gone, driving is easier, the stores are less crowded, and we can park at the beach. The weather is still beautiful so we can still go outside to ride a bike, jog, or play the sports we enjoy. This leads me to talk about preventing lower back pain as we become more active.

The Anatomy of The Psoas And Iliacus Muscles

In this month’s newsletter we will be discussing the psoas and iliacus muscles and how they can contribute to lower back pain. Anyone who has come to my office with lower back pain, hip/groin/knee pain, or sciatica is familiar with these two muscles being the root cause of all these conditions.

There is more to the story of each of these conditions, and I have covered them thoroughly in previous newsletters, and in each of my books. Today I want to really explain the “why” of how a muscle in the front of your body plays such havoc with the back of your body.

The psoas muscles (shown in brown in the figure on the left) originate on the FRONT side of the lumbar vertebrae and the iliacus muscles (shown in purple in the figure on the left) originate on the inside curve of your pelvis. They join very close to your pubic bone and become one muscle group called the iliopsoas muscle group, and they play a critical role in hip and core stability.

The iliopsoas muscle group runs together to where it attaches on the top/inside of your thigh bone.

The Role Of The Psoas And Iliacus Muscles

The psoas muscles pull you forward so you can bend over, and the iliacus muscles lift your legs up to take a step. Together they are responsible for flexing your hip joint, which is important for movements such as walking, running, climbing stairs, and sitting down.

Additionally, these muscles play a vital role in maintaining good posture and providing stability to the pelvis and lower back. In fact, the only time they are not contracted is when you are standing straight and still.

When these muscles are tight or weakened, they can cause significant problems, including:

*Low back pain.

*Groin pain.

*Hip pain.

*Knee pain.

*Sciatica.

How The Psoas And Iliacus Muscles Cause Lower Back Pain

When the psoas muscle becomes tight from repetitive, or overactive, use it can pull on the lumbar spine. An analogy I use frequently is just as pulling your hair hard can hurt your skull, the psoas muscle pulling hard on the front of your lumbar spine will cause the bones to hurt.

The pressure causes excessive curvature of the lower back. This excessive curvature can cause compression of the lumbar discs and joints, leading to pain and discomfort.

Since your iliacus muscle originates on the inside curve of your pelvis (hip), when it is tight it is common for a person to have hip pain that feels like it’s deep inside the hip. And it IS deep inside the hip, so much so that you can’t get your fingers in more than ¼ of an inch to press on the muscle. Fortunately, when you come into the office I can get far into the muscle and release the deep spasms that are causing the problems.

Additionally, since they merge and insert into your thigh bone, tight psoas and iliacus muscles can cause imbalances in the pelvis, leading to asymmetrical movement patterns that can contribute to lower back pain and a lot more!

Conversely, weak psoas and iliacus muscles can also cause lower back pain. When these muscles are weak, they are unable to provide adequate stability to the pelvis and lumbar spine, leading to excessive movement and strain on the lower back muscles. This strain can lead to muscle imbalances and compensations, which can ultimately cause lower back pain.

How The Psoas And Iliacus Muscles Can Cause Arthritis Symptoms

Think of this situation: the muscles are tight and pulling hard on the bones. You are trying to move in the opposite direction, but the muscles are preventing you from moving in that direction. The more you try, the more the bones hurt.

In fact, as the tight muscles pull on the bones, they can actually start to tear the muscles &/or tendons away from the bone. The body sees this as a “MAYDAY,” an emergency distress signal. The pressure on the bones causes inflammation to occur. You are also in danger of the muscle severing either from the tendon, or from the bone. So, the body sends out the rescue squad of bone cells to hang on to the tendon.

Now you have:

pain when you try to move.
inflammation (“itis”) at the site of the insertion.
and the joint is stiff, possibly even pulled out of normal alignment.
…you have all the signs of arthritis or bursitis.

You may be given strong drugs that can have serious side-effects, when all that’s wrong is the muscles are tight and preventing the bones/joints from moving smoothly.

Relief From Lower Back Pain Caused By Your Psoas And Iliacus Muscles

Don’t start by stretching! It can cause the problem to get worse!

Everyone thinks about stretching, but when a muscle is tied up in knots, you definitely don’t want to try to stretch it. You can make it much worse, or you may even tear the fibers.

You may have already heard the analogy I use to explain why stretching can hurt your muscles.

If you took a 12” length of rope and tied enough knots in it to make it 10”, and then you stretched it back to 12” again, what did you do? You made the knots tighter, and you overstretched the fibers that are not in the knot. And in the body, both ends of this rope (muscle) are attached to a bone &/or a joint!

First you need to untie the knots — then you can stretch safely.

You can go on YouTube University and find lots of ways to stretch, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything that tells you how to untie the knots.

So, I’ll tell you.

How to Find the Knots in the Iliopsoas Muscle Group and Untie Them Safely

As I said before, you can’t really get into either the iliacus or psoas muscles that are deep in your trunk, but you can reach them where they insert into the inside of your thigh bone.

Sit as shown in this picture.

Turn your hand as shown but come all the way up to the top of your leg, right where your leg attaches to your trunk, just to the outside of your pubic bone.

You may even find it easier to press into the muscles with your fingertips, keeping your hand turned as shown in this picture.

When you find a “hot spot” you are pressing onto the spasm on the iliopsoas muscle group.

What To Do Next To Stop Back Pain Fast

I’ve discovered a LOT of ways to eliminate pain, and I’ve been doing it for my clients for almost 35 years. However, it was frustrating that I could only reach clients who lived near my office.

When I started getting my own injuries, and then I needed to create self-treatments when I couldn’t get help from any of the professionals I went to during that time. I finally worked it out, and that’s the basis for each of my books and video programs.

In the case of low back pain, hip/groin/knee pain, and sciatica, I suggest getting my book: The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution

You CAN find, and successfully self-treat the muscle spasms (knots) that cause pain!

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

PS: Have you watched my TED talk: The Pain Question No One is Asking? If not, go to YouTube and enter: Julie Donnelly, Pain and I’ll pop up. I think it’s really interesting. If you also think it’s interesting, please share it so I’ll get invited back to go further into why muscles cause 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.

About The Author

Julie Donnelly has been a licensed massage therapist since 1989, specializing in the treatment of chronic pain and sports injuries. She is the author of several books including Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, The Pain-Free Athlete, and The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution. She is also often chosen to speak at national conventions, medical schools, and health facilities nationwide.

Julie has also developed a proven self-treatment program for the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again

May 9, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is It Three Strikes And You Are Out?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are pregnant, you want the best for your unborn baby. Your doctor has recommended a prenatal supplement, but do the prenatal supplements on the market meet your needs? A few months ago, I shared two studies that concluded that most prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

In fact, the authors said, “[Our] analysis found that prenatal supplements vary widely in content, often only contain a subset of essential vitamins, and the levels were often below…recommendations.”

In other words, their study found that most prenatal vitamins on the market may not be adequate to support your needs and the needs of your child through pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Now, a third study on the topic has been published (KA Saunders et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 117: 823-829, 2023. It differs from the previous studies in that:

1) The previous two studies took a comprehensive approach, while this study focused on 6 key nutrients.

The previous studies included all nutrients important for a healthy pregnancy including choline, iodine, and vitamin K, which have only recently been shown to be important for a healthy pregnancy.

This study focused on 6 nutrients, vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids, which have long been recognized as essential for a healthy pregnancy.

2) The previous two studies focused on prenatal supplements, while this study focused on all supplements that might be taken by pregnant women.

3) The previous two studies asked whether supplements provided recommended amounts of all nutrients needed for a healthy pregnancy. This study took a “Goldilocks approach” and asked whether levels of these 6 essential nutrients were appropriate (“just right”). The study:

Started by determining the intake of these 6 key nutrients by American women. The authors of the study then added the amount of each nutrient provided by the supplements in their study to the amount of that nutrient in the diet of American women and:

- Calculated the minimum amount of each nutrient that would be needed to assure that 90% of American women taking a particular supplement would meet the recommended intake for pregnant and lactating women.

- Calculated the maximum amount of each nutrient provided by supplements in their study to assure that that 90% of American women taking that supplement would not get potentially toxic amounts of that nutrient.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high. They called this the “appropriate dose range” for each nutrient. Goldilocks would have called it “just right”.

I’m sure you are anxiously waiting to learn what their study found. But before we go there, I will describe how the study was done.

How Was The Study Done?

For the dietary intake portion of the study, the authors used dietary intake data previously collected from the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) study.

The ECHO study is a consortium of 69 medical centers across multiple states. It is an observational study of mothers and their offspring designed to understand the effects of early life exposures on child health and development.

The current study analyzed dietary intake data for 2450 participants from 6 medical centers across 5 states in the ECHO study. The women in this study were diverse with respect to ethnicity, education, and weight.

All pregnant women in the current study completed at least one 24-hour dietary recall between 6-week gestation until delivery (24% completed one dietary recall. 76% completed two or more dietary recalls). Dietary intake was generally assessed with an expert interviewer and included all foods and beverages consumed in the previous 24 hours.

For the supplement portion of the study, the authors used the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database because it is the most complete listing of supplements in the US. The authors selected 20,547 supplements that contained at least one of the 6 essential nutrients from this database.

To determine which of the 20,547 supplements contained appropriate levels of the 6 nutrients (vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids) selected for this study, the authors used the process described in the introduction above. Briefly:

The authors added the amount of each nutrient provided by the supplements in their study to the amount of that nutrient in the diet of American women and:

Calculated the minimum amount of each nutrient that would be needed to assure that 90% of American women taking a particular supplement would meet the recommended intake for pregnant and lactating women.

Calculated the maximum amount of each nutrient provided by supplements in their study to assure that that 90% of American women taking that supplement would not get potentially toxic amounts of that nutrient.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high. They called this the “appropriate dose range” for each nutrient.

Why Are The 6 Nutrients Included In This Study Important?

Dietary Intake Is Often Inadequate

The diet analysis of pregnant American women in this study found:

42% were at risk of inadequate vitamin A intake.

96% were at risk of inadequate vitamin D intake.

45% were at risk of inadequate folic acid intake.

55% were at risk of inadequate calcium intake.

93% were at risk of inadequate iron intake.

67% were at risk of inadequate omega-3 intake.

The percentage of women at risk for inadequate intake of these nutrients varied with age, ethnicity, and income levels. But the overall message is clear. Most American women are not getting enough of these essential nutrients from their diet alone.

The Risk of Inadequate and Excessive Intake Of These Nutrients

These 6 nutrients were chosen in part because reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration have concluded that inadequate intake of these nutrients are associated with complications during pregnancy and delivery. They can also adversely affect the health and normal development of the baby.

This is important because the Cochrane Collaboration is considered the Gold Standard of clinical studies. You can find a more detailed description of Cochrane Collaboration studies and why they are the Gold standard here.

[Note: The Cochrane Collaboration has not yet evaluated choline, iodine, and vitamin K for pregnant women, but their inclusion in prenatal supplements is supported by multiple clinical studies.]

In addition, excess intake of all these nutrients except omega-3s can harm both the fetus and the mother. The is why the Food and Nutrition Board has set ULs (Upper Limits – the level above which toxicity can occur) for 5 of the 6 nutrients. This is important because previous studies have suggested that up to 25% of women may be getting toxic levels of one or more of these nutrients when you consider both their dietary intake and their prenatal supplement.

Summary

In other words, both too little and too much of these nutrients can harm the mom and her baby. It is critical that prenatal supplements get the dosing right.

It is for that reason that the authors of this study have set an “appropriate dose range” (high enough that 90% of women have enough of each nutrient to prevent deficiency and low enough that 90% of women do not exceed the UL for each nutrient) as the standard for evaluating the adequacy and safety of supplements for pregnant women.

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again

Of the 20,547 supplements (421 labeled as prenatal supplements) available on the US market as of December 31, 2022, the investigators reported that:

Only 69 (0.3%) supplements contained all 6 nutrients considered essential for a healthy pregnancy.

Only 1 supplement contained all 6 nutrients at the appropriate doses, and it wasn’t even labeled as a prenatal supplement.

In addition:

One supplement containing all 6 nutrients put 100% of the women in their study at risk for excessive intake of folic acid.

Another supplement containing all 6 nutrients put 46% of the women in their study at risk of inadequate calcium intake.

The authors concluded, “Almost no US dietary supplements provide key nutrients in the doses needed for pregnant women. Affordable and convenient products that fill the gap between food-based intake and estimated requirements of pregnancy without inducing excess intake are needed to support pregnant women and their offspring.”

In short, the conclusion of this study can be summed up as, “Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again”.

[Note: It sometime takes a while for supplement labels to be posted in the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database. The authors acknowledged that this study may not include supplements introduced or reformulated in the last quarter of 2022.]

Is It Three Strikes And You Are Out?

If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, this should be a wake-up call.

70% of pregnant women in this country take prenatal supplements, usually based on recommendations by their health care provider. They assume the prenatal supplements meet their needs and the needs of their unborn baby.

Yet three studies evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements have been published in the past few months. They took very different approaches in evaluating the supplements. But all three studies concluded that the vast majority of prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

You may be wondering, “Is it three strikes, and you are out?” Are there no decent prenatal supplements on the market? The answer to those questions is, “No. There are good prenatal supplements on the market.”

You may be wondering how I can say that in the face of such overwhelming negative data. That’s because while all 3 studies were very good studies, they each had “blind spots”:

1) Each of the studies used very stringent criteria for identifying adequate prenatal supplements. In some cases, their criteria were stricter than the RDA recommendations and the recommendations of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for pregnant and lactating women. It could be argued that their criteria were too stringent.

2) In the case of the current study, it could also be argued that evaluating only 6 nutrients is not a good criterion for evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements. For example, I looked up the one supplement rated as adequate in this study. It does provide appropriate doses of the 6 nutrients this study focused on. It also provides appropriate doses of vitamin K and iodine. But it does not provide choline. It is a very good supplement for women, but it is not the perfect prenatal supplement.

So, what can you do? How can you find the best prenatal supplement for you? Unfortunately, you cannot rely on advice from your friends or your health professional. You cannot rely on advertisements. That is a good place to start, but you have to do your own sleuthing.

With that in mind, I have listed 7 simple rules for selecting the best possible prenatal supplement in my article about the first two studies. Use these rules for evaluating every prenatal supplement you come across. Happy sleuthing.

The Bottom Line

A recent study evaluated all 20,547 supplements on the US market to see if they met the needs of pregnant women in this country.

They focused on 6 nutrients (vitamin A, vitamin D, folic acid, calcium, iron, and omega-3s) known to be essential for a healthy pregnancy.

They determined the dietary intake for all 6 nutrients in a cross section of pregnant women in the US.

They added the amount of the 6 nutrients in each of the 20,547 supplements to the dietary intake of those nutrients by pregnant women.

They then asked which supplements provided the “appropriate dose” of all 6 nutrients. They defined “appropriate dose” as the dose range that was.

- High enough to prevent deficiency of that nutrient in 90% of pregnant women taking the supplement…and…

- Low enough to prevent toxicity from that nutrient in 90% of pregnant women taking the supplement.

In other words, for each of the 6 nutrients they calculated a supplemental dose range that was neither too low nor too high.

Of the 20,547 supplements (421 labeled as prenatal supplements) available on the US market:

Only 69 (0.3%) supplements contained all 6 nutrients they considered essential for a healthy pregnancy.

Only 1 supplement contained all 6 nutrients at the appropriate doses, and it wasn’t even labeled as a prenatal supplement.

If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, this should be a wake-up call.

Yet three studies evaluating the adequacy of prenatal supplements have been published in the past few months. And all three studies concluded that the vast majority of prenatal supplements on the market are woefully inadequate.

You may be wondering how I can say that in the face of such overwhelming negative data. That’s because while all 3 studies were very good studies, they each had “blind spots”:

For more details on this study and 7 tips on finding the best prenatal supplement for you, read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

What Role Should DNA Testing Play In Nutritional Recommendations?

May 2, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Promise And Problems Of Nutrigenomics

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When the human genome was sequenced in 2003, many of us in the scientific community thought we were on the verge of a revolution in human health and longevity. We would soon be able to tell individuals their risk of developing various diseases.

Even better, we would be able to tell them the kind of diet and supplementation they needed to avoid those diseases. We would be able to personalize our nutritional recommendation for every individual based on their genome – something called nutrigenomics.

How naive we were! It has turned out to be much more complicated to design personalized nutrition recommendations based on someone’s genome than we ever imagined.

What Is Nutrigenomics?

As a Professor at the University of North Carolina I specialized in cancer drug development for over 30 years. Over the last decade of my career a ﬁeld called pharmacogenomics became widely accepted in the ﬁeld of cancer drug development. In simple terms, pharmacogenomics looks at how an individual’s genes influence the effectiveness and side effects of drugs.

Because of pharmacogenomics, drugs today are being approved to target cancers for people whose cancer cells have a particular genetic makeup. These drugs would not have been approved a decades ago because if you test them on cancer in the general population, they have little or no eﬀectiveness. They only work on a subset of people who have a form of cancer with a specific genetic makeup.

In principle, nutrigenomics is the same principle. You’ve heard for years that we all have unique nutritional needs. Now we are starting to learn why. It’s because we all have unique variations in our genetic makeup. These genetic mutations increase our risk of certain diseases, and they increase our needs for certain nutrients.

For example, mutations in the MTHFR gene increase the risk of certain birth defects, and supplementation with folic acid is particularly important for reducing birth defects in that population group.

Similarly, mutations in the vitamin D receptor, the VDR gene, interfere with vitamin D absorption from foods and are associated with a condition known as “vitamin D-resistant rickets”. Babies born with this genetic defect require mega doses of vitamin D for normal bone formation.

These are the best-established examples of gene mutations that affect nutritional needs. Many more gene-nutrient interactions have been proposed, but they have not been validated by follow-up experiments.

The situation is similar when we look at gene mutations associated with metabolic responses such as fat and carbohydrate metabolism, obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. There are a few gene mutations that have strong associations with obesity and diabetes. Many more gene-metabolism interactions have been proposed, but the data are weak and inconsistent.

The Promise And Problems Of Nutrigenomics

The Promise Of Nutrigenomics.

Now that you understand what nutrigenomics is and have some background information about it, let’s look at the promise of nutrigenomics. One promise of nutrigenomics is personalized supplement programs.

We all have different nutritional needs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized supplement program that precisely fits your genetically determined nutritional requirements?

There are companies that offer such personalized supplement programs. Are they providing you with something of value or is their testing bogus? Are their supplements worthless?

Another promise of nutrigenomics is personalized diet advice. Some people seem to do better on low-fat diets. Other people do better on low-carb diets. Saturated fats and red meats may be more problematic for some individuals than for others. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized diet program – one that allows you to lose weight easily and gain vibrant health.

There are companies that will analyze your genome and tell you whether you are more likely to lose weight and be healthier on a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet. Is their testing accurate or is it bogus? Are they providing you with useful information, or is their diet advice worthless?

The Problem With Nutrigenomics

The short answer to the questions I posed in the previous section is that personalized supplement and diet programs are on the horizon, but we are not there yet. Companies promising you personalized nutrition programs based only on DNA tests are misleading you. They quote a few studies supporting the tests they run and ignore the many studies showing their tests are worthless.

In case you think that is just my opinion, let me quote from some recent reviews on the current status of nutrigenomics.

For example, a review (C Murgia and MM Adamski, Nutrients, 366, 2017) published in 2017 concluded: “The potential applications to nutrition of this invaluable tool were apparent since the genome was mapped. The first articles discussing nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics were published less than a year after the first draft of the human DNA sequence was made available…However, fifteen years and hundreds of publications later, the gap between the experimental and epidemiologic evidence and health practice is not yet closed.”

“The [complexity] of the genotype information is not the only factor that complicates this translation into practice. The discovery of other levels of control, including epigenetics [modifications of DNA that affect gene expression] and the intestinal microbiome, are other complicating factors. While the science of nutritional genomics continues to demonstrate potential individual responses to nutrition, the complex nature of gene, nutrition and health interactions continues to provide a challenge for healthcare professionals to analyze, interpret and apply to patient recommendations.”

Another review (M Gaussch-Ferre et al, Advances in Nutrition, 9: 128-135, 2018) published in 2018 concluded: “Overall, the scientific evidence supporting the dissemination of genomic information for nutrigenomic purposes remains sparse. Therefore, additional knowledge needs to be generated…”

In short, the experts are saying we still don’t know enough to predict the best diets, or the best supplements based on genetic information alone. Why is that? Why is it so complicated? In part, it can be explained by a term called penetrance. Penetrance simply means that the same gene mutation can have different effects in different people. In some people, its effects may be barely noticeable. In other people its effects may be debilitating.

The Truth About DNA Testing And Personalized Nutrition

Penetrance is just a word. It’s a concept. The important question is, “What causes differences in genetic penetrance?” Here are the most likely explanations.

1) Human genetics is very complex. There are some gene mutations, such as those causing cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia, that can cause a disease by themselves. Most gene mutations, however, simply predispose to a disease or metabolic disturbance and are highly influenced by the activity of other genes. That’s because the products of gene expression form intricate regulatory and metabolic networks. When a single gene is mutated, it interacts with many other genes in the network. And, that network is different for each of us.

2) Many common diseases are polygenic. That includes diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and most cancers. Simply put, that means that they are not caused by a single gene mutation. They are caused by the cumulative effect of many mutations, each of which has a small effect on disease risk. The same appears to be true for mutations that influence carbohydrate and fat metabolism and affect nutrient requirements.

3) The outcome of gene mutations is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment. For example, a common mutation in a gene called FTO predisposes to obesity. However, the effect of this mutation on obesity is strongest when it is coupled with inactivity and foods of high caloric density (translation: junk foods and fast foods instead of fresh fruits and vegetables). Simply put, that means most of us are genetically predisposed to obesity if we follow the American lifestyle, but obesity is not inevitable.

4) Epigenetics has an important influence on gene expression. When I was a graduate student, we believed our genetic destiny was solely determined by our DNA sequence. That was still the prevailing viewpoint when the human genome project was initiated. We thought that once we had our complete DNA sequence, we would know everything we needed to know about our genetic destiny.

How short sighted we were! It turns out that our DNA can be modified in multiple ways. These modifications do not change the DNA sequence, but they can have major effects on gene expression. They can turn genes on or turn them off. More importantly, we have come to learn that these DNA modifications can be influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and exposure to environmental pollutants.

This is the science we call epigenetics. We have gone from believing we have a genome (DNA sequence) that is invariant and controls our genetic destiny to understanding that we also have an “epigenome” (modifications to our DNA) that is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment and can change day-to-day.

5) Our microbiome has an important influence on our health and nutritional status. Simply put, the term microbiome refers to our intestinal microbes. Our intestinal bacteria are incredibly diverse. Each of us has about 1,000 distinct species of bacteria in our intestines.

Current evidence suggests these intestinal bacteria influence our immune system, inflammation and auto-immune diseases, brain function and mood, and our predisposition to weight gain – and this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

More importantly, our microbiome is influenced by our diet. For example, vegetarians and meat eaters have entirely different microbiomes. Furthermore, the effect of diet on our microbiome is transitory. If you change your diet, the species of bacteria in your microbiome will completely change in a few weeks.

Finally, our microbiome also influences our nutritional requirements. For example, some species of intestinal bacteria are the major source of biotin and vitamin K2 for all of us and the major source of vitamin B12 for vegans. Intestinal bacteria may also contribute to our supply of folic acid and thiamine. Other intestinal bacteria inactivate and/or remove some vitamins from the intestine for their own use. Thus, the species of bacteria that populate our intestines can influence our nutritional requirements.

Now that you know the complexity of gene interactions you understand why we are not ready to rely on DNA tests yet. We don’t yet know enough to design a simple DNA test to predict our unique nutritional needs. That science is at least 10-20 years in the future. Companies that tell you otherwise are lying to you.

What Role Should DNA Testing Play In Nutritional Recommendations?

The algorithms that are most successful in creating personalized diet and/or supplement recommendations:

1) Start with an analysis of your diet and lifestyle. They powerfully affect both gene expression and your microbiome.

2) Add in health parameters such as blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control). For example, a DNA analysis may suggest you are at risk for having elevated cholesterol, but whether you do or not is influenced by many other factors. A simple blood test indicates whether that risk is real for you.

3) Consider your personal health goals. If nutritional recommendations are to be personalized to you, they should emphasize the health goals you value most.

4) Include any diseases you have and recommendations of your doctor. If your doctor has recommended you lower your blood pressure, your cholesterol, or blood sugar levels, that is valuable information to include in the mix.

5) Now you are ready to include DNA testing in the mix. It can provide some valuable insights, but those insights need to be filtered through the lens of all the critical information collected in the first four steps. Genetics gives you possibilities. The information collected in the first four steps represents your realities.

The Bottom Line

Nutrigenomics is defined as the interaction between our genetic makeup and our diet. How far have we advanced in the science of nutrigenomics? Can a simple DNA test provide us with useful information?

For example, we all have different nutritional needs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone could analyze your genome and provide you with a personalized supplement program that precisely fits your genetically determined nutritional requirements?

There are companies that will analyze your genome and offer personalized supplement programs. Are they providing you with something of value or is their testing bogus? Are their supplements worthless?

Two recent reviews have surveyed the nutrigenomic literature (all published clinical studies) and have concluded that we still don’t know enough to predict the best diets, or the best supplements based on genetic information alone. Why is that? It is because:

1) Human genetics is very complex.

2) Many common diseases are polygenic (caused by the cumulative effect of many mutations).

3) The effect of gene mutations on our health and wellbeing is strongly influenced by our diet, lifestyle, and environment.

4) Epigenetics has an important influence on gene expression.

5) Our microbiome has an important influence on our health and nutritional status.

For more details on these studies and the kind of testing that best determines the right diet and/or supplement program for you, read the article above.

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

Are Low Carb Diets Healthier?

April 25, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The “Goldilocks Effect”

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The low-carb wars rage on. Low-carb enthusiasts claim that low-carb diets are healthy. Many health experts warn about the dangers of low-carb diets. Several studies have reported that low-carb diets increase risk of mortality (shorten lifespan).

However, two recent studies have come to the opposite conclusion. Those studies reported that high carbohydrate intake increased mortality, and low carbohydrate intake was associated with the lowest mortality.

One of those studies, called the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study was published a few years ago. It included data from 135,335 participants from 18 countries across 5 continents. That’s a very large study, and normally we expect very large studies to be accurate. The results from the PURE study had low-carb enthusiasts doing a victory lap and claiming it was time to rewrite nutritional guidelines to favor low-carb diets.

Whenever controversies like this arise, reputable scientists are motivated to take another look at the question. They understand that all studies have their weaknesses and biases. So, they look at previous studies very carefully and try to design a study that eliminates the weaknesses and biases of those studies. Their goal is to design a stronger study that reconciles the differences between the previous studies.

A third study published a year later (SB Seidelmann et al, The Lancet, doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30135-X was such a study. This study resolved the conflicting data and finally answered the question: “How much carbohydrate should we be eating if we desire a long and healthy life?” The answer is “Enough”.

I call this “The Goldilocks Effect”. You may remember “Goldilocks And The Three Bears”. One bed was too hard. One bed was too soft. But one bed was “just right”. One bowl of porridge was too hot. One was two cold. But one was “just right”. According to this study, the same is true for carbohydrate intake. High carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. Low carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. But moderate carbohydrate intake is “just right”.

How Was The Study Done?

This study was performed in two parts. This first part drew on data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. That study enrolled 15,428 men and women, aged 45-64, from four US communities between 1987 and 1989. This group was followed for an average of 25 years, during which time 6283 people died. Carbohydrate intake was calculated based on food frequency questionnaires administered when participants enrolled in the study and again 6 years later. The study evaluated the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality.

The second part was a meta-analysis that combined the data from the ARIC study with all major clinical studies since 2007 that measured carbohydrate intake and mortality and lasted 5 years or more. The total number of participants included in this meta-analysis was 432,179, and it included data from previous studies that claimed low-carbohydrate intake was associated with decreased mortality.

Are Low Carb Diets Healthier?

The results from the ARIC study were:

The relationship between mortality and carbohydrate intake was a U-shaped curve.

- The lowest risk of death was observed with a moderate carbohydrate intake (50-55%). This is the intake recommended by current nutrition guidelines.

- The highest risk of death was observed with a low carbohydrate intake (<40%).

- The risk of death also increased with very high carbohydrate intake (>70%).

When the investigators used the mortality data to estimate life expectancy, they predicted a 50-year old participant would have a projected life expectancy of:

- 33.1 years if they had a moderate intake of carbohydrates.

- 4 years less if they had a low carbohydrate intake.

- 1.1 year less if they had a very high carbohydrate intake.

The risk associated with low carbohydrate intake was affected by what the carbohydrate was replaced with.

- When carbohydrates were replaced with animal protein and animal fat there was an increased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet. The animal-based low-carb diet contained more beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and fish. It was also higher in saturated fat.
- When carbohydrates were replaced with plant protein and plant fats, there was a decreased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet. The plant-based low-carb diet contained more nuts, peanut butter, dark or whole grain breads, chocolate, and white bread. It was also higher in polyunsaturated fats.

The effect of carbohydrate intake on mortality was virtually the same for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.

There was no significant effect of carbohydrate intake on long-term weight gain (another myth busted).

The results from the dueling meta-analyses were actually very similar. When the data from all studies were combined:

Both very low carbohydrate diets and very high carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality.

Meat-based low-carb diets increased mortality, and plant-based low-carb diets decreased mortality.

Once again, the results were the same for total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.

The authors concluded: “Our findings suggest a negative long-term association between life-expectancy and both low carbohydrate and high carbohydrate diets…These data also provide further evidence that animal-based low carbohydrate diets should be discouraged. Alternatively, when restricting carbohydrate intake, replacement of carbohydrates with predominantly plant-based fats and proteins could be considered as a long-term approach to healthy aging.”

Simply put, that means if a low carb diet works best for you, it is healthier to replace the carbs with plant-based fats and protein rather than animal-based fats and protein.

The “Goldilocks Effect”

This study also resolved the discrepancies between previous studies. The authors pointed out that the average carbohydrate intake is very different in Europe and the US than in Asian countries and low-income countries.

In the US and Europe mean carbohydrate intake is about 50% of calories and it ranges from 25% to 70% of calories. With that range of carbohydrate intake, it is possible to observe the increase in mortality associated with both very low and very high carbohydrate intakes.

The US and European countries are affluent, which means that low-carb enthusiasts can afford diets high in animal protein.

White rice is a staple in Asian countries, and protein is a garnish rather than a main course. Consequently, overall carbohydrate intake is greater in Asian countries and very few Asians eat a truly low carbohydrate diet. High protein foods tend to be more expensive than high carbohydrate foods. Thus, very few people in developing countries can afford to follow a very low carbohydrate diet, and overall carbohydrate intake also tends to be higher.

Therefore, in Asian and developing countries the average carbohydrate intake is greater (~61%) than in the US and Europe, and the range of carbohydrate intake is from 45% to 80% of calories. With that range of intake, it is only possible to see the increase in mortality associated with very high carbohydrate intake.

Both the studies that low-carb enthusiasts quote to support their claim that low-carb diets are healthy relied heavily on data from Asian and developing countries.

In fact, when the authors of the current study overlaid the data from the PURE study with their ARIC data, there was an almost perfect fit. The only difference was that their ARIC data covered both low and high carbohydrate intake while the PURE study touted by low-carb enthusiasts only covered moderate to high carbohydrate intake.

[I have given you my rendition of the graph on the right. If you would like to see the data yourself, look at the paper.]

Basically, low-carb advocates are telling you that diets with carbohydrate intakes of 30% or less are healthy based on studies that did not include carbohydrate intakes below 40%. That is misleading. The studies they quote are incapable of detecting the risks of low carbohydrate diets.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

There are several important take-home lessons from this study:

All major studies agree that very high carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. In part, that reflects the fact that diets with high carbohydrate intake are likely to be high in sodas and sugary junk foods. It may also reflect the fact that diets which are high in carbohydrate are often low in plant protein or healthy fats or both.

All studies that cover the full range of carbohydrate intake agree that very low carbohydrate intake is also unhealthy. It shortens the life expectancy of a 50-year-old by about 4 years.

The studies quoted by low carb enthusiasts to support their claim that low-carb diets are healthy don’t include carbohydrate intakes below 40%. That means their claims are misleading. The studies they quote are incapable of detecting the risks of low carbohydrate diets.

Meat-based low-carb diets decrease life expectancy while plant-based low carb diets increase life expectancy. This is consistent with previous studies. For more details on those studies, see my article, “Are Any Low-Carb Diets Healthy?”, in “Health Tips From The Professor” or my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

The health risks of meat-based low-carb diets may be due to the saturated fat content or the heavy reliance on red meat. However, the risks are just as likely to be due to the foods these diets leave out – typically fruits, whole grains, legumes, and some vegetables.

Proponents of low-carb diets assume that you can make up for the missing nutrients by just taking multivitamins. However, each food group also provides a unique combination of phytonutrients and fibers. The fibers, in turn, influence your microbiome. Simply put, whenever you leave out whole food groups, you put your health at risk.

The Bottom Line

The low-carb wars are raging. Several studies have reported that low-carb diets increase risk of mortality (shorten lifespan). However, two studies published a few years ago have come to the opposite conclusion. Those studies have low-carb enthusiasts doing a victory lap and claiming it is time to rewrite nutritional guidelines to favor low-carb diets.

However, a study published a year later resolves the conflicting data and finally answers the question: “How much carbohydrate should we be eating if we desire a long and healthy life?” The answer is “Enough”.

I call this “The Goldilocks Effect”. According to this study, high carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. Low carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. But, moderate carbohydrate intake is “just right”.

Specifically, this study reported:

Moderate carbohydrate intake (50-55%) is healthiest. This is also the carbohydrate intake recommended by current nutritional guidelines.

2) All major studies agree that very high carbohydrate intake (60-70%) is unhealthy. It shortens life expectancy of a 50-year old by about a year.

3) All studies that cover the full range of carbohydrate intake agree that low carbohydrate intake (<40%) is also unhealthy. It shortens life expectancy of a 50-year old by about 4 years.

4) The studies quoted by low carb enthusiasts to support their claim that low-carb diets are healthy don’t include carbohydrate intakes below 40%. That means their claims are misleading. The studies they quote are incapable of detecting the risks of low carbohydrate diets.

5) Meat-based low-carb diets decrease life expectancy while plant-based low carb diets increase life expectancy. This is consistent with the results of previous studies.

Simply put, that means if a low carb diet works best for you, it is healthier to replace the carbs with plant-based fats and protein rather than animal-based fats and protein.

For more details, read the article above.

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

Hip And Knee Pain Relief

April 18, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Common Cause For Pains From Hip To Knee

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Spring Is In The Air

I remember as a child we sang “Though April showers may come your way…they bring the flowers that bloom in May…”

Of course, here in Florida we are blessed with flowers all year, but there is still a lovely feeling that happens in Spring. It’s still cool enough most days to go out running, and the humidity is still low.

Traffic will soon be easing up as our friends from the north start their trek back home, and daylight savings time is giving us more time to get to the beach for sunset. Lovely!

Fun Facts About Spring….

The earliest known use of the term “spring cleaning” was in 1857
The word “spring” has been used for the season since the 16^th century
The first day of spring is called the vernal equinox
On the first day of spring, the sunrise and sunset are about 12 hours apart everywhere on earth
Spring fever isn’t just a saying. Experts say the body changes due to the temperature and can cause an upset in your health.
The actual start of spring varies from March 19^th to the 21^st, but it is commonly celebrated on the 21^st.

Do you like to garden? Now is the perfect time to get your gardens planted so you’ll have home grown veggies for the entire summer. For me, it’s also a great time to do some spring cleaning and get the house in order before the summer closes all the windows and the air conditioning becomes our indoor relief.

But these activities can also cause a strain on muscles, so don’t forget to take care of yourself.

A Common Cause For Pains From Hip To Knee

There are times when I am led to sharing a treatment because I had a run of clients all suffering from the same source muscle. That is what happened for this newsletter. In March I had at least six clients come to my office, all having different symptoms, but all stemming from the same source.

My clients complained of hip pain, thigh pain, knee pain, and pain down the outside of the lower leg.

In this case it was the Tensor Fascia Lata and two of the three Gluteal muscles: Medius, Minimus. The Gluteus Medius is directly over the Gluteus Minimus, so treating one will actually treat both. And the Tensor Fascia Lata is right next to both these muscles.

All these muscles insert into the same area of the hip, and for different reasons, they all cause hip pain. Also, each muscle refers pain to a different location, so you think you have a problem in these referred pain locations, but they are all coming from your hip.

This is one of the many times when working on one area will solve many different problems.

Take a look at these Trigger Point charts:

To read the charts, look at the shaded area (which shows where pain is felt) and look for the muscle name in the same color. Then follow the arrow to the same-colored round circles with “x”. This is the trigger point (spasm) that is the source of that pain pattern.

You’ll notice that the spasm (trigger point) for the purple pain pattern is in the Gluteus Minimus at the outside of the hip, but the pain pattern goes to the outside of the thigh, the knee, and all the way down to the ankle.

The spasms for the Tensor Fascia Lata is in the same place on the hip, but the pain pattern is the hip, the thigh, and the outside of the knee.

In each of these cases the pain is being felt along the insertion points for the muscles.

Hip And Knee Pain Relief

To relieve the muscle spasms that are causing the problem, use my “Perfect Ball” (You can use a baseball or tennis ball, but my Perfect Ball is just the right size and hardness for the job). Then, either lie on the floor or stand up and lean into a wall as shown in the two photos below. Lean into the ball, easing your pressure onto the ball gradually. As the muscle releases it will hurt less and less.

Then you can rotate your body, so the ball is pressing into the front of your hip or rotating so the ball is rolling toward the back of your body. You will likely find multiple painful tender spots. Each spot is a spasm that is putting pressure on your bones or is pulling on the tendon (called the IlioTibial Band – ITB) that is putting pressure onto your lateral knee joint.

You can also treat these muscles by using a length of 1” PVC pipe as shown in the picture on the left.

This picture was shared with me by an athlete. An avid runner, she couldn’t get down on the ground, nor was there a wall that she could press into, but using the pipe and a street sign pole, she was still able to release the tight muscles that were preventing her from running.

This may not be perfect for you, but if you are an athlete, it could be just what you need when you’re unable to treat yourself as shown above.

You REALLY CAN Treat Yourself

Since 1989 I have been working with people who are experiencing severe &/or chronic pain. During those years I’ve managed to figure out why they are in pain, and how they can stop the pain by treating themselves.

It is wonderful when someone can come into my office and I can work directly with them, but I’ve found that the key is the self-treatments I teach them to do at home. With the self-treatments you can release the tension multiple times every day, retraining your muscles to stay relaxed.

Thousands of people have been able to stop pain fast because they have followed the simple techniques I teach.

You can stop pain fast too! Even chronic pain releases when you treat the source and not just the symptom!

To enable you to know where to treat, and how to treat the muscles that cause pain, I’ve produced several “How To” books and DVD programs.

Visit my shopping cart to see the full line of pain-relief products that will help you overcome:

Shoulder pain
Neck pain
Carpal tunnel symptoms
Trigger finger
Low back pain
Hip pain
Sciatica
Knee Pain
Plantar Fasciitis

In fact, you can get relief for pains from your head to your feet!

Next Month’s Topic

In May I’ll be sharing about the muscles that cause the #1 repetitive strain injury in the entire world!

If you have, or know someone who has, low back pain, you won’t want to miss next month’s article.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

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

Could Toxic Chemicals Lower Our Child’s IQ?

April 11, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is The Science Solid?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

As Earth Day approaches, our thoughts turn to our environment. Most of the concern is with global warming, and rightly so. But should we be concerned about the effects of toxic chemicals in our environment on our health – or, more importantly the health of our children?

The short answer is, “Maybe.” But let’s delve a little deeper.

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 11 chemicals commonly found in the environment as developmental neurotoxins (toxins that interfere with normal brain development) based.

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 neurotoxic 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, and these environmental neurotoxins come from many sources.

Some are industrial pollutants.

Some are persistent groundwater contaminants.

Some are insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture.

Some are found in common household products and furnishings.

Could Toxic Chemicals Lower Our Child’s 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).

The effects of many of the neurotoxic chemicals they identified on IQ were difficult to quantify. However, the authors estimated that average exposure of US children to just 3 of the best studied chemical neurotoxins (lead, methylmercury, and organophosphate pesticides) was sufficient to lower their average IQ by 1.6 points.

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 aged 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?

Of course, you have seen these kinds of warnings before. Is this crazy talk, or is it something you should take seriously? What is the truth? Is the science solid?

The problem is this is a very difficult area of research. You can’t do a 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.

Consequently, it becomes important to ask how many studies come to the same conclusion. For some of the toxic chemicals, such as lead, methylmercury, and organophosphate pesticides, the weight of evidence is very strong. For some of the newer additions to their list of developmental neurotoxins, it is 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.

So, rather than ask, “Is this true?”, we should ask, “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.

We don’t need to panic. The science isn’t that strong. But we should take sensible precautions. The developmental neurotoxins identified in this study come from many sources. Here are the sources and sensible precautions we can take.

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

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

Some are insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture. For these we need to buy organic, locally grown produce whenever possible.

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

The Bottom Line:

1) A recent review claims that there is a good scientific basis for classifying at least 11 environmental chemicals as developmental neurotoxins that are likely to reduce IQ and contribute to behavioral problems in US children.

2) The science behind the claims in this review is solid, but not iron clad. This is an area of science where it is virtually impossible to come up with a definitive conclusion.

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. The article above identifies practical steps each of us can take.

For more details and to learn what practical steps you can take to reduce your family’s exposure to toxic chemicals, read the article above.

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