Cancer

Are Our Healthy Years Getting Shorter?

by

What Does This Mean For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you’ve ever traveled the subway system in London, you can’t have missed the “Mind the Gap” signs warning not to put your foot in the gap between the subway and the platform.

That warning is more important than ever in an age where people look at their cell phones rather than where they are walking. Of course, if they are looking at their cell phones, they might miss the sign and…

But today’s “Health Tip” is not about subway gaps. It’s about a far more important gap – the gap between our healthspan (how many years we enjoy good health) and our lifespan (how many years we live).

A recent study (L Gimeno et al, The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 79(8), gbae113, 2024) suggesting that our healthy years are getting shorter caught my attention.

All of us imagine that our golden years will be ones of vibrant health. We’ll travel to exotic places. We’ll take long walks in the mountains. We’ll play with our grandchildren. Life will be wonderful.

But if this study is correct, none of that will happen for many young Americans. They will be too frail and sick to enjoy their golden years. They will be surviving rather than thriving.

So, in today’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I will review the study and tell you what it means for you.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators used data on 114,526 adults >50 (average age = 63) from developed countries (the United States, England, and continental Europe). Specifically, they used data from people who participated in the Healthy and Retirement Study (26,939 people in the United States), the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing (14,992 people in England), and the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement (72,595 people in continental Europe) between 2004 and 2018.

These surveys collected data on health-related outcomes every 2 years. The outcomes measured were:

  • Six activities of daily living (ADLs) such as eating, bathing, and walking.
  • Four instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) related to essential tasks such as grocery shopping or preparing a hot meal.
  • Seven measures of mobility difficulties and motor coordination tasks such as walking one block, lifting 10 pounds, or picking up a small coin from a flat surface.

The assumption was that the severity of limitations was ADL > IADL > mobility difficulties. This is based on previous research showing that a person with ADL limitations is likely to have IADL limitations and mobility difficulties. And a person with IADL limitations is likely to have mobility difficulties. Based on this assumption, they classified participants in this study into 4 disability categories:

  • Mild disability: ≥1 IADL limitations and any number of mobility difficulties.
  • Moderate disability: 1-2 ADL limitations with any number of IADL limitations and mobility difficulties.
  • Severe disability: ≥3 ADL limitations with any number of IADL limitations and mobility difficulties.

The study also measured the prevalence (percent of the population) with:

  • Obesity
  • Heart disease.
  • Diabetes
  • Cancer
  • Lung disease.
  • High blood pressure.
  • High cholesterol.

Finally, the study also measured grip strength because loss of grip strength is considered an indicator of future disabilities.

The unique feature of this study is it compared the health and disability of people who were at the same age when tested but were born in different decades ranging from 1925 to 1955.

Because of the rapid change in diet and lifestyle following World War II, the health and disability of people born in the 1936-1945 decade encompassing World War II was used as the standard to which all other decades were compared.

Are Our Healthy Years Getting Shorter?

Some of you may have skipped over the previous section, so I will repeat the way these data were analyzed because it is crucial to your understanding of the study.

“The unique feature of this study is it compared the health and disability of people who were at the same age when tested but were born in different decades ranging from 1925 to 1955.

Because of the rapid change in diet and lifestyle following World War II, the health and disability of people born in the 1936-1945 decade encompassing World War II was used as the standard to which all other decades were compared.”

When looking at data from the United States, there were two distinct patterns.

The vertical line in the center of the graph represents the health and disability status of people born during World War II because all comparisons in this study were to people born in the decade encompassing World War II. A worsening of health and disabilities is indicated in red and an improvement in health and disabilities is shown in green. 

Pattern A was characteristic of a constant worsening of health and disabilities from people born in the decade starting in 1925 to people born in the decade starting in 1955.

This pattern was seen for:

  • Obesity
  • Heart disease.
  • Diabetes
  • Lung disease.
  • High blood pressure.
  • High cholesterol.
  • Severe disabilities.
  • Reduction in grip strength.

Remember, this study is measuring health and disability of people at the same age. The only difference is when they were born. It tells us people in their 50s, 60s, or 70s born in 1955 or later are in poorer health than people of the same age who were born in 1925.

And it’s not just the United States. For obesity and health parameters the pattern was the same for England and Europe. For severe disabilities the pattern was the same for England but was not as clear for Europe.

Two things should be noted for this pattern:

  • The worsening of health and the increase in severe disabilities comes despite the vast improvements in the health care systems in these countries and improved understanding of the causes of these diseases.
  • Obesity is likely a major driver of our declining health and increased disability. However, it is not the only driver. If the investigators had graphed the percentage of highly processed foods in the diet or the decline in regular exercise, the pattern would have been similar.

Pattern B shows an improvement in the period leading up to World War II and a deterioration in the period after World War II. The authors interpreted the improvement prior to World War II as due to improvements in health care and the deterioration after World War II as due to changes in diet and lifestyle.

This is the pattern seen for mild and moderate disabilities in the United States. The pattern for mild and moderate disabilities was not as clear for England and Europe.

The authors concluded, “In all regions, we found evidence for worsening health across cohorts [groups of people born in successive decades], particularly for those born after 1945.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

QuestionsI don’t want to overinterpret this study. This study breaks new ground, but it has some limitations that I would characterize with three statements:

  • It is a very difficult study to do perfectly.
  • There are several factors that could affect the interpretation of the data and the outcome of the study.
  • The authors made a valiant effort to correct for any factors that could have affected the outcome.

For more details about the factors that might affect the outcome of the study and how the authors corrected for them, read the study.

However, this is the first study to use this approach to gauge the decrease in healthy years (healthspan) in developed countries over the past 40 years. It has its flaws, but it is consistent with several other studies documenting declining health in the current generation of young adults. For example, in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I reviewed a study showing that colon cancer rates are increasing at an alarming rate for young adults in this country.

At the beginning of this article, I talked about the gap between our healthspan (how many years we enjoy good health) and our lifespan (how many years we live).

This study suggests that the onset of significant health issues and disabilities is occurring at a younger age today than for people born before World War II. In short, it suggests that our healthspan (the number of healthy years) is getting shorter.

This study did not look at lifespan, but numerous studies show that our lifespan is still increasing. So, the gap between healthspan and lifespan appears to be getting larger. In simple terms this means that when today’s young adults reach their “golden years”, they may spend more of those years in poor health than those of us born in the 1940’s.

But, what does this mean for you? The take home lesson should be, “This doesn’t have to be. You don’t have to be frail and sickly in your golden years. We know how to prevent this.”

  • It starts with a healthy diet – a whole food, primarily plant-based diet with lots of colorful fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds.
  • Add in a regular exercise program with a mixture of aerobic and resistance exercises.
  • Include an individualized supplement program.

You notice I didn’t list weight control as one of the top three prevention strategies. That’s because I don’t recommend fad diets and rapid weight loss programs. If you do the first three things well, your weight will come off naturally – a little bit at a time.

And once you have mastered all four things, you will increase your healthy years and narrow the gap between your healthspan and your lifespan. You can look forward to golden years filled with vitality and adventure.

The Bottom Line

A recent study used an innovative approach to quantify the deterioration in health and the physical ability to function well in daily activities as we age. The unique feature of this study is it compared the health and disability of people who were at the same age when tested but were born in different decades ranging from 1925 to 1955.

The study found a constant worsening of health and disabilities from people born in the decade starting in 1925 to people born in the decade starting in 1955 for:

  • Obesity
  • Heart disease.
  • Diabetes
  • Lung disease.
  • High blood pressure.
  • High cholesterol.
  • Severe disabilities.

The authors concluded, “We found evidence for worsening health across cohorts [groups of people born in successive decades], particularly for those born since 1945.”

In short, people born in recent years have fewer healthy years (a shorter healthspan) than people born before World War II. And since our lifespans are getting longer, this means the gap between our healthspan and our lifespan is increasing.

All of us imagine that our golden years will be ones of vibrant health. We’ll travel to exotic places. We’ll take long walks in the mountains. We’ll play with our grandchildren. Life will be wonderful.

But if this study is correct, none of that will happen for many of today’s young adults. They will be too frail and sick to enjoy their golden years.

For more details about this study and how you can increase your healthy years, narrow the gap between your healthspan and your lifespan, and look forward to golden years filled with vitality and adventure, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

600th Issue Celebration

by

Nutrition Advances Over The Last Two Years

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

celebrationIn the nearly twelve years that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor”, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life.

The 600th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing some of the major stories I have covered in the past 100 issues. There are lots of topics I could have covered, but I have chosen to focus on three types of articles:

  • Articles that have debunked long-standing myths about nutrition and health.
  • Articles that have corrected some of the misinformation that seems to show up on the internet on an almost daily basis.
  • Articles about the issues that most directly affect your health.

Here are my picks from the last two years:

Weight Loss Diets

weight lossSince it is almost January, let’s start with a couple of articles about diet and weight loss (or weight gain). I have covered the effectiveness of the Paleo, Keto, Mediterranean, DASH, vegetarian, and Vegan diets for both short and long-term weight loss in my book “Slaying The Food Myths”, so I won’t repeat that information here. Instead, I will share a few updates from the past 100 issues.

Is Time-Restricted Eating Better Than Other Diets? Time-restricted eating is one of the latest fads. But is it really better than other diets for weight loss and improved health? In this article I reviewed two studies that compare time-restricted eating with diets that do not restrict time of eating but cut calories to the same extent. You may be surprised at the results.

Can You Lose Weight Without Dieting? In this article I share 8 tips for losing weight without going on a diet. The article is based on research by Dr. Brian Wansink, a behavioral psychologist who specializes in studying how external clues influence our eating patterns. As you might suspect his 8 tips for losing weight have nothing to do with counting calories or going on restrictive diets.

Healthy Diets

dairy foodsIs Whole Fat Dairy Healthy? For years dietary guidelines have been telling us to select low fat dairy foods. But some health gurus are telling you that isn’t true. They claim whole fat dairy is healthy. So, you are probably wondering, “What is the scoop (as in ice cream) on whole fat dairy?” In this article I look at the study behind the headlines and answer that question. But the answer is not a simple “Yes” or “No”. The answer is more nuanced. It turns out that whole fat dairy is healthier in some diets than in others. 

Are Low Carb Diets Healthy? Are low carb diets good for you or bad for you? It depends on which study you quote. Two major studies in recent years have come to opposite conclusions. In this article I help you sort through the conflicting studies and rephrase the question. Instead of, “Are low carb diets healthy”, the question should be, “Which low carb diets are healthy?”

Are All Plant-Based Diets Healthy? Plant-based diets have acquired a “health halo” in recent years. Your mama told you to eat your fruits and vegetables. And many health gurus have been telling you not to neglect your grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds as well. But some of these foods require a lot of food preparation.

Never fear! The food industry has come to your rescue with a wide variety of processed plant-based foods. No need for food prep. But are they as good for you as the unprocessed plant foods they replace? In this article I review a study that answers that question.

You probably know what that answer is, but the article is worth a read anyway. That is because the study also asks whether vegan and vegetarian diets are healthier than other primarily plant-based diets. And you may not know the answer to that question.

Diet And Heart Disease

egg confusionAre Eggs Bad For You? For years we were told that eggs are bad for us because they contain cholesterol. Then we were told that eggs in moderation may not increase our risk of heart disease. And recently studies have appeared claiming eggs may be good for our hearts. What is the truth about eggs and heart disease? In this article I review a recent study claiming eggs are bad for our heart and put that study into the context of other recent studies to clear up the “eggfusion”.

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy? Every popular diet claims to help you lose weight, reduce your risk of diabetes, and reduce your risk of heart disease. All these claims can’t be true. Which diets deliver on their promises, and which are just pretenders? In this article I review a recent study that answered that question for heart disease.

This study was a very large metanalysis of over 40 studies with 35,548 participants that looked at the effect of different diets on heart disease outcomes. The study identified two diets that significantly reduced the risk of heart disease. There are other diets that might reduce the risk of heart disease, but their benefits have not been proven by high quality clinical studies. They are merely pretenders.

The Dangers Of Processed Foods 

In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared articles showing that diets high in processed foods are associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. But the story keeps getting worse. Here are two articles on recent studies about processed foods that appeared in “Health Tips From The Professor” in the last two years.

Why Does Processed Food Make You Fat? We already know that eating a lot of highly processed food is likely to make us fat. But what is it about processed food that makes us fat? In this article I review a recent study that answers that question.

This study is interesting for two reasons.

  • It identifies the characteristics of processed foods that make us want to eat more.
  • It identifies some minimally processed foods that have the same characteristics and suggests we should choose minimally processed foods wisely. Simply put, knowledge is power. We may want to avoid minimally processed foods that have the same obesity-inducing characteristics as processed foods.

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer? Previous studies have shown that processed food consumption is associated with a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Can it get any worse? In this article I review a recent study that shows processed food consumption is associated with an increased risk of several kinds of cancer.

Maintaining Muscle Mass As We Age

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Unless we actively resist loss of muscle mass it will eventually impact our quality of life and our health.

We can prevent this loss of muscle mass with resistance exercise, adequate protein intake, and adequate intake of the amino acid leucine. Previous studies have shown people over 50 need more of each of these to maintain muscle mass, but the amount they need has been uncertain until now. Three recent studies have given seniors better guidelines for maintaining muscle mass.

Can You Build Muscle In Your 80s? In this article I review a recent study that enrolled a group of octogenarians in a high-intensity exercise program to see if they could gain muscle mass. They were able to increase their muscle mass, but the intensity of the exercise required may surprise you.

Optimizing Protein Intake For Seniors. In this article I review two recent studies that looked at the amount, timing, and kind of protein needed for seniors in their 60s and 70s to maximize gain in muscle mass.

How Much Leucine Do Seniors Need? In this article I review a recent study that determined the amount of leucine seniors in their 70s need to optimize gains in muscle mass and strength.

The Benefits And Risks Of Supplementation

Omega-3s And Heart DiseaseIf you listen to Big Pharma or the medical profession, you hear a lot about the “risks” of supplementation and very little about the benefits. In “Health Tips From the Professor” I try to present a more balanced view of supplementation by sharing high-quality studies showing benefit from supplementation and studies that put the supposed risks into perspective.

The Good News About Omega-3s and Stroke. Multiple studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of ischemic strokes (strokes caused by a blood clot). But it has been widely assumed they might increase the risk of hemorrhagic strokes (strokes caused by bleeding). In this article I review a meta-analysis of 29 clinical studies with 183,000 participants that tested that assumption.

How Much Omega-3s Are Best For Blood Pressure? Multiple studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation can reduce high blood pressure. But the doses used vary widely from one study to the next. In this article I review a meta-analysis of 71 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies that determined the optimal dose of omega-3s for controlling blood pressure.

Omega-3 Supplements Are Safe. As I said above, it has been widely assumed that omega-3 supplementation increases the risk of bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. In this article I review the definitive study on this topic. More importantly, it reveals which omega-3 supplements might increase bleeding risk and which do not.

Are Calcium Supplements Safe? Big Pharma and the medical profession have been warning us that calcium supplements may increase heart disease risk. In this article I review the definitive study on this topic.

Prenatal Supplements

prenatal dha supplementIf you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, your health professional has likely recommended a prenatal supplement. You probably assume that prenatal supplements provide everything you need for a healthy pregnancy. Unfortunately, recent research has shown that assumption is not correct.

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate? In this article I review a study that should serve as a wakeup call for every expectant mother. It showed that most prenatal supplements were woefully inadequate for a healthy pregnancy.

What Nutrients Are Missing In Prenatal Supplements? In this article I review a study that identified additional nutrients that are missing in most prenatal supplements.

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again. In this article I review a study that looked at the diet of pregnant women to determine their needs and compared that to the nutrients found in prenatal supplements. Once again, most prenatal supplements were woefully inadequate. Is it, “Three strikes and you are out”?

Exercise

Walking FastWalking Your Way To Health. We have been told that walking is good for our health. But how many steps should you take, how fast should you walk, and does it matter whether these steps are part of your daily routine or on long hikes? In this article I review a study that answers all these questions.

Which Exercise Is Best For Reducing Blood Pressure? If you have high blood pressure, you have probably been told to exercise more. But which exercise is best? In this article I review a study that answers that question. And the answer may surprise you.

Did You Know? 

Question MarkIf you have been reading “Health Tips From the Professor” for a while, you probably know that I enjoy poking holes in popular myths. Here are two new ones I deflated in past two years.

Is Low Alcohol Consumption Healthy? You have probably heard that low alcohol intake (that proverbial glass of red wine) is good for you. But is that true? In this article I review a recent study that shows that myth was based on faulty interpretation of the data and provides a more nuanced interpretation of the data.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart? You have been told that increasing your HDL levels reduces your risk of heart disease so many times it must be true. But is it? In this article I review HDL metabolism and a recent study to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the relationship between HDL and heart disease risk.

How To Talk With Your Doctor About Cancer 

Because of my years in cancer research, I am often asked whether someone should follow their oncologist’s advice and go on a recommended chemotherapy or radiation regimen. Of course, it would be unethical for me to provide that kind of advice.

In this article I tell you the questions to ask your oncologist about the prescribed treatment regimen, so you can make an informed decision. However, I also recommend you only ask these questions if you can handle the answers.

The Bottom Line

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

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

Final Comment: You may wish to share the valuable resources in this article with others. If you do, then copy the link at the top and bottom of this page into your email. If you just forward this email and the recipient unsubscribes, it will unsubscribe you as well.

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com/lifestylechange/.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Are All Plant-Based Diets Healthy?

by

Why Are Plant-Based Diets Healthy?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Unless you are like Rip van Winkle and have been asleep for the past 30 years, you have probably heard that plant-based diets are good for you. In fact, that advice is sound. It is based on multiple long-term studies.

But you may still be hesitant to make the switch. You are probably wondering if you have to be a vegan purist to benefit from a plant-based diet. If so, you are wondering whether you can make that drastic a change in your diet. Or, you may have already decided “that is a bridge too far” and don’t want to even consider it.

So, one important question is, “Do you have to go vegan to benefit from a plant-based diet?”

On the other hand, “Big Food, Inc” has made it easier than ever to switch to more “plant-based” eating. After all, sugar comes from plants. And highly processed grains come from plants. Add a few chemicals and you can come up with an endless supply of highly processed plant-based foods.

So, another important question is, “Can a diet of highly processed plant-based foods be as healthy as a diet of whole, unprocessed plant-foods?”

The study (Y. Wang et al., Nutrition Journal, 22: 46, 2023) I am reviewing today was designed to answer these two questions. It also represents the first meta-analysis to combine data from studies on the effects of plant-based diets on diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and mortality into a single study.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators performed a meta-analysis of 76 studies with 2,230,443 participants that looked at the associations of plant-based dietary patterns and the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality among adults 18 years or older.

The characteristics of study participants ranged from:

  • 25 to 87 years old.
  • BMI of 20 to 30.

And the duration of the studies within the meta-analysis ranged from 2 to 36 years.

The adherence to plant-based diets was defined as higher consumption of plant-based foods and lower consumption or exclusion of animal-based foods.

The meta-analysis also included studies looking at the effect of changing from a more animal-based to a more plant-based dietary pattern.

The meta-analysis included studies looking at the benefit of vegan and vegetarian diets. In terms of participants these studies represented just over 50% of the data in the meta-analysis. So, this meta-analysis was ideally positioned to determine whether vegan and vegetarian diets were more beneficial than other primarily plant-based dietary patterns that included some animal foods.

The methodology used to classify diets as primarily plant-based varied from study to study. But in each case the study participants were divided into quartiles ranging from consuming the most plant-based diet to consuming the least plant-based diet.

The study then compared study participants with the highest adherence to plant-based diets to those with the lowest adherence to plant-based diets with respect to type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality.

Finally, the study also compared adherence to healthy plant-based dietary patterns (whole or minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, and seeds) to unhealthy plant-based dietary patterns (foods and drinks with added sugar, highly processed plant foods, and starchy vegetables).

Are Plant-Based Diets Healthy?

When comparing highest to lowest adherence to plant-based dietary patterns the risk of:

  • Type-2 diabetes was reduced by 18%.
  • Cardiovascular disease was reduced by 10%.
  • Cancer was reduced by 12%.
  • Mortality was reduced by 16%.

In short, all the news was good for primarily plant-based dietary patterns.

Are All Plant-Based Diets Healthy?

Increased adherence to a healthy plant-based dietary pattern (That term is defined in the methods section above) was associated with an even better reduction in disease risk. For example:

  • Type-2 diabetes was reduced by 21%.
  • Cardiovascular disease was reduced by 15%.
  • Cancer was reduced by 13%.
  • Mortality was reduced by 14%, which was statistically indistinguishable from the reduction in mortality associated with all plant-based dietary patterns above.

Factory FarmIn contrast, increased adherence to an unhealthy plant-based dietary pattern was associated with increased risks of disease. For example:

  • The risk of type 2 diabetes increased by 8%.
  • The risk of cardiovascular disease increased by 14%.
  • The risk of cancer increased by 7%.
  • The risk of mortality increased by 16%.

In short, plant-based dietary patterns consisting of whole or minimally processed plant foods are good for you. Plant-based dietary patterns consisting of highly processed plant foods are not.

Are Vegan and Vegetarian Diets More Beneficial Than Other Plant-Based Dietary Patterns?

Mediterranean Diet FoodsTwenty seven of the studies within this meta-analysis compared vegetarian or vegan dietary patterns with animal-based dietary patterns. These studies had 1,343,967 participants, which amounts to 57% of the participants in the meta-analysis.

Thus, this meta-analysis was well positioned to determine relative benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets compared to other primarily plant-based dietary patterns that include some animal foods. The investigators reported that:

  • The risk reduction for type 2 diabetes was greater in studies with vegan and vegetarian diets than in studies with other primarily plant-based diets.
  • No other statistically significant benefits were observed for vegan and vegetarian diets compared to other primarily plant-based diets.

In short, you don’t need to become a vegan to experience the health benefits of a plant-based diet.

In contrast, increased adherence to an unhealthy plant-based dietary pattern was associated with increased risks of disease. For example:

  • The risk of type 2 diabetes increased by 8%.
  • The risk of cardiovascular disease increased by 14%.
  • The risk of cancer increased by 7%.
  • The risk of mortality increased by 16%.

In short, plant-based dietary patterns consisting of whole or minimally processed plant foods are good for you. Plant-based dietary patterns consisting of highly processed plant foods are not.

What If You Change From An Animal-Based To A Plant-Based Diet?

Food ChoicesIf you have been consuming an animal-based diet for years, you may be wondering whether it is too late to change. Has the damage already been done?

Six studies within this meta-analysis examined the effect of changing from an animal-based diet to a plant-based diet on type 2 diabetes and mortality. Changing to a more plant-based dietary pattern:

  • Reduced diabetes by 17% and mortality by 5%.

In short, it’s never too late to switch to a more plant-based dietary pattern.

Why Are Plant-Based Diets Healthy?

The short answer is that we don’t know for sure, but the authors mentioned several popular hypotheses.

  • Obesity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer. And studies have shown that people consuming plant-based diets tend to weigh less.
  • The increased fiber content and higher ratio of polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats lower cholesterol levels and improve blood lipid profiles, which are associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.
  • Plant-based diets are anti-inflammatory, which reduces the risk of all three diseases.
  • Plant foods are rich in polyphenols and other phytonutrients that are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, lower blood pressure, and improvements in insulin sensitivity.
  • Plant foods are metabolized by gut bacteria to metabolites that are associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
  • Plant foods support healthy gut bacteria associated with a reduced risk of several diseases.
  • Finally, plant-based dietary patterns are associated with no or reduced consumption of red and processed meats, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer.

For a more detailed discussion read the article).

What Does This Study Mean For You?

The authors of this study concluded, “Higher adherence to plant-based dietary patterns, especially from healthy sources, may be universally beneficial for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality. The current study provides further evidence in support of current recommendations that emphasize consuming high-quality plant-based foods for achieving optimal health.”

“Future studies are needed to elucidate…mechanistic pathways linking plant-based diets with multiple disease outcomes.”

I would just like to emphasize a few points:

  • These are all association studies. It takes decades for diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer to develop. So, it is impossible to confirm these findings with double blind, placebo-controlled studies. However, when you have 76 studies with over 2 million participants all pointing to the same conclusion, it is hard to ignore the findings.
  • The good news is that you don’t have to become a vegan to experience these benefits. There are many healthy primarily plant-based diets available. Choose the one that best fits your food preferences and lifestyle.
  • Be aware that whatever diet you choose, Big Food Inc is only too happy to provide you with highly processed foods that fit that dietary pattern. Don’t fall for that trap. Stick with whole or minimally processed plant foods.
  • If your current diet isn’t the best, it is never too late to switch to a healthier primarily plant-based diet.

The Bottom Line

A recent meta-analysis of 76 studies with 2,230,443 participants looked at the associations of plant-based dietary patterns and the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality among adults 18 years or older.

The authors of the study concluded, “Higher adherence to plant-based dietary patterns, especially from healthy sources, may be universally beneficial for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality. The current study provides further evidence in support of current recommendations that emphasize consuminh high-quality plant-based foods for achieving optimal health.”

Other key points from the study are:

  • These are all association studies. It takes decades for diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer to develop. So, it is impossible to confirm these findings with double blind, placebo-controlled studies. However, when you have 76 studies with over 2 million participants all pointing to the same conclusion, it is hard to ignore the findings.
  • The good news is that you don’t have to become a vegan to experience these benefits. There are many healthy primarily plant-based diets available. Choose the one that best fits your food preferences and lifestyle.
  • Be aware that whatever diet you choose, Big Food Inc is only too happy to provide you with highly processed foods that fit that dietary pattern. Don’t fall for that trap. Stick with whole or minimally processed plant foods.
  • If your current diet isn’t the best, it is never too late to switch to a healthier primarily plant-based diet.

For more details about how the authors came to these conclusions and what they mean 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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer?

by

How Can You Reduce Your Cancer Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

We are facing a food crisis in this country. Big Food Inc is taking over our diet. Currently, 73% of our food supply is processed. And because these are manufactured foods, not real foods, they are 52% cheaper than the whole unprocessed foods we should be eating.

And Big Food Inc has seduced us. They know our weaknesses. The foods they make are convenient and easy to prepare. They also know our bodies were created with an ingrained craving for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. These cravings served us well in prehistoric times, but in today’s world Big Food Inc has weaponized them. Their foods are designed to satisfy every craving. They have done their best to make their processed foods irresistible!

The result is no surprise. In 2018 (LG Baraldi et al, BMJ Open, 2018, 8(3) e020574 60% of the calories the Average American consumes came from processed foods, and the percentage has only increased since then.

This is alarming because higher consumption of processed foods has been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and all-cause mortality.

Some studies have suggested that higher consumption of processed foods may also be linked to increased risk of cancer. The authors of the current study (K Chang, eClinicalMedicine 2023;56: 101840) set out to test this hypothesis.

How Are Processed Foods Defined In This Study?

Before I proceed with describing the findings of this study, I should probably contrast the common definition of processed foods with the current scientific definition of processed foods. The scientific community has recently developed something called “The NOVA food classification system” to describe the various levels of food processing.

The NOVA system categorizes foods into four groups according to the extent of processing they have undergone:

  1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
    • This category includes foods like fruit, vegetables, milk, and meat.

2) Processed culinary ingredients.

    • This category includes foods you might find in restaurants or prepare yourself to which things like sugar, vegetable oils, butter, or cream were added in the preparation.

3) Processed foods.

    • This category includes foods like canned vegetables, freshly made breads, and cheeses.

4) Ultra-processed foods.

    • This category includes foods like soft drinks, chips, packaged snacks, most breakfast cereals, chicken nuggets & fish sticks, fast food burgers, hot dogs, and other processed meats.

The actual list is much longer, but you get the idea. What we call processed foods, scientists call ultra-processed foods. Since the term “ultra-processed foods” has not yet entered the popular vocabulary, I will use the term “processed foods” in describing the results of this study because it is more understandable to the average reader.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors of this study started by using data from the UK Biobank study. The UK Biobank study is a long-term study in the United Kingdom that is investigating the contributions of genetics and environment to the contribution of disease.

The authors focused on 197,426 (54.6% women) participants in the study who completed up to five 24-hour dietary recalls between 2009 and 2012. The participants were age 58 (range 40 to 69) when they entered the study and were followed for an average of 9.8 years. None of the participants had been diagnosed with cancer at the time of their enrollment in the study.

The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between percent of “processed food” in the participant’s diets and both the frequency of newly diagnosed cancer and the frequency of cancer deaths during the 9.8 years of follow-up.

More importantly, the size of this study allowed the authors to examine associations between processed food consumption and both the risk of cancer and cancer mortality for 34 site-specific cancers – something most previous studies were unable to do.

  • The percentage “processed food” in their diets was calculated from the 24-hour dietary recalls using the NOVA scoring system.
  • The frequency of newly diagnosed cancers and cancer deaths was obtained by linking the data in this study with the national cancer and mortality registries, provided by the National Health Service.

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer?

CancerThe authors started by dividing participants into four equal quartiles based on their consumption of processed foods:

  • For quartile 1 processed foods made up between 0 and 13.4% of calories (average = 9.2%).
  • For quartile 2 processed foods made up between 13.5 and 20% of calories (average = 16.7%).
  • For quartile 3 processed foods made up between 20.1 and 29.4% of calories (average = 24.3%).
  • For quartile 4 processed foods made up between 29.5 and 100% of calories (average = 41.4%).

They started by looking at the risk of developing cancer during the 9.8-year follow-up period. A total of 15,921 participants developed cancer during that time. When the authors compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • The risk of overall cancer of any type increased by 7%.
  • The risk of lung cancer increased by 25%.
  • The risk of ovarian cancer increased by 45%.
  • The risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma increased by 63%.
  • The risk of brain cancer increased by 52%.

Furthermore, every 10% increase in processed food consumption was associated with:

  • A 2% increase in overall cancer incidence…and…
  • A 19% increase in ovarian cancer incidence.

A total of 4,009 participants died from cancer during that time. When the authors compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • Overall cancer mortality increased by 17%.
  • Lung cancer mortality increased by 38%.
  • Ovarian cancer mortality increased by 91%.

Furthermore, every 10% increase in processed food consumption was associated with:

  • A 6% increase in overall cancer mortality.
  • A 16% increase in breast cancer mortality.
  • A 30% increase in ovarian cancer mortality.

The authors concluded, “Our UK-based study suggests that higher [processed food] consumption may be linked to an increased [frequency] and mortality for overall and certain site-specific cancers especially ovarian cancer in women…These findings suggest that limiting [processed food] consumption may be beneficial to prevent and reduce the modifiable burdens of cancer.”

How Can You Reduce Your Cancer Risk?

American Cancer SocietyLet’s start with the American Cancer Society recommendations to limit cancer risk:

1) Avoid tobacco use. 

2) Get to and stay at a healthy weight.

If you are already at a healthy weight, stay there. If you are carrying extra pounds, try to lose some. Losing even a small amount of weight can reduce your risk of cancer and have other health benefits. It is a good place to start.

3) Be physically active and avoid time spent sitting.

Current recommendations are to get at least 150-300 minutes of moderate intensity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity activity each week. Getting to or exceeding 300 minutes is ideal.

In addition, you should limit sedentary behavior such as sitting, lying down, watching TV, and other forms of screen-based entertainment. This is especially important if you spend most of your working day sitting.

4) Follow a healthy eating plan.

A healthy eating pattern includes a variety of vegetables, fiber-rich legumes (beans and peas), fruits in a variety of colors, and whole grains. It is best to avoid or limit red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products. This will provide you with key nutrients in amounts that help you get to and stay at a healthy weight.

5) It is best not to drink alcohol.

It is best not to drink alcohol. People who choose to drink alcohol should limit their intake to no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink a day for women.

This study adds an exclamation point to the American Cancer Society’s recommendation to avoid or limit “processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products”.

You may be asking, “What is so harmful about processed foods?” The most obvious harm is that they are replacing healthier foods that reduce cancer risk, such as “a variety of vegetables, fiber-rich legumes (beans and peas), fruits in a variety of colors, and whole grains” that the American Cancer Society recommends for reducing cancer risk.

But there are other reasons as well. In the words of the authors:

  • “Evidence has been accumulating on the strong obesity and type-2 diabetes-promoting potential of [processed foods], both of which are risk factors for many cancers including those of the digestive tract and some hormone-related cancers in women.
  • Emerging research has suggested other common properties of [processed foods] that may contribute to adverse cancer outcomes, including the use of controversial food additives, contaminants such as acrylamide that form during [food processing], and toxic contaminants such as phthalates and bisphenol-F that migrate from food packaging [into the food].”

The Bottom Line 

You probably know that processed foods are bad for you. But do processed foods cause cancer? A very large study (197,426 people followed for 9.8 years) suggests the answer to that question appears to be yes.

When the authors of the study compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • The risk of overall cancer of any type increased by 7%.
  • The risk of lung cancer increased by 25%.
  • The risk of ovarian cancer increased by 45%.
  • The risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma increased by 63%.
  • The risk of brain cancer increased by 52%.

And when they looked at cancer deaths and did the same comparison:

  • Overall cancer mortality increased by 17%.
  • Lung cancer mortality increased by 38%.
  • Ovarian cancer mortality increased by 91%.

The authors concluded, “Our study suggests that higher [processed food] consumption may be linked to an increased [frequency] and mortality for overall and certain site-specific cancers especially ovarian cancer in women…These findings suggest that limiting [processed food] consumption may be beneficial to prevent and reduce the modifiable burdens of cancer.”

These results are alarming because the most recent study shows that 60% of calories in the American diet comes from processed foods, and the percentage is increasing each year. We need to reverse this trend!

For more information on this study, why processed foods increase your risk of cancer, and what the American Cancer Society recommends to reduce your risk of cancer, 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

 

 

Which Vitamins Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?

by

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?”Supplementation Perspective

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?

Clinical StudyThe 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?

Vitamin SupplementsThere 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?

Questioning WomanThis 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.

  1. 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.

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.”

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.

____________________________________________________________________________

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

 

How To Talk With Your Doctor About Cancer

by

How Can You Partner With Your Doctor?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

CancerFew things in life are more devastating than a cancer diagnosis. One day life is going on smoothly. The next day everything is in doubt. And before you know it, you are listening to your cancer doctor recommend a frightening treatment protocol.

Because of my 40-year career in cancer drug development at the University of North Carolina, people who are newly diagnosed with cancer often contact me for advice.

Let me start by making it clear that I am not a medical doctor, much less an oncologist or radiologist. Thus, I am not qualified to give medical advice on cancer treatment.

However, I worked with many oncologists and radiologists during my career at UNC, so I can offer perspectives about the advice your doctor is giving you and counsel you on what questions to ask your doctor(s).

I love helping people. But rather than have all of you calling me, I thought it would be best to put my advice in writing and send it to all my “Health Tips From the Professor” subscribers.

Is Your Doctor Being Honest With You?

doctor advising patientThe complaint I hear most often is, “I don’t feel my doctor is being honest with me. I feel that he or she is overselling the benefits of cancer treatment, whether it is chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, or some combination of them.”

There is some truth to that perspective, but you need to understand why that is. There are four reasons, and I will save the two most important reasons for last.

  1. People go into medicine to cure disease. Doctors are action oriented. They will recommend the best treatment available, even if its success rate is low because they feel the alternative is unthinkable. The idea of letting cancer run its course is abhorrent to them.

2) Cancer doctors focus on the cures, not the failures. In my time at UNC a couple of oncology residents rotated through my lab to gain some research experience. I was amazed that they were able to remain so positive when they had many patients who were dying. Then it hit me. They comforted the patients they weren’t able to help and took their joy from the cures they were able to obtain.

3) The worst thing a doctor can do is to take away a patient’s hope. Our minds are powerful. If a patient is to have any chance of defeating cancer, they first must believe it is possible.

4) Cancer is a fearsome opponent. There are spontaneous remissions. There are miraculous cures. But left untreated, the cancer usually wins. And that is your doctor’s greatest fear.

How To Talk With Your Doctor About Cancer

QuestionsSo, how do you find out the truth about your doctor’s treatment recommendations. You could Google it, but Dr. Google’s medical advice is often unreliable.

There is a simpler way. Your doctor(s) will be honest with you if you ask them the right questions and assure them you can deal with the answers they give. That last point is key. You should only ask these questions if you can accept whatever the answer may be.

If bad news would devastate you, you shouldn’t ask these questions. And your doctor may not feel he or she could be honest with you.

Before I give you the questions, let me share some definitions you need to know. These definitions give you a more precise definition of success of the cancer treatment your doctor is suggesting. Any treatment your doctor recommends will be supported by multiple clinical trials that provide data for each of these definitions.

Partial Remission is a decrease in the signs and symptoms of cancer. Your tumor has shrunk, but it is still detectable.

Complete Remission is a disappearance of all signs and symptoms of cancer. However, some cancer cells may remain.

Duration of Remission is the average time between the end of treatment and the return (recurrence) of the cancer.

Cure is usually defined as a complete remission that lasts 5 years or more.

With these definitions in mind, here are the questions to ask (only if you want to know the answers).

  1. What percentage of patients undergoing this treatment achieve remission? Is the remission partial or complete? How long does the remission last on the average? If the cancer does recur, can it be treated successfully a second time?

[Even if remission is relatively brief, it may give a chance to put your affairs in order and check a few items off your bucket list. This knowledge is important for many cancer patients.]

2) What percent of patients are cured?

[Every patient receives this information differently. But at least you, rather than your doctor, are making the choice of whether likelihood of being cured is worth the downsides of the treatment.]

3) What are the side effects of the treatment? How much does the treatment cost?

4) What is the prognosis if you do nothing? How long will you live? What will your quality of life be like?

[Sometimes the quality of life if you do nothing is better than the quality of life during treatment because of treatment side effects. This can be an important factor for treatments that have a short duration of remission and/or a very low cure rate.]

As you can appreciate, the answers to these questions can lead to some heart wrenching decisions. That’s why I caution you to only ask these questions if you can handle the answers.

Finally, it is important to remember that the answers your doctor gives you represent the average response of thousands of patients. None of us are average. Your response to treatment and your response to doing nothing depend on your age, overall health, lifestyle factors, genetics, and factors that none of us understand. That makes your decision even more difficult.

How Can You Partner With Your Doctor?

Doctor With PatientThe second most common complaint I hear from patients going through this process is that their doctor isn’t listening to them. They would like to explore treatments with fewer side effects or alternative therapies with no side effects. But their doctor refuses to even consider those possibilities. He or she will say there is no proof those treatments work. It’s their way or the highway.

If you search the internet, many alternative health gurus will tell you this is because:

  • Big Pharma has doctors in its pocket. It spends a lot of money convincing doctors their drugs are the best treatment available.
  • The medical profession is prejudiced against supplementation and alternative therapies.
  • The AMA controls what treatments doctors can and cannot recommend. It can yank the medical license from doctors who dare recommend anything except the AMA-approved treatment.

There is some truth to each of these statements. But there are two other factors that are overlooked by most of these “health gurus”:

  • The proof is much greater for conventional treatment than for alternative therapies. Conventional treatments are supported by multiple clinical studies involving thousands of patients.

This is the standard of proof for conventional treatments. But this kind of proof can cost millions of dollars. Pharmaceutical companies can undertake these kinds of studies because they can recover that cost with a successful cancer drug. But there is no financial incentive to provide that level of proof for alternative therapies.

  • As I said before, cancer is a deadly foe. More importantly, left untreated it can rapidly progress from a highly treatable stage to a stage where any treatment is unlikely to be successful.

This is the greatest fear of your cancer doctor. If you tell them you want to explore an alternative therapy, they are worried that they won’t see you again until your cancer has become untreatable.

With that in mind, let me suggest how you might partner with your doctor.

  • Start by stating that you would like to try an alternative therapy or a less aggressive medical treatment before you try the treatment your doctor recommended.
  • But also tell your doctor that you would like him or her to monitor you on a frequent basis to determine whether your approach is working.
  • And if your approach isn’t working, you will consider again the treatment your doctor recommended.

This is what partnership with your doctor looks like. And it allays their greatest fear that they won’t see you again until your cancer has become untreatable.

If your doctor says no, listen very carefully to their reasoning (You may want to bring a relative or friend with you because they may hear your doctor’s response differently than you do). For example, it could be that your kind of tumor is so aggressive it doesn’t allow a window of opportunity to explore other options.

However, if you are unsatisfied with your doctor’s answer, that is what second opinions are for.

The Bottom Line 

Few things in life are more devastating than a cancer diagnosis. One day life is going on smoothly. The next day everything is in doubt. And before you know it, you are listening to your cancer doctor recommend a frightening treatment protocol.

You are being asked to make the most important decision of your life.

I spent 40 years of my life working on cancer drug development. I’m not a medical doctor. I can’t tell you what to do. But in this article, I tell you:

  • What questions to ask your doctor, and…
  • How to partner with your doctor…

…to help you navigate the most difficult decisions of your life.

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.

Walking Your Way To Health

by

How Much Should You Walk? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Overweight People ExercisingThe new year is almost here. If you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making plans to join a gym, get a personal trainer, or join a spin class.

The problem is these are all expensive options. And a good portion of that money is wasted. To put it into perspective, let’s look at some statistics

  • Around 6 million Americans buy gym memberships every January.
  • 67% of those memberships are never used.
  • For those memberships used in January, another 50% are not in use 6 months later.
  • Americans spend about 1.6 billion dollars on unused gym memberships every year.
  • And that doesn’t include those gym memberships that are only occasionally used.

If you want to get fit and healthy in the new year, perhaps you should consider a less expensive option – like walking. Your only investments are a good pair of walking shoes and a device that keeps track of the number of steps you take (eg, Fitbit, smart watch, or smart phone).

You still may give up on your New Year’s goal of getting fitter at some point. But you won’t have wasted so much money.

Of course, you probably have some questions about the benefits of walking, such as:

  1. Is walking enough to significantly improve my fitness and health?

2) How far (how many steps) should I walk?

3) How fast should I walk?

Fortunately, two recent studies (B del Pozo-Cruz et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, 182: 1139-1148, 2022; J del Pozo-Cruz et al, Diabetes Care, 45: 2156-2158, 2022) have answered all three questions.

How Were These Studies Done?

clinical studyThe first study (B del Pozo-Cruz et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, 182: 1139-1148, 2022) followed 78,500 participants (average age 61, 55% female, 97% white) enrolled in the UK Biobank study for an average of 7 years.

At the time of enrollment, each participant was given an accelerometer (a device that measures the number and frequency of steps) to wear on their dominant wrist for 24 hours/day for 7 days. The investigators used the accelerometer data to categorize several types of physical activity.

  • Daily step counts (the average number of steps per day for 7 days). These step counts were further subdivided into two categories:
  • Incidental steps (It was assumed that ˂40 steps/min represented steps taken that were incidental to normal daily activities).
  • Purposeful steps (It was assumed that ≥40 steps/min represented steps taken as part of planned exercise).
  • Stepping intensity (the highest frequency of steps/min averaged over 30 min intervals for all 7 days).

At the end of the study, each of these variables was correlated with the risk of premature deaths due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease.

The second study (J del Pozo-Cruz et al, Diabetes Care, 45: 2156-2158, 2022) was similar except that it:

  • Used data from 1687 adults (average age = 55, 56% male, with diabetes or prediabetes when the study began) in the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the US.
  • Followed participants for 9 years instead of 7.
  • Only measured total steps/day
  • Correlated total steps/day with premature death for participants who already had prediabetes or diabetes when they entered the study.

Walking Your Way To Health

Study 1 looked at the effect of walking on health outcomes in multiple ways.

woman walking dog#1: Increase in number of steps/day:

  • On average study participants took an average of 7200 steps per day, but this ranged from a low of 3,200 steps/day to a high of 12,200 steps/day.
  • Each increase of 2,000 steps/day was associated with a:
    • 8% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 11% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.
  • Overall, increasing from 3,200 steps/day to 10,000 steps/day decreased all-cause, cancer, and heart disease mortality by around 36%.
  • There was no minimum threshold to this beneficial effect of walking on the risk of premature death.
  • The benefits of walking appeared to plateau at 10,000 steps/day.

#2: Increase in number of incidental steps/day (steps taken that are incidental to normal daily activities):

  • On average study participants took 3240 incidental steps/day, but this ranged from a low of 2,100 steps/day to a high of 4,400 steps/day.
  • Each 10% increase in incremental steps/day was associated with a:
    • 6% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 6% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.

#3: Increase in number of purposeful steps/day (steps taken as part of planned exercise):

  • On average study participants took 4,600 purposeful steps/day, but this ranged from a low of 1,600 steps/day to a high of 8,600 steps/day.
  • Each 10% increase in purposeful steps/day was associated with a:
    • 7% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 8% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.

#4: Increase in speed of walking or cadence. The measurement they used was “peak-30 cadence” – the Walking Fasthighest average steps/min during a 30-minute interval within a day:

  • On average study participants had a “peak-30 cadence” of 76 steps/min, but this ranged from a low of 47 steps/min to a high of 109 steps/min.
  • Each 10% increase in “peak-30 cadence” was associated with a:
    • 8% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 9% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 14% decrease in heart disease mortality.
  • The benefits of walking rapidly (increase in “peak-30 cadence”) were in addition to the benefits seen by increasing the number of steps per day.
  • Overall, increasing from a “peak-30 cadence” of 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min decreased all-cause, cancer, and heart disease mortality by an additional 34%.
  • There was no minimum threshold to this beneficial effect of increasing “peak-30 cadence” (the speed of walking) on the risk of premature death.
  • The benefits of increasing “peak-30 cadence” appeared to plateau at 100 steps/min.

#5 Effect of walking on the prevention of heart disease and cancer: The investigators measured this by strong heartlooking at the effect of walking on the “incidence” of heart disease and cancer (defined as new diagnoses of heart disease and cancer) during the study. They found.

  • Each 2,000-step increase in the total number of steps/day decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 4% during this 7-year study.
  • Each 10% increase in the number of purposeful steps/day decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 4% during this study.
  • Each 10% increase in “peak-30 cadence” decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 7% during this study.

The authors concluded, “The findings of this population-based…study of 78,500 individuals suggest that up to 10,000 steps/day may be associated with a lower risk of mortality and cancer and CVD incidence. Steps performed at a higher cadence may be associated with additional risk reduction, particularly for incident disease.”

Study 2 extended these findings to diabetes. They started with participants that had either prediabetes or diabetesdiabetes and followed them for 9 years. They found that:

  • Study participants with prediabetes ranged from a low of 3,800 steps/day to a high of 10,700 steps/day.
    • Prediabetic participants walking 10,700 steps/day were 25% less likely to die during the study than participants walking only 3,800 steps/day.
  • Study participants with diabetes ranged from a low of 2,500 steps/day to a high of 10,200 steps/day.
    • Diabetic participants walking 10,200 steps/day were also 25% less likely to die during the study than participants walking only 2,500 steps/day.
  • Even small increases in the number of steps per day decreased the risk of premature death for both prediabetic and diabetic participants.
  • Once again, 10,000 steps/day appeared to be the optimal dose to lower the risk of premature death for both diabetic and prediabetic patients.

The authors of this study concluded, “Accumulating more steps/day up to ~10,000 steps/day may lower the risk of all-cause mortality of adults with prediabetes and diabetes.”

How Much Should You Walk?

Walking CoupleThat was a lot of information. You are probably wondering what it means for you. Let’s start with the big picture:

  • Going from couch potato to 10,000 steps per day may reduce your risk of premature death due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease by 36% (24% if you are already prediabetic or diabetic).
  • Increasing the speed with which you walk from 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes may reduce your risk of premature death by an additional 34%.

In other words, simply walking more and walking faster can have a significant on your health. I am not recommending walking as your only form of exercise. I’m just saying not to consider it inferior to other forms of exercise.

  • There is no lower limit to the benefits of walking. Even small increases in the number of steps/day you take and the speed with which you walk may have a beneficial effect on your health.

In other words, you don’t need to speed walk 10,000 steps/day to reap a benefit from walking. Even small increases are beneficial. That’s good news for those of you who may not be able to speed walk long distances. It also means that if you are a couch potato, you don’t need to attempt 10,000 steps at high speed from day 1. You can work up to it gradually.

  • Incidental walking (walking that is incidental to your daily activities) is almost as beneficial as purposeful walking (walking as part of a planned exercise).

That’s good news for those of you who may not have time for long walks. It also means that advice like “park your car at the far end of the parking lot and walk” or “take the stairs rather than the elevator” can have a meaningful impact on your health.

  • The benefits of walking appear to max out at around 10,000 steps per day and a cadence of 100 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes.

That means once you get to those levels, it’s time to consider adding other kinds of exercise to your regimen. More and faster walking may offer little additional benefit.

Finally, in the words of the authors, “This information could be used to motivate the least active individuals to increase their steps and the more-active individuals to reach the 10,000-step target.”

The Bottom Line 

The new year is almost here. If you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making plans to join a gym, get a personal trainer, or join a spin class.

If you want to get fit and healthy in the new year, perhaps you should also consider a less expensive option – like walking.

Of course, you probably have some questions about the benefits of walking, such as:

1) Is walking enough to significantly improve my fitness and health?

2) How far (how many steps) should I walk?

3) How fast should I walk?

Fortunately, two recent studies have answered all three questions. They found:

  • Going from couch potato to 10,000 steps per day may reduce your risk of premature death due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease by 36% (24% if you are already prediabetic or diabetic).
  • Increasing the speed with which you walk from 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes may reduce your risk of premature death by an additional 34%.
  • There is no lower limit to the benefits of walking. Even small increases in the number of steps/day you take and the speed with which you walk may have a beneficial effect on your health.
  • Incidental walking (walking that is incidental to your daily activities) is almost as beneficial as purposeful walking (walking as part of a planned exercise).
  • The benefits of walking appear to max out at around 10,000 steps per day and a cadence of 100 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes.

In the words of the authors of these studies, “This information could be used to motivate the least active individuals to increase their steps and the more-active individuals to reach the 10,000-step target.”

For more details 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.

 

Can Unhealthy Eating Give You Colon Cancer?

by

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods, And Why Might They Cause Colon Cancer? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

The new year is almost here. If you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making a list of potential New Year’s resolutions and “checking it twice”. If weight loss and a healthier diet are important to you, you may want to put cutting back on ultra-processed foods at the top of your list.

And that’s not easy to do. We love our junk foods and our convenience foods.

  • It’s so easy to just stop by the nearest drive-through to pick up a quick meal. And we are hardwired to desire sweet, salty, and fatty foods. That’s why we love the taste of junk foods.
  • We lead busy lives. It’s easier and quicker to pop prepackaged foods into the microwave or oven than prepare a meal from scratch.
  • Even when we go on a diet to lose weight or improve our health, we want quick and easy. And “Big Food Inc” is only too happy to grant us our wish. They offer ultra-processed meals for every weight loss plan and diet program.
  • Many of us are second or third generation junk and convenience food lovers. Junk and convenience foods have become normal. Ultra-processed foods now make up 57% of the daily calories consumed by most Americans.
    • For example, my mother believed in a balanced diet as long as the foods came from a can or a box. That was normal for me growing up. If my wife had not been brought up very differently, I would not be nearly as healthy as I am today.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that ultra-processed foods are bad for us. In recent issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared studies suggesting that ultra-processed foods make us fat, increase our risk of diabetes, and increase our risk of cancer. And if that weren’t bad enough, ultra-processed foods give us gas.

The cancer study referenced above showed that ultra-processed foods increased the risk of overall cancer and breast cancer but did not break it down into other kinds of cancer.

Colon cancer ranks third in overall cancers and second in cancer deaths for both men and women. And foods like processed meats are thought to increase the risk of colon cancer. This inspired the authors of a recent study to ask whether ultra-processed foods increased the risk of colon cancer.

What Are Ultra-processed Foods, And Why Might They Cause Colon Cancer?

Fast Food ExamplesUltra-processed foods:

  • Usually go through several physical and chemical processes, such as extruding, molding, prefrying, and hydrogenation that can lead to the formation of toxic carcinogens that may increase the risk of colon cancer.
    • One example you may have heard about recently would be acrylamide in French fries. Another example would be nitrosamines in processed meats.
  • Are usually high in added sugar, fat, and refined starch which contribute to increased weight gain and obesity, an established risk factor for colon cancer.
  • Are usually low in phytonutrients, fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are known to reduce the risk of colon cancer
  • Typically contain ingredients of little or no nutritive value, such as refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, thickening agents, and artificial colors. Some of these ingredients, such as emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners, have been suggested to cause inflammation in the intestine, which is known to increase the risk of colon cancer.
  • Have long shelf-lives because of added preservatives. This allows migration of carcinogens such as bisphenol A from the packaging materials into the food.

Examples of ultra-processed foods include:

  • Sodas
  • Chips
  • Candy and packages of cookies or crackers
  • Most breakfast cereals
  • Boxed cake, cookie, and pancake mix
  • Chicken nuggets and fish sticks
  • Fast food burgers
  • Hot dogs and other processed meat
  • Infant formula
  • Instant noodles
  • Most store-bought ice cream
  • Flavored yogurt

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study used data collected from:

  • The Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) which enrolled 121,700 female nurses aged 30-55 in 1976 and followed them for 28 years.
  • The Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II) which enrolled 116,429 female nurses aged 25-42 in 1989 and followed them for 24 years.
  • The Health Professions’ Follow-up Study (HPFS) which enrolled 51,529 male health professionals aged 40-75 in 1986 and followed them for 28 years.

After excluding participants who had incomplete data or a previous cancer diagnosis, the investigators running the study ended up with 67,425 women from NHS, 92,482 women from NHS II, and 46,341 men from HPFS for analysis.

Ultra-processed food consumption was scored as follows:

  • The dietary intake of each participant in the studies was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire every four years.
  • Each questionnaire was scored for the percentage of ultra-processed foods.
  • Then each participant in the study was ranked in terms of the percent ultra-processed foods in their diet averaged over the entire time they were enrolled in the study.
  • The participants were then divided into 5 groups based on the number of servings of ultra-processed foods/day they consumed, ranging from a high of 9 servings/day to a low of 3 servings/day.

Every two years the participants were asked to report any cancer diagnosis in the previous two years. Study physicians reviewed the medical records and pathology reports to confirm a diagnosis of colon cancer. If the patient had died, death certificates and medical records were used to confirm a diagnosis of colon cancer.

The investigators then compared the incidence of colon cancer in the group consuming the most ultra-processed foods to the group consuming the least ultra-processed foods.

  • These comparisons were adjusted for compounding factors like race, family history of cancer, history of endoscopy, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol use, aspirin use, menopausal status, and post-menopausal hormone use.
  • The comparisons were also adjusted for obesity and a healthy diet score called AHEI. I will explain the significance of these adjustments below.
  • Finally, the investigators looked at how various categories of ultra-processed food influenced the results.

Can Unhealthy Eating Give You Colon Cancer?

colon cancerHere is what the study found:

  • Men in the highest fifth of ultra-processed food consumption had a 29% higher risk of developing colon cancer than those in the lowest fifth.
  • No association between ultra-processed food consumption and risk of developing colon cancer was seen for women.

When they looked at subgroups of ultra-processed foods again comparing the top fifth in consumption with the lowest fifth:

  • Consumption of ultra-processed ready to eat products containing meat, poultry, or seafood increased the risk of colon cancer by 44% in men and 14% in women.
  • Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increased the risk of colon cancer by 21% in men but did not significantly affect risk of colon cancer in women.
  • Consumption of ultra-processed ready to eat mixed dishes increased the risk of colon cancer by 17% in women but did not significantly affect risk of colon cancer in men.
  • Consumption of ultra-processed dairy products decreased the risk of colon cancer by 17% in women but did not significantly affect risk of colon cancer in men.

The reason for the differing effect of poor diet on the risk of colon cancer in men and women is not clear, but it has been observed in previous studies.

The investigators concluded, “…high consumption of total ultra-processed foods in men and certain subgroups of ultra-processed foods in men and women was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential attributes of ultra-processed foods that contribute to colorectal carcinogenesis.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

There are several take-home lessons from this study:

1: The 29% increase in colon cancer risk reported for men probably underestimates the true risk. I say that because:

  • Ultra-processed food consumption increases the likelihood that you will gain weight, and obesity is a known risk factor for colon cancer. However, the 29% number was obtained after adjusting the data for obesity. Without that adjustment the increased risk would have been greater
  • Ultra-processed foods are low in the protective phytonutrients and fiber provided by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. However, the 29% number was obtained after adjusting the data for a healthy eating index (which includes the amounts of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in the diet). Without that adjustment the increased risk would have been greater.

2: While we don’t know the mechanism(s) for the increased risk of colon cancer reported in this study, we can make some informed guesses. I say that because:

  • Once you have removed obesity and fruits, vegetables, and whole grains from consideration, you are left with:
    • The effect of ultra-processed foods on your gut bacteria.
    • The additives, preservatives, and other potentially carcinogenic chemicals in ultra-processed foods.

3: Finally, don’t think you are off the hook if you are a woman.

  • As I mentioned in the introduction, ultra-processed foods also increase your risk of obesity, diabetes, and breast cancer.

And that brings us back to what I said at the beginning of this article, “If you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making a list of New Year’s resolutions and “checking it twice”. If weight loss and a healthier diet are important to you, you may want to put cutting back on ultra-processed foods at the top of your list.”

The Bottom Line 

A recent study showed that ultra-processed food consumption increased the risk of colon cancer in men, but not in women. The reason for the differing effect of ultra-processed foods on the risk of colon cancer in men and women is not clear, but it has been observed in previous studies on the effect of poor diet on colon cancer risk.

However, don’t think you are off the hook if you are a woman. Previous studies have shown that ultra-processed food consumption increased the risk of obesity, diabetes, and total cancers in both men and women and the risk of breast cancer in women.

The investigators concluded, “…high consumption of total ultra-processed foods in men and certain subgroups of ultra-processed foods in men and women was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

That brings me to my recommendation. “If you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making a list of potential New Year’s resolutions and “checking it twice”. If weight loss and a healthier diet are important to you, you may want to put cutting back on ultra-processed foods at the top of your list.”

For more details 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.

 

 

 

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

by

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

soyWhat is the truth about soy and breast cancer? If you are a woman, particularly a woman with breast cancer, it is an important question.

Some experts say soy should be avoided at all costs. They say that soy will increase your risk of breast cancer. Other experts say soy is perfectly safe and may even reduce your risk of breast cancer. Who is right?

If you are a breast cancer survivor, the question of whether soy increases or decreases your risk of disease recurrence is even more crucial. You have already endured surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. You never want to go through that again.

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

soy confusionSoy isoflavones decrease estrogen production, strengthen the immune system, inhibit cell proliferation, and reduce the production of reactive oxygen species. These are all effects that might reduce breast cancer risk.

On the other hand, soy isoflavones also bind to estrogen receptors and exhibit weak estrogenic activity. This effect has the potential to increase breast cancer risk.

Cell culture and animal studies have only confused the issue. Soy isoflavones stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells in a petri dish. Soy isoflavones also stimulate breast cancer growth in a special strain of mice lacking an immune system. However, in studies in both mice and rats with a functioning immune system, soy isoflavones decrease breast cancer risk.

The confusion has been amplified by claims and counterclaims on the internet. There are bloggers who are more interested in the spectacular than they are in accuracy (Today we call this fake news). They have taken the very weak evidence that soy isoflavones could possibly increase breast cancer risk and have blown it all out of proportion.

Their blogs claim that soy definitely increase breast cancer risk and should be avoided at all costs. Their claims have been picked up by other web sites and blogs. Eventually, the claims have been repeated so many times that people started to believe them. A “myth” was created. I call it a myth because it was never based on convincing scientific evidence.

In the meantime, scientists looked at the cell culture and animal studies and took a more responsible approach. They said “If this is true, it is an important public health issue. We need to do clinical trials in humans to test this hypothesis.”

What Have Previous Clinical Studies Shown?

breast cancerThe question of whether soy consumption increased the risk of developing breast cancer was settled a long time ago. Some studies have shown no effect of soy consumption on breast cancer risk. Others have reported that soy consumption decreased breast cancer risk. A meta-analysis of 18 previous clinical studies found that soy slightly decreased the risk of developing breast cancer (J Natl Cancer Inst, 98: 459-471, 2006). None of those studies found any evidence that soy increased the risk of breast cancer.

What about recurrence of breast cancer in women who are breast cancer survivors? Between 2006 and 2013 there have been five major clinical studies looking at the effects of soy consumption on breast cancer recurrence in both Chinese and American populations. Once again, the studies have shown either no effect of soy on breast cancer recurrence or a protective effect. None of them have shown any detrimental effects of soy consumption for breast cancer survivors.

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

What Did The Latest Study Show?

Clinical StudyIn previous clinical studies the protective effect of soy has been greater in Asian populations than in North American populations. This could have been because Asians consume more soy. However, it could be due to other population differences as well. To better evaluate the effect of soy consumption on breast cancer survivors in the North America, a group of investigators correlated soy consumption with all-cause mortality in breast cancer survivors in the US and Canada (Zhang et al, Cancer, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30615, March 2017).

The data were collected from The Breast Cancer Family Registry, an international research infrastructure establish in 1995. The women enrolled in this registry either have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer or have a family history of breast cancer.

This study included 6235 breast cancer survivors from the registry who lived in the San Francisco Bay area and the province of Ontario in Canada. The women represented an ethnically diverse population and had a median age of 51.8 at enrollment. Soy consumption was assessed either at the time of enrollment or immediately following breast cancer diagnosis. The women were followed for 9.4 years, during which time 1224 of them died.

The results were as follows:

  • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
    • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
    • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.
  • The authors concluded “In this large, ethnically diverse cohort of women with breast cancer, higher dietary intake of [soy] was associated with reduced total mortality.”

In an accompanying editorial, Omer Kucuk, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, noted that the United States is the number 1 soy producer in the world and is in a great position to initiate changes in health policy by encouraging soy intake.  He said “We now have evidence that soy foods not only prevent breast cancer but also benefit women who have had breast cancer. Therefore, we can recommend women to consume soy foods because of soy’s many health benefits.”

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

Myth Versus FactsEvery clinical study has its limitations. If there were only one or two studies, the question of whether soy increases breast cancer risk might still be in doubt. However, multiple clinical studies have come to the same conclusion. Either soy has no effect on breast cancer risk and breast cancer recurrence, or it has a protective effect.

Not a single clinical study has found any evidence that soy increases breast cancer risk. It is clear that consumption of soy foods is safe, and may be beneficial, for women with breast cancer. The myth that soy increases breast cancer risk needs to be put to rest.

On the other hand, we should not think of soy as a miracle food. Breast cancer risk is also decreased by a diet that:

  • Contains lots of fruits and vegetables.
  • Is low in processed grains & sweets and high in whole grains.
  • Is low in saturated & trans fats and high in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats.
  • Is low in red & processed meats and high in beans, fish & chicken.

Furthermore, diet is just one component of a holistic approach for reducing the risk of breast cancer. In addition to a healthy diet, the American Cancer Society recommends that you:

  • Control your weight
  • Be physically active
  • Limit alcohol
  • Don’t smoke
  • Limit hormone replacement therapy unless absolutely necessary.
  • Reduce stress

The Bottom Line

1) It is time to put the myth that soy increases breast cancer risk to rest. This myth is based on cell culture and animal studies, and those studies were inconclusive.

2) Multiple clinical studies have shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer risk, or that it reduces the risk.

3) Multiple clinical studies have also shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer recurrence in women who are breast cancer survivors, or that it reduces recurrence.

4) The latest clinical study is fully consistent with previous studies. It reports:

    • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
    • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
    • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.

5) No clinical studies have provided any evidence to support the claim that soy increases either breast cancer risk or breast cancer recurrence.

6) On the other hand, we should not think of soy as a miracle food. Breast cancer risk is also decreased by a diet that:

    • Contains lots of fruits and vegetables.
    • Is low in processed grains & sweets and high in whole grains.
    • Is low in saturated & trans fats and high in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats.
    • Is low in red & processed meats and high in beans, fish & chicken

7) Finally, diet is just one component of a holistic approach for reducing the risk of breast cancer. In addition to a healthy diet, the American Cancer Society recommends that you:

    • Control your weight
    • Be physically active
    • Limit alcohol
    • Don’t smoke
    • Limit hormone replacement therapy unless absolutely necessary.
    • Reduce stress

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.

Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements?

by

Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

SupplementationSupplementation for cancer patients is a controversial topic.

  • Dr. Strangelove and his friends promote a variety of herbal ingredients, vitamins, and minerals as a cure for various kinds of cancer.
  • Unscrupulous supplement companies hype their cancer “cures”.
  • Doctors often tell their patients to avoid all supplements while they are being treated for cancer.
  • Nutrition experts and some doctors tell us that a good diet and basic supplementation help normal cells recover from cancer treatment and improve patient outcomes.

Where is the truth? For this article I will break it down into three questions:

1) Does supplementation improve outcomes for cancer patients? That is the topic of the study (AL Shaver et al, Cancers, 13: 6276, 2021) I will review today.

2) Does supplementation interfere with cancer treatment? I will provide a perspective and practical advice on this question based on my 40 years of cancer research.

3) Does supplementation prevent (reduce the risk of) cancer? I have covered this topic in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Just put cancer or breast cancer in the search box to find the relevant articles.

But before I answer these questions, I should cover my favorite topic as a Biochemist, “Metabolism 101”. Specifically, “Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation?”

Metabolism 101: Does Stress Increase Our Need For Supplementation? 

professor owlLet me start out by saying that there are two kinds of stress.

  • Psychological stress is our body’s response to a hectic day or a stressful work environment.
  • Metabolic stress is our body’s response to trauma or a major disease.

Dr. Strangelove and his buddies will tell you that psychological stress increases your nutritional needs. And they just happen to have the perfect blend of vitamins and minerals for you. However, this is a myth.

Psychological stress has relatively little effect on your nutritional needs. If you have a nutritional deficiency, supplementation can help you cope with psychological stress, but psychological stress doesn’t create nutritional deficiencies.

Metabolic stress, on the other hand, has a major effect on your nutritional needs.

  • Trauma and major diseases put you in a catabolic state. Catabolism literally means “breaking down”. You are breaking down your body tissues at an alarming rate. This affects every aspect of your health, including your immune system.
  • Trauma and major disease also increase your need for certain micronutrients. Plus, there are often loss of appetite and mobility issues that prevent you from getting the nutrients you need.
  • Research in the 60s and 70s showed that providing hospitalized patients with protein, energy in the form of healthy fats and carbohydrates, and micronutrients significantly shortened hospital stays and improved outcomes. Today, nutritional support is the standard of care for severely ill hospital patients.

Cancer is the poster child for metabolic stress.

  • It forces the body into a catabolic state to provide nutrients the cancer needs to grow.
    • That is why cancer patients often experience dramatic weight loss and weakness from muscle loss.
    • Catabolism also weakens the immune system, which is one of the most important tools in our fight against cancer.
  • To make matters worse:
    • Cancer treatment destroys normal cells as well as tumor cells. Because of this cancer patients sometimes die from the treatment, not the cancer.
    • Cancer treatment often causes nausea and/or suppresses appetite, which makes it even harder for cancer patients to get the nutrients they need from their diet.

Because of this, you would think that nutritional support would be the standard of care for cancer patients, but it isn’t. Because of fears that nutritional support might “feed cancer cells” or interfere with chemotherapy, there have been very few studies of supplementation in cancer patients. That is what makes this study so important.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study took advantage of the fact that supplementation is prevalent among cancer patients even though their doctors may not have recommended it.

This study drew on data from the 2011-2012 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is a yearly survey that monitors the health and nutritional status of non-institutionalized adults in the US population.

NHANES participants were asked to respond to a medical condition questionnaire in their homes by a trained interviewer. In one portion of the interview, they were asked if they had ever been told they had cancer, arthritis, diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or hypertension. The participants were also asked if they had been hospitalized with one of those diseases.

The study consisted of 14 million people who answered ‘yes’ to the question, “Have you ever been told you had a cancer or malignancy?” The participants were selected to give an equal number of supplement users and non-users who were closely matched for age, sex, race, and other demographics.

All NHANES participants were asked to fill in two 24-hour dietary recalls separated by 3-10 days. The dietary recalls included supplement use but did not identify the kind of supplements used.

Finally, participants in the NHANES survey were asked to rate their physical and mental health on a scale from 1 (excellent health) to 5 (poor health). Participants were also asked to indicate on how many days in the past 30 days their physical or mental health was not good. A quality-of-life score was calculated from these data.

Does Supplementation Improve Outcomes For Cancer Patients?

good newsThe study found that for cancer patients:

  • Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
  • This is important because:
    • Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
    • Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
  • The self-reported quality of life score was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.

This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.

  • This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.
    • A major strength of the study is the large sample size (> 14 million US adults).
    • A major limitation of this study is that the NHANES survey does not record which supplements people were using.

The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”

Does Supplementation Interfere With Cancer Treatment?

Question MarkThe reason that supplementation is not more widely recommended for cancer patients is two-fold.

1) There is a fear among many doctors that improved nutrition will feed the cancer cells and promote tumor growth.

    • This thinking is like the famous quote from a general during the Vietnamese war that, “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it [from the Viet Cong]”.
    • We need healthy normal cells to fight the cancer and for good quality of life while we are fighting the cancer. We need to protect these cells while we are destroying the cancer cells. We cannot afford to destroy the whole “village”.
    • For example, both cancer treatment and the catabolism associated with the cancer weaken the immune system, and a strong immune system is essential to successfully fight the cancer.

2) There is also a fear that supplementation will interfere with cancer treatment. This is a more legitimate fear and deserves a more in-depth analysis.

    • There are some instances where supplementation can clearly interfere with treatment. For example,
      • Radiation treatment relies on the production of free radicals. High-dose antioxidants have been shown to interfere with radiation treatment.
      • Some drugs act by suppressing folate levels in cells. High-dose B complex or folic acid supplements would clearly interfere with these drugs. However, high-dose folic acid supplementation is often used before and after drug treatment to “rescue” normal cells.
    • There are other cases where supplementation is likely to interfere with treatment.
      • A few drugs depend in part on free radical formation. High-dose antioxidants have the potential to interfere with these drugs.
      • Some herbal supplements activate enzymes involved in the metabolism of certain anti-cancer drugs. While these interactions are rare, they could interfere with the effectiveness of these drugs. [Note: This concern only applies to certain herbal supplements. It does not apply to vitamin-mineral supplements.]
    • Most other fears about supplement-drug interactions are theoretical. There are neither potential mechanisms nor evidence to support those fears.

However, there is a strategy for minimizing the potential for supplement-drug interactions based on the science of pharmacokinetics. Simply put:

  • Most cases of supplement-drug interactions can be avoided by assuring that high doses of anti-cancer drugs and nutrients that might interfere with those drugs are not present in the bloodstream at the same time.
  • Pharmocokinetic studies tell us that most anticancer drugs and nutrients are cleared from the bloodstream in 24-48 hours.
  • So, my standard recommendation is to avoid supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and wait to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment. This recommendation does not apply to radiation treatment since it is done on a daily basis.

However, there are a few drugs that are cleared from the bloodstream more slowly, so it is always best to check with your pharmacist or doctor before deciding on the appropriate window to avoid supplementation. The goal is always to protect normal cells without interfering with the drug’s ability to kill cancer cells.

Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements?

SupplementationWith the information I have shared above in mind, I am now ready to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this article, “Should cancer patients take supplements?” The answer is a qualified, “Yes”.

Let me start with the yes, and then talk about the qualifications.

  • This study makes clear that cancer is like every other major disease that can land you in the hospital. Nutritional support, including protein supplements, vitamins, and minerals, can reduce your risk of hospitalization, get you out of the hospital quicker, and improve your quality of life.
  • A strong immune system is important for fighting cancer, so immune-supporting supplements may also be important for cancer patients.
  • Note I did not say that supplementation can cure cancer. There is little evidence to support that claim.
  • The role of supplementation in preventing cancer is complex. I have covered this in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Let me summarize by saying that supplementation can play a role in preventing cancer when nutrient levels are suboptimal. However, the evidence that megadoses of nutrients can prevent cancer is scant.

The qualifications mostly revolve around taking supplements while undergoing cancer treatment. To summarize what I said above:

  • There are a few cases in which supplements clearly interfere with cancer treatment.
  • There are other cases in which supplements are likely to interfere with cancer treatment.
  • However, in most cases supplement-treatment interactions are only theoretical.
  • In most cases any interaction between supplements and anti-cancer drugs can be minimized by avoiding supplementation for a day or two prior to cancer treatment and waiting to resume supplementation for a day or two after cancer treatment.
  • However, there are exceptions to this rule, so it is always best to consult your pharmacist or doctor if in doubt.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of supplementation for patients with cancer. The study found that for cancer patients:

  • Hospitalization rates were 12% for supplement users versus 21% for non-users.
  • This is important because:
    • Cancer patients who have been hospitalized have 6-fold higher odds of all-cause mortality than those who do not require hospitalization.
    • Health care costs the first year after cancer diagnosis average $60,000 versus an estimated $350-$3,500 yearly cost of supplementation.
  • The self-reported quality of life was significantly higher for supplement users versus non-users.

This study strongly supports the idea that supplementation significantly improves quality of life and health outcomes in cancer patients.

  • This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that nutrition support significantly improves health outcomes for hospitalized patients admitted with trauma or other major diseases.

The authors concluded, “Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimal health [for cancer patients]. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes for different kinds of cancer…Given the overall cost-effectiveness of dietary supplementation, there is a need for better provider education about how to talk with cancer survivors about their nutrient status and filling nutrient gaps through both food and supplements. Immune-supportive supplementation may prove to be a clinically effective and important tool that is accessible via telemedicine.”

For more details, a discussion on the effect of supplementation on cancer treatment, and a summary of what this study 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.

Health Tips From The Professor