The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer

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?

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.

Does Olive Oil Help You Live Longer?

Which Fat Is Healthiest?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you believe the headlines, olive oil is a superfood. It is often described as the star of the Mediterranean diet. It is referred to as the healthiest of dietary fats. Is this true, or is it hype?

Olive oil’s resume is impressive:

  • It is rich in monounsaturated fatty acids, which…
    • Are less susceptible to oxidation than polyunsaturated oils.
    • Make our arteries more flexible, which lowers blood pressure.
    • Lower LDL-cholesterol levels, which reduces the risk of heart disease.
  • Extra-virgin olive oil contains phytonutrients and tocopherols (various forms of vitamin E), which…
    • Have anti-inflammatory properties.
    • Improve insulin sensitivity and blood sugar control.
  • Olive oil consumption is also associated with healthier gut bacteria, but it is not clear whether this is due to olive oil or to the fact that a Mediterranean diet is also richer in fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Several recent studies have shown that olive oil consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart disease. However, these studies were conducted in Mediterranean countries where the average intake of olive oil (3 tablespoons/day) is much greater than in the United States (0.3 tablespoons/day).

The current study (M Guasch-Ferré et al, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 79: 101-112, 2022) was designed to test whether:

  • The amount of olive oil Americans consume decreases the risk of heart disease.
  • Whether olive oil consumption had benefits beyond a reduction in heart disease risk.

How Was This Study Done? 

Clinical StudyThis study combined data from 60,582 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study). The participants:

  • Were free of heart disease and diabetes at the start of the study.
  • Were 56 at the start of the study with an average BMI of 25.6 (Individuals with BMIs in the 25-30 range are considered overweight, so they were at the lowest end of the overweight range).

The Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professional Follow-Up Study are both association studies, meaning they looked at the association between olive oil consumption and health outcomes. They cannot directly prove cause and effect. However, they are very strong association studies because:

  • Every 2 years, participants filled out a questionnaire that updated information on their body weight, smoking status, physical activity, medications, multivitamin use, and physician-diagnosed diseases.
  • Every 4 years, participants filled out a comprehensive food frequency questionnaire.
  • In other words, this study did not just rely on the participant’s lifestyle, dietary intake, and health at the beginning of the study, as so many association studies do. It tracked how each of these variables changed over time.

The participants were followed for an average of 28 years and their average olive oil intake over those 28 years was correlated with all-cause mortality and mortality due to specific diseases.

  • Deaths were identified from state vital statistics, the National Death index, reports by next of kin, or reports by postal authorities.
  • Causes of death were determined by physician review of medical records, medical reports, autopsy reports, or death certificates.

Does Olive Oil Help You Live Longer?

During the 28 years of this study:

  • Olive oil consumption in the United States increased from an average of ~1/3 teaspoon/day to ~1/3 tablespoon/day.
  • Margarine consumption decreased from 12 g/day to ~4 g/day.
  • The consumption of all other fats and oils remained about the same.

As I mentioned above, olive oil consumption was averaged over the life of the study for each individual. When the investigators compared people consuming the highest amount of olive oil (>0.5 tablespoon/day) with people consuming the least olive oil (0 to 1 teaspoon/day):

  • Mortality from all causes was decreased by 35% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

However, the group consuming the most olive oil also was more physically active, had a healthier diet, and consumed more fruits and vegetables than the group who consumed the least olive oil.

  • After correcting for all those factors, mortality from all causes was decreased by 19% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

The authors concluded, “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total…mortality… Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil…to improve overall health and longevity.” (I will fill in the blanks in this statement once I have covered other aspects of this study)

The authors also said, “Of note, our study showed that benefits of olive oil can be observed even when consumed in lower amounts than in Mediterranean countries.”

Are There Other Benefits From Olive Oil Consumption?

Mediterranean dietThe study didn’t stop there. The investigators also looked at the effect of olive oil consumption on the major killer diseases in the United States and other developed countries. When they compared the effect of olive oil consumption on cause-specific mortality, they found that the group who consumed the most olive oil reduced their risk of dying from:

  • Cardiovascular disease by 19%.
  • Cancer by 17%
  • Respiratory disease by 18%.
  • Neurodegenerative disease (cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease) by 29%.
    • The reduction in neurodegenerative disease was much greater for women (34% decrease) than for men (19% decrease).

With this information I can fill in one of the blanks in the author’s conclusions: “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality… Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil…to improve overall health and longevity.”

Which Fats Are Healthiest?

Good Fat vs Bad FatThe sample size was large enough and the dietary information complete enough for the investigators to also estimate the effect of substituting olive oil for other dietary fats and oils.

They found that every ¾ tablespoon of olive oil substituted for an equivalent amount of:

  • Margarine decreased total mortality by 13%.
  • Butter decreased total mortality by 14%.
  • Mayonnaise deceased total mortality by 19%
  • Dairy fat decreased total mortality by 13%.
    • The same beneficial effects of substituting olive oil for other fats were seen for cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative disease).
    • There was a linear dose-response. This means that substituting twice as much olive oil for other dietary fats doubled the beneficial effects on total and cause-specific mortality.
  • However, substituting olive oil for polyunsaturated vegetable oils had no effect on total and cause-specific mortality.

Now I can fill in the remaining blanks in the author’s conclusion: “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. Replacing other types of fat, such as margarine, butter, mayonnaise, and dairy fat, with olive oil was also associated with a lower risk of mortality. Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity.”

What Does This Study Mean For Us?

ConfusionAs I said above, this is an association study, and association studies do not prove cause and effect. However:

1) This is a very strong association study because:

    • It is a very large study (92,383 participants).
    • It followed the participants over a long time (28 years).
    • It utilized a very precise dietary analysis.
    • Most importantly, it tracked the participant’s lifestyle, dietary intake, and health at regular intervals throughout the study. Most association studies only measure these variables at the beginning of the study. They have no idea how they change over time.

2) This study is consistent with several previous studies showing that olive oil consumption decreases the risk of dying from heart disease.

3) This study draws on its large population size and precise dietary analysis to strengthen and extend the previous studies. For example:

    • The study showed that increased olive oil consumption also reduced total mortality and mortality due to cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative disease.
    • The study measured the effect of substituting olive oil for other common dietary fats.
    • The study showed that increased olive oil consumption in the context of the American diet was beneficial.

I should point out that the headlines you have seen about this study may be misleading.

  • While the headlines may have depicted olive oil as a superfood, this study did not find evidence that olive oil was more beneficial than other unsaturated vegetable oils. Again, this is consistent with many previous studies showing that substituting vegetable oils for other dietary fats reduces the risk of multiple diseases.
  • The headlines focused on the benefits of increasing olive oil consumption. However, they neglected the data showing that increasing olive oil (and other vegetable oils) was even more beneficial (35% reduction in total mortality) in the context of a healthy diet – one with increased intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and long-chain omega-3s and decreased intake of red & processed meats, sodium, and trans fats.

So, my recommendation is to follow a whole food, primarily plant-based diet and substitute extra-virgin olive oil and cold pressed vegetable oils for some of the animal fats in your diet.

Some vegan enthusiasts recommend a very low-fat whole food plant-based diet. They point to studies showing that such diets can actually reverse atherosclerosis. However:

  • Those studies are very small.
  • The overall diet used in those studies is a very healthy plant-based diet.
  • The studies did not include a control group following the same diet with olive oil or other vegetable oils added to it, so there is no comparison of a healthy vegan diet with and without vegetable oils.

If you have read my book, Slaying the Food Myths, you know that my recommendations encompass a variety of whole food, primarily plant-based diets ranging all the way from very-low fat vegan diets to Mediterranean and DASH diets. Choose the one that best fits your food preferences and the one you will be most able to stick with long term. You will be healthier, and you may live longer.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of olive oil consumption on the risk dying from all causes and from heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and neurodegenerative diseases. When the study compared people consuming the highest amount of olive oil (>0.5 tablespoon/day) with people consuming the least olive oil (0 to 1 teaspoon/day):

  • Mortality from all causes was decreased by 19% for the group consuming the most olive oil.

They also found that the group who consumed the most olive oil reduced their risk of dying from:

  • Cardiovascular disease by 19%.
  • Cancer by 17%
  • Respiratory disease by 18%.
  • Neurodegenerative disease (cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease) by 29%.

They also found that every ¾ tablespoon of olive oil substituted for an equivalent amount of:

  • Margarine decreased total mortality by 13%.
  • Butter decreased total mortality by 14%.
  • Mayonnaise deceased total mortality by 19%
  • Dairy fat decreased total mortality by 13%.
  • However, substituting olive oil for polyunsaturated vegetable oils had no effect on total and cause-specific mortality.

The authors concluded, “We found that greater consumption of olive oil was associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. Replacing other types of fat, such as margarine, butter, mayonnaise, and dairy fat, with olive oil was also associated with a lower risk of mortality. Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity.”

For more details 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.

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

fast foodIt breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

Let me explain. The human brain is hardwired to crave sweets, salt, and fat. In prehistoric times each of these cravings had a survival benefit. For example:

  • Mother’s milk is naturally sweet. It only makes sense that babies should crave the nutrition source that is essential for their early growth and development.
  • Fruits provide a cornucopia of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. But fruits were scarce and seasonal in prehistoric times. Their sweetness provided an incentive for early man to seek them out.
  • Some salt is essential for life. Yet in early history it was scare. It was worth its weight in gold.
  • In prehistoric times it was feast or famine. The human body has an unlimited capacity to store fat in times of plenty, and those fat stores carried early man through times of famine.

Today most Americans live in a time of food abundance. There are fast food restaurants on almost every street corner and in every shopping mall. We think of famine as the days we skipped lunch because we were busy.

Yet these cravings remain, and the food industry has weaponized them. They are churning out an endless supply highly processed foods and beverages. These foods are not being designed to improve their nutritional value. They are designed to satisfy our cravings and lure us and our children into consuming more of them every year.

Scientists have developed a classification system that assigns foods in the American diet to different groups based on the degree of processing of that food. As you might expect, the best classification is unprocessed foods. The worst classification is called “ultraprocessed foods”. [I will describe this classification system in more detail in the next section.]

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. That is the topic of the study (L Wang et al, JAMA, 326: 519-530, 2021) I will discuss today.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study were obtained from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) dietary data collected from 33,795 American children (ages 2-19, average age = 10) between 1999 and 2018.

NHANES is a program conducted by the CDC to survey the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey has been conducted on a continuous, yearly basis since 1999.

The dietary data are collected via 24-hour dietary recalls conducted by trained interviewers, with a second recall administered over the phone 3-10 days later to improve the accuracy of the data.

  • Children aged 12-19 completed the dietary survey on their own.
  • For children aged 6-11, a parent or guardian assisted them in filling out the survey.
  • For children aged 2-5, a parent or guardian filled out the survey for them.

The foods and beverages consumed by the children were divided into 4 major groups based on the extent of processing using a well-established classification system called NOVA. The 4 groups are:

1) Unprocessed Or Minimally Processed Foods.

  • This includes whole foods and foods that are minimally processed without the addition of oils, fats, sugar, salt, or other ingredients to the food.
  • Examples of minimally processed foods include things like oatmeal, nut butters, dried fruit, frozen fruits or vegetables, and dried beans.

2) Processed Culinary Ingredients.

  • This includes recipes from restaurants or in-home cooking that add small amounts of oils, fats, sugar, salt, and seasonings to whole foods.

3) Processed Foods

  • This includes foods made in factories by the addition of salt, sugar, oil, or other substances added to whole or minimally processed foods.
  • Examples include tomato paste, canned fruits packed in sugar syrup, cheese, smoked or cured meat.

4) Ultraprocessed Foods

  • These are industrial formulations created in factories mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories (flavor enhancers, colors, and food additives).
  • Examples include sugar sweetened beverages; sweet or savory packaged snacks; chocolates and candies; burgers, hot dogs, and sausages; poultry and fish nuggets, pastries, cakes, and cake mixes.

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

Obese ChildAs I said above, the important question is, “Are we killing our children with kindness when we give them the sugary drinks, sweets, convenience foods, and fast foods they crave?” After all, the foods we give them when they are young are the ones they are most likely to select when they get older.

Let’s start by looking at how pervasive these foods have become. That was the purpose of the study I am discussing today, and the results of this study are alarming. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!
  • Ultraprocessed foods were more likely to be consumed away from home and at fast food restaurants.

When the investigators looked at individual categories of ultraprocessed foods:

  • The percentage of calories coming from ready to heat and eat dishes like frozen pizzas and other frozen meals or snacks increased from 2.2% to 11.2%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sweet snacks and desserts increased from 10.7% to 12.9%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sugar sweetened beverages decreased from 10.8% to 5.3%.
    • This is potentially the only good news from this study.

The authors concluded. “Based on NHANES data from 1999 to 2018, the estimated energy intake from consumption of ultraprocessed foods has increased among youths in the US and has consistently comprised the majority of their total energy intake.”

“These results suggest that food processing may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies.”

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods

Fast Food DangersThis study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

#1: Their nutrition suffers. When the investigators divided the children into 5 groups based on the percentage of calories coming from ultraprocessed foods, the children consuming the most ultraprocessed food had:

  • Significantly higher intakes of carbohydrates (mostly refined carbohydrates); total fats; polyunsaturated fats (mostly highly processed omega-6-rich vegetable oils); and added sugars.
  • Significantly lower intakes of fiber; protein; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; calcium; magnesium; potassium; zinc; vitamins A, C, D, and folate.
    • The low intake of fiber means our children will be less likely to have health-promoting friendly bacteria and more likely to have disease-promoting bad bacteria in their guts.
    • The low intake of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D means they will be less likely to achieve maximum bone density as young adults and will be more likely to suffer from osteoporosis as they age.

#2: They are more likely to become obese. Remember, these are foods that are made in a factory, not grown on a farm.

  • They are high in fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates. That means they have a high caloric density. Each bite has 2-3 times the calories found in a bite of fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • As I said earlier, the food industry has weaponized our natural cravings for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. They feed their prototypes to a series of consumer tasting panels until they find the perfect blend of sugar, salt, and fat to create maximum craving.
  • And if that weren’t enough, they add additives to create the perfect flavor and “mouth appeal”.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and obesity in both children and adults.
    • It is also no wonder that the rate of childhood obesity has almost quadrupled (5% to 18.5%) in the last 40 years.

#3: They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

  • Obesity; high intake of fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates; and low intake of fiber, omega-3s, and essential nutrients all contribute to an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and premature death in adults.
    • It is also no wonder a recent study found that type 2 diabetes in children has almost doubled between 2001 and 2017.

The data are clear. When we allow our children to subsist on a diet mostly made up of the ultraprocessed foods they crave, we may be giving them, not love, but a lifetime of obesity and declining health instead. And yes, we may be killing them with kindness.

Instead, my recommendations are:

  • expose your children to a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed foods at an early age.
  • They will reject some of them, and that’s OK. Introduce others until you find whole, minimally processed foods they like. Reintroduce them to some of the foods they initially rejected as they get older.
  • Don’t keep tempting ultraprocessed foods in your house.
  • You may just succeed in putting your children on the path to a healthier diet and a healthier, longer life.

The Bottom Line

It breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. A recent study did just that. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!

This study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

  • Their nutrition suffers.
  • They are more likely to become obese.
  • They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

For more details about this study, 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.

How Does Red Meat Cause Colon Cancer?

How Can You Decrease Your Risk Of Colon Cancer? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Grilled HamburgersBoth red meat and processed meat consumption are associated with increased risk of colon cancer. But the strength of that association differs between the two.

Processed meat has been classified as a carcinogen by the IARC*, indicating the evidence that processed meat causes colon cancer is definitive. Red meat, on the other hand, has been classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC*. That means the evidence that red meat causes colon cancer is strong, but not definitive.

*[In case you were wondering, the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) is an international agency charged by the WHO to, among other things, determine the risk of cancer from various foods, industrial chemicals, and environmental pollutants.]

As I said above, red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of colon cancer. But…

  • Not all studies agree (more about that later), and…
  • Association doesn’t prove cause and effect. It could be some other characteristic of red meat eaters that increases their risk of colon cancer.
  • Until recently we had no clear idea of how red meat might cause colon cancer.

Several mechanisms have been proposed. I will discuss each mechanism and ways to reduce the risk of colon cancer by that mechanism:

#1: When fat and juices from the meat drip onto an open flame, carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Barbecue Gatheringare formed that stick to the surface of the meat. PAHs can be metabolized to cancer causing chemicals in our body.

  • PAH formation can be reduced by marinating the meat prior to cooking or by using cooking techniques that don’t involve an open flame.
  • PAH formation can be reduced, but not eliminated, by lower fat meat choices, such as grass-fed beef.
  • High fiber diets reduce exposure to PAHs by binding to them and flushing them through the intestine.
  • Cruciferous vegetables block the conversion of PAHs to cancer causing chemicals in our body.

#2: When red meats are cooked at high temperatures, amino acids in the meat combine with creatine, which is found in all red meats, to form heterocyclic amines (HCAs). HCAs can also be metabolized to cancer causing chemicals in our body.

  • HCA formation can be reduced by cooking the meat at lower temperatures.
  • Grass-fed beef does not reduce HCA formation because this mechanism is not dependent on the fat content of the meat.
  • High fiber diets and cruciferous vegetables reduce the danger of HCAs by the same mechanisms as for PAHs.

#3: The nitrates and nitrites used as preservatives in many processed meats react with amino acids from the meat to form carcinogenic N-nitrosamines in our intestines.

  • Antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables can divert nitrates and nitrites into an alternative pathway that coverts them into nitric oxide, which is beneficial to our bodies. I have discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

#4: Heme, which is found in all red meats, combines with amino acids in the meat to form carcinogenic N-nitrosamines and similar N-nitroso compounds in our intestines.

  • This mechanism is inherent in all red meats and cannot be eliminated by choosing grass-fed beef or cooking at lower temperatures.
  • The formation of N-nitroso compounds from red meat appears to be carried out by gut bacteria. We know that meat eaters and vegetarians have very different populations of gut bacteria, but we don’t know whether this influences N-nitroso formation.

Mechanism #4 (formation of N-nitroso compounds from heme-containing red meat in our intestines) is the one I will be discussing in this article. But first, it’s time for Metabolism 101.

Metabolism 101: Why Should We Fear N-Nitroso Compounds?

ProfessorSimply put, N-nitroso compounds react with our DNA. They transfer methyl and ethyl groups to the nucleotides that make up our DNA sequence. The general term for these reactions is alkylation of the DNA.

  • In some cases, this causes the alkylated nucleotides to miscode during DNA replication. This can lead to cancer causing mutations.
  • In other cases, this causes genes to be permanently turned on or off.

To understand why this is a problem, you need to know a bit about cancer cell biology.

  • We have certain genes called “oncogenes”. These are genes that turn on processes like cell division. Normally these genes are tightly regulated so that cell division only occurs when it is needed. When these genes are permanently turned on, unregulated, continuous cell division occurs. In short, the cell becomes a cancer cell.
  • We have other genes called “tumor suppressor genes”. These are genes that do things like shutting down cell division when it is not needed. When these genes are permanently turned off, unregulated cell division can occur.

With this in mind, let us review what we know about red meat and colon cancer:

  • Red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of colon cancer.
  • Red meat consumption is also associated with increased concentrations of N-nitroso compounds in the colon. Studies also show:
  • The formation of N-nitroso compounds correlates with the heme content of the meat.
  • The formation of N-nitroso compounds in the colon is dependent on certain strains of gut bacteria.
  • The formation of N-nitroso compounds is reduced by diets high in fiber. It is likely this is because high fiber diets influence the types of bacteria in the colon, but that has not been proven yet.

What is missing is evidence that colon cancer cells contain the kind of DNA modifications (DNA alkylation) caused by N-nitroso compounds. That is what the current study (C Gurjao et al, Cancer Discovery, published online June 17, 2021) was designed to test.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyOne reason previous studies had not been able to demonstrate a clear correlation between red meat consumption and DNA modifications was that the studies were too small to obtain statistically significant results.

So, the authors of this study combined data from women in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. There were over 238,130 women and 51,529 men in these three studies.

None of the participants had cancer at the time they entered the studies. The participants were followed for at least 27 years. During that time 4855 participants developed colon cancer.

At the beginning of each study and every 4 years later the participants were asked to fill out a food frequency questionnaire to collect information about their usual diet over the past year. Validation studies showed that the diets of the participants changed little over the interval of the studies.

The participants in these studies were sent follow-up questionnaires every two years to collect information on lifestyle and newly diagnosed diseases like colon cancer.

For those who developed colon cancer, their medical records were reviewed to collect data on tumor size, tumor location, and disease stage.

The diagnoses of colon cancer often involves removing tissue from the cancer and from surrounding normal tissue and putting it in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. These were collected, and the DNA was extracted and sequenced to determine the extent and genetic location of alkylated DNA sequences.

How Does Red Meat Cause Colon Cancer?

colon cancerThis study measured the effect of red meat consumption on the extent and location of what the authors called “alkylation signatures”, which refers to the kinds of DNA modifications caused by N-nitroso compounds. Here is what they found:

  • Red meat consumption was positively associated with an increase in alkylation signatures caused by N-nitroso compounds in tumor tissue from patients with colon cancer.
    • This was true for both processed and unprocessed red meat.
    • There was no difference between men and women after adjusting for differences in red meat intake.
    • White meat (chicken and fish) did not cause an increase in alkylation damage in colon cells.
  • More importantly, there was an inverse association between alkylation damage in the tumor tissue and patient survival. Simply put, high levels of alkylation damage were associated with short survival times.

Previous studies have shown that processed red meat consumption was associated with increased levels of N-nitroso compounds and an increased risk of colon cancer in the distal colon.

  • This study showed colon cancer patients who had been consuming processed red meats had higher alkylation damage in tumors in the distal colon.

Previous studies have shown that certain oncogenes (genes that drive the conversion of normal cells to cancer cells) are activated in colon cancer cells and this activation is associated with alkylation damage to their DNA.

  • This study showed that tumors with activated oncogenes were enriched with the alkylation signature characteristic of N-nitroso compounds.

I realize this study is highly technical. It is not easy to understand, so let me simplify it.

  • Previous studies have shown that red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer.
  • Previous studies have also shown that red meat consumption is associated with an increased concentration of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in the colon.
  • This study shows that red meat consumption is associated with the kind of DNA damage caused by N-nitroso compounds in colon tumor cells. More importantly, this is the kind of damage that can lead to cancer-causing mutations. In addition:
    • The DNA damage occurs in the exact location of the colon predicted from earlier studies.
    • The DNA damage occurs in genes known to drive the conversion of normal colon cells to cancer cells.

In short, this study provides a plausible mechanism for the effect of red meat consumption on increased risk of colon cancer. It shows how red meat can cause colon cancer.

“In the words of the authors, “Our study has leveraged a comprehensive dataset with repeated dietary measures over years…and [DNA sequencing] on a large collection of colorectal tumors. It provides unique evidence supporting the direct impact of dietary behaviors on colorectal carcinogenesis…”

How Can You Decrease Your Risk Of Colon Cancer?

Steak SaladWhen this study is combined with previous studies, it provides a clear explanation of how red and processed meats can cause colon cancer. And, unfortunately, grass-fed beef is not a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. This mechanism is equally applicable to grass-fed beef and conventionally raised beef.

Does this mean you need to become a vegan? While I have nothing against veganism, the answer appears to be no. As I discussed above whole, unprocessed plant foods are the antidote to the carcinogenic compounds formed from red meat. This is due to:

  • Their fiber, which sweeps some carcinogens out of the intestine before they can be absorbed.
  • Their antioxidants, which prevent some carcinogens from being formed.
  • Their phytonutrients, which block the activation of some carcinogens.
  • The friendly gut bacteria they support, which displace the bad bacteria that form some carcinogen precursors in the intestine.

The good news is that some red meat may be OK in the context of a primarily plant-based diet. For example, 3 ounces of red meat in a green salad or stir fry is less likely to increase your risk of colon cancer than an 8-ounce steak and fries.

The bad news is this is why not all studies have shown an association of red meat consumption and increased risk of colon cancer. Unfortunately, far too many of these studies have ignored other components of the diet.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of red meat consumption on DNA modifications in colon cells that are associated with the conversion of normal cells to cancer cells. It is a highly technical study, but the simplified version is:

  • Previous studies have shown that red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer.
  • Studies have also shown that red meat consumption is associated with an increased concentration of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in the colon.
  • This study shows that red meat consumption is associated with the kind of DNA damage caused by N-nitroso compounds in colon tumor cells – the kind of damage that can lead to cancer-causing mutations. In addition:
    • The DNA damage occurs in the exact location of the colon predicted from earlier studies.
    • The DNA damage occurs in genes known to drive the conversion of normal colon cells to cancer cells.

In short, this study provides a plausible mechanism for the effect of red meat consumption on increased risk of colon cancer. It shows how red meat can cause colon cancer.

“In the words of the authors, “Our study has leveraged a comprehensive dataset with repeated dietary measures over years…and [DNA sequencing] on a large collection of colorectal tumors. It provides unique evidence supporting the direct impact of dietary behaviors on colorectal carcinogenesis…”

For more details about this study and how you can eat red meat and still reduce your risk of colon 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.

Would You Like Cancer With That Burger?

Enjoy Your Cookouts Without Increasing Cancer Risk 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Barbecue GatheringIt is July and backyard cookouts are in full swing. One question that you probably won’t hear from your host or hostess is “Would you like cancer with that burger?” But perhaps that is exactly the question they should be asking.

  • You probably didn’t really want to know that when fat from the meat hits the hot coals, carcinogens form that are deposited on the meat.
  • You probably also didn’t want to know that when you cook meat to high temperatures the amino acids in the meat combine to form cancer causing substances.
  • And you really didn’t want to know that a recent study showed that men who consume well-done red meat were ~60% more likely to develop advanced prostate cancer.

Would You Like Cancer With That Burger?

Grilled HamburgersA recent study compared 531 people ages 40-79 who had recently been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer with 527 matched controls. Both groups were asked about their dietary intake of meats, usual meat cooking methods and doneness of the meat.

The results were quite striking:

  • Increased consumption of hamburgers was associated with a 79% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Increased consumption of processed meat was associated with a 57% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Grilled red meat was associated with a 63% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.
  • Well done red meat was associated with a 52% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.

However, those percentages are a little bit difficult to compare, because “increased consumption” was defined relative to what the usual consumption or cooking practice was. So put another way, weekly consumption of…

  • 3 or more servings of red meat or…
  • 5 or more servings of processed meat or…
  • 1 or more servings of grilled or well-done red meat…

…were associated with a 50% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.

In contrast, consumption of white meat was not associated with increased prostate cancer risk, no matter what the cooking method was used.

Enjoy Your Cookouts Without Increasing Cancer Risk

Grilled Chicken With VeggiesOur local newspaper recently carried some tips by Dr. Denise Snyder from the Duke University School of Nursing on how you could reduce the risk of giving your guests cancer the next time you are the chef at your backyard cookout.

Here are her suggestions:

  • Grill fruits and vegetables instead of meat. That was her idea, not mine. My editorial comment would be that grilling white meat (fish or chicken) may also be OK.
  • Use the lowest temperature that will cook your food thoroughly and keep the grill rack as high as possible.
  • Use a meat thermometer so that you can make sure that as soon as the meat is thoroughly cooked you remove it from the grill. We usually overcook the meat to make sure that it is done.
  • Shorten your grill time by microwaving the meat first, using thinner leaner cuts of meat or cutting up the meat and making kabobs.
  • Trim as much fat from the meat as possible before you cook it.
  • Line your grill rack with aluminum foil poked with holes. This allows the fat to drip down but minimizes the exposure of the meat to the carcinogens formed when the fat hits the coals.
  • Marinate your meats before grilling. That has been shown to reduce the formation of cancer-causing chemicals.
  • And, of course, avoid processed meats like hot dogs and sausage completely because they have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and diabetes no matter how they are cooked.

So, here’s to a healthier cookout. Bon appétit!

The Bottom Line

  1. You already knew that red meat and processed meats may increase your risk of cancer, but how you cook your red meat also matters. Grilling your meat and/or cooking it until it is well done appear to significantly increase your risk of developing advanced prostate cancer.

2) In contrast, consumption of white meat was not associated with increased cancer risk, no matter what the cooking method was used.

3) I have included several tips on how you can reduce the cancer risk associated with grilling red meats in the article above so you can enjoy both your cookouts and your health.

For more details about 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.

Do Omega-3s Add Years To Your Life?

Why Are Omega-3s So Controversial? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

ArgumentI don’t need to tell you that omega-3s are controversial. Some experts confidently tell you that omega-3s significantly reduce your risk of heart disease and may reduce your risk of cancer and other diseases. Other experts confidently tell you that omega-3s have no effect on heart disease or any other disease. They claim that omega-3 supplements are no better than “snake oil”.

The problem is that each camp of experts can cite published clinical studies to support their claims. How can that be? How can clinical studies come to opposite conclusions on such an important topic? The problem is that it is really difficult to do high quality clinical studies on omega-3s. I will discuss that in the next section.

The question of whether omega-3s affect life span has also been controversial. Heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death in this country. So, if omega-3s actually reduced the risk of heart disease and cancer, you might expect that they would also help us live longer. Once again, there are studies on both sides of this issue, but they are poor quality studies.

We need more high-quality studies to clear up the controversies surrounding the health benefits of omega-3s. I will report on one such study in this issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”. But first let me go into more depth about why it is so difficult to do high-quality studies with omega-3 fatty acids.

Clinical Studies 101: Why Are Omega-3s So Controversial?

professor owlI have covered this topic in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, but here is a quick summary.

  1. Randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, but they ill-suited to measure the effect of omega-3s on health outcomes.
    • Heart disease and cancer take decades to develop. Most RCTs are too small and too short to show a meaningful effect of omega-3s on these diseases.
    • To make up for this shortcoming, some recent RCTs have started with older, sicker patients. This way enough patients die during the study that it can measure statistically significant outcomes. However, these patients are already on multiple medications that mimic many of the beneficial effects of omega-3s on heart disease.

These studies are no longer asking whether omega-3s reduce the risk of heart disease. They are really asking if omega-3s have any additional benefits for patients who are already taking multiple medications – with all their side effects. I don’t know about you, but that is not the question I am interested in.

    • Until recently, most RCTs did not measure circulating omega-3 levels before and after supplementation, so the investigators had no idea whether omega-3 supplementation increased circulating omega-3 levels by a significant amount.

And for the few studies where omega-3 levels were measured before and after supplementation, it turns out that for many of the participants, their baseline omega-3 levels were too high for omega-3 supplementation to have a meaningful effect. Only participants with low omega-3 levels at the beginning of the study benefited from omega-3 supplementation.Supplementation Perspective

These studies are often quoted as showing omega-3 supplementation doesn’t work. However, they are actually showing the true value of supplementation. Omega-3 supplementation isn’t for everyone. It is for people with poor diet, increased need, genetic predisposition, and/or pre-existing disease not already treated with multiple medications.

2) Prospective cohort studies eliminate many of the shortcomings of RCTs. They can start with a large group of individuals (a cohort) and follow them for many years to see how many of them die or develop a disease during that time (this is the prospective part of a prospective cohort trial). This means they can start with a healthy population that is not on medications.

This also means that these studies can answer the question on most people’s minds, “Are omega-3s associated with reduced risk of dying or developing heart disease?” However, these studies have two limitations.

    • They are association studies. They cannot measure cause and effect.
    • Ideally, omega-3 levels would be measured at the beginning of the study and at several intervals during the study to see if the participant’s diet had changed during the study. Unfortunately, most prospective cohort studies only measure omega-3 levels at the beginning of the study.

3) Finally, a meta-analysis combines data from multiple clinical studies.

    • The strength of a meta-analysis is that the number of participants is quite large. This increases the statistical power and allows it to accurately assess small effects.
    • The greatest weakness of meta-analyses is that the design of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis is often quite different. This introduces variations that decrease the reliability of the meta-analysis. It becomes a situation of “Garbage in. Garbage out”

The study (WS Harris et al, Nature Communications, Volume 12, Article number: 2329, 2021) I am discussing today is a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. It was designed to determine the association between blood omega-3 fatty acids and the risk of:

  • Death from all causes.
  • Death from heart disease.
  • Death from cancer.
  • Death from causes other than heart disease or cancer.

More importantly, it eliminated the major weakness of previous meta-analyses by only including studies with a similar design.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was a meta-analysis of 17 prospective cohort studies with a total of 42,466 individuals looking at the association between omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood and premature death due to all causes, heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.

Participants in the 17 studies were followed for an average of 16 years, during which time 15,720 deaths occurred. This was a large enough number of deaths so that a very precise statistical analysis of the data could be performed.

The average age of participants at entry into the studies was 65, and 55% of the participants were women. Whites constituted 87% of the participants, so the results may not be applicable to other ethnic groups. None of the participants had heart disease or cancer when they entered the study.

Finally, the associations were corrected for a long list of variables that could have influenced the outcome (Read the publication for more details).

A strength of this meta-analysis is that all 17 studies were conducted as part of the FORCE (Fatty Acids & Outcomes Research Consortium) collaboration. The FORCE collaboration was established with the goal of understanding the relationships between fatty acids (as measured by blood levels of the omega-3 fatty acids) on premature death and chronic disease outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other conditions).

Each study was designed using a standardized protocol, so that the data could be easily pooled for a meta-analysis. In the words of the FORCE collaboration founders:

  1. The larger sample sizes of [meta-analyses] will substantially increase statistical power to investigate associations…enabling the [meta-analyses] to discover important relationships not discernible in any individual study.

2) Standardization of variable definitions and modeling of associations will reduce variation and potential bias in estimates across cohorts.

3) Results will be far less susceptible to publication bias.

Do Omega-3s Add Years To Your Life?

Omega-3sThe meta-analysis divided participants into quintiles based on blood omega-3 levels. When comparing participants with the highest omega-3 levels with participants with the lowest omega-3 levels:

  • Premature death from all causes was decreased by 16%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > EPA+DHA > DHA.
  • Premature death from heart disease was decreased by 19%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, DHA > EPA+DHA > EPA.
  • Premature death from cancer was decreased by 15%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > DHA > EPA+DHA.
  • Premature death from causes other than heart disease and cancer was decreased by 18%.
    • When looking at the effect of individual omega-3s, EPA > EPA+DHA > DHA.
  • The differences between the effects of EPA, DHA, and EPA+DHA were small.
  • ALA, a short chain omega-3 found in plant foods, had no effect on any of these parameters.

In the words of the authors: “These findings suggest that higher circulating levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower risk of premature death. Similar relationships were seen for death from heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer. No associations were seen with the short chain omega-3, ALA [which is found in plant foods]”.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

confusionIf you are thinking that 15-19% decreases in premature death from various causes don’t sound like much, let me do some simple calculations for you. The average lifespan in this country is 78 years.

  • A 16% decrease in death from all causes amounts to an extra 12.5 years. What would you do with an extra 12.5 years?
  • A 19% decrease in death from heart disease might not only allow you to live longer, but it has the potential to improve your quality of life by living an extra 15 years free of heart disease.
  • Similarly, a 15% decrease in death from cancer might help you live an extra 12 years cancer-free.
  • In other words, you may live longer, and you may also live healthier longer, sometimes referred to as “healthspan”.

Don’t misunderstand me. Omega-3s are not a magic wand. They aren’t the fictional “Fountain of Youth”.

  • There are many other factors that go into a healthy lifestyle. If you sit on your couch all day eating Big Macs and drinking beer, you may be adding the +12.5 years to a baseline of -30 years.
  • Clinical studies report average values and none of us are average. Omega-3s will help some people more than others.

I will understand if you are skeptical. It seems like every time one study comes along and tells you that omega-3s are beneficial, another study comes along and tells you they are worthless.

This was an extraordinarily well-designed study, but it is unlikely to be the final word in the omega-3 controversy. There are too many poor-quality studies published each year. Until everyone in the field agrees to some common standards like those in the FORCE collaboration, the omega-3 controversy will continue.

The Bottom Line 

A recent meta-analysis looked at the association between omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood and premature death due to all causes, heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.

The meta-analysis divided participants into quintiles based on blood omega-3 levels. When comparing participants with the highest omega-3 levels with participants with the lowest omega-3 levels:

  • Premature death from all causes was decreased by 16%.
  • Premature death from heart disease was decreased by 19%.
  • Premature death from cancer was decreased by 15%.
  • Premature death from causes other than heart disease and cancer was decreased by 18%.

In the words of the authors: “These findings suggest that higher circulating levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower risk of premature death. Similar relationships were seen for death from heart disease, cancer, and causes other than heart disease and cancer.”

For more details about study and 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.

 

 

Do Supplements Interfere With Chemotherapy?

Should You Avoid Supplement Use During Chemotherapy?

cancerSince much of my research career was devoted to cancer research, specifically developing new chemotherapeutic drugs for treating cancer, many of you have asked me the question: “Do food supplements interfere with chemotherapy?”

My answer has always been that it is theoretically possible, but that we don’t really know the answer because the necessary studies have not been done.

However, I do know that most cancer drugs are retained in the body for a short period of time. So, my pragmatic advice has always been to avoid supplementation for a day or two before to a day or two after each round of chemotherapy. That is a strategy designed to minimize the possibility that supplementation would interfere with chemotherapy and maximize the possibility that supplementation might aid in recovery between rounds of chemotherapy.

That is why I was interested when I saw the recent headlines claiming certain supplements may interfere with chemotherapy for breast cancer. I wanted to find out if someone had finally done a definitive study on the effect of supplementation on chemotherapy.

So, I have reviewed the study (CB Ambrosone et al, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 38, 804-815, 2020) behind the headlines and will share what I discovered.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was an offshoot of a much larger Phase III clinical trial designed to determine the best schedule for administering three drugs (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel) to patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.

The 1,134 patients enrolled in this study were given questionnaires on their use of supplements when they registered for the study to determine supplement use prior to the study. They were also given questionnaires when they completed chemotherapy to determine supplement use during chemotherapy.

The questionnaires documented use of:

  • Multivitamins
  • The antioxidants vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin E, carotenoids, and coenzyme Q10.
  • Vitamin D.
  • The B vitamins vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and folic acid.
  • The minerals iron and calcium.
  • Omega-3 fatty acids.
  • Glucosamine, melatonin, and acidophilus.

Recurrence of the breast cancer and death from breast cancer were measured 6 months after chemotherapy ended.

Do Supplements Interfere With Chemotherapy?

Questioning WomanThe study reported:

  • The number of patients using individual antioxidant supplements was too low to determine whether individual antioxidants had any effect on treatment outcomes.
  • When the patients using any antioxidant supplement were pooled into a single group, there was a nonsignificant association between antioxidant supplement use during chemotherapy and an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence and death from breast cancer.
  • Iron use during chemotherapy was significant associated with an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence.
  • Vitamin B12 use during chemotherapy was significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer recurrence and death from breast cancer.
  • Multivitamin use was not associated with either recurrence or death from breast cancer.
  • The number of patients using the other supplements was too low to determine whether those supplements had any effect on treatment outcomes.

The authors concluded: “Associations between survival outcomes and use of antioxidant and other dietary supplements are consistent with recommendations for caution among patients when considering the use of supplements, other than a multivitamin, during chemotherapy.”

This is the conclusion that generated the headlines you may have seen.

However, in their discussion the authors conceded that a previous review concluded that, “…insufficient evidence existed with regard to the safety of dietary supplements [during chemotherapy] to make recommendations, and that still may be the case.”

I will discuss the reasons for their disclaimer below. However, I will point out that disclaimers like this never seem to make it into the headlines you read.

What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of This Study?

strengths and weaknessesThe only strength of this study is that it was performed in the context of an ongoing clinical trial, with surveys conducted before chemotherapy and during chemotherapy to assess supplement use.

However, the study had multiple weaknesses that limit the ability to draw any firm conclusions from the study.

#1: The number of people using supplements in this study was very small. For example:

  • Only 200 people took any antioxidants during chemotherapy.
  • Only 137 people took a vitamin B12 supplement during chemotherapy.
  • Only 109 people took an iron supplement during chemotherapy.

To put this into perspective, if a drug company were submitting a new drug for approval to the FDA, they would be required to submit data from ~50-100-fold more cancer patients to prove that the drug was effective.

With this small number of supplement users, even “statistically significant” observations are questionable.

In contrast, the number of people taking a multivitamin during chemotherapy was 497. Thus, those data were a little stronger than the data for individual supplements.

#2: They did not ask why people were taking supplements. It turns out that the patients who used supplements were older and sicker. They were more likely to be overweight and to have type 2 diabetes.

These are patients who are also more likely to have poor outcomes from chemotherapy. The authors tried to correct for that, but it is virtually impossible to make these corrections when the number of patients taking supplements is so low.

#3: They did not ask about the dose of supplements people were taking.

  • Multivitamins typically contain RDA levels of antioxidants and vitamin B12, so it would be safe to assume that RDA levels of antioxidants and vitamin B12 are safe during chemotherapy.
  • Approximately 50% of the women in the study were premenopausal, so it is likely that they were taking a multivitamin with iron. That suggests that RDA levels of iron are safe during chemotherapy for premenopausal women.

In short, the association between supplement use and poorer outcomes from chemotherapy is tenuous. If there is any association, it is likely with high dose individual supplements rather the lower levels of the same nutrients found in a multivitamin.

Is An Effect Of Supplement Use On Chemotherapy Plausible?

As a biochemist, the next question I ask is whether there is a plausible mechanism for an effect of any of these Look forsupplements on chemotherapy outcomes.

  • For two of the drugs in the regimen (paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide), free radical formation may contribute to their effectiveness, but it is not their main mechanism of action. Thus, it is plausible that high dose antioxidant supplements could make these drugs less effective, but the effect should be relatively small.
  • Tumors require high amounts of iron for proliferation, so it is plausible that excess iron could make tumors more resistant to chemotherapy. However, for premenopausal women, multivitamins with iron did not interfere with the drugs used in this study. Thus, it appears likely that RDA levels of iron, where appropriate, do not interfere with chemotherapy.
  • The authors said that the reason for the observed effects of vitamin B12 on chemotherapy in their study “remains to be understood”. However, the answer might be found in the dosage of vitamin B12. A previous study reported that doses of vitamin B12 that were greater than 20 times the RDA increased the risk of lung cancer.

If people in this study were taking doses of vitamin B12 in excess of 20 times the RDA, it would provide a plausible explanation for B12 interfering with chemotherapy. If not, there is no known explanation. In any case, I do not recommend taking such high doses of any supplement.

Should You Avoid Supplement Use During Chemotherapy?

AvoidNow, let’s get back to the original question: “Should you avoid supplement use during chemotherapy?” If you read the headlines saying, “Supplement Use During Chemotherapy May Be Risky”, you might think that the answer is an unqualified yes. That is also what your doctor is likely to think.

However, when you analyze the study behind the headlines you realize that the evidence supporting the headlines is very weak.

So, that puts us back to where we were before the study was published. Simply put:

  • It is theoretically possible that supplements interfere with chemotherapy, but we don’t know for sure.
  • A pragmatic approach is to avoid supplementation for a day or two before to a day or two after each round of chemotherapy. This is a strategy designed to minimize the possibility that supplementation would interfere with chemotherapy and maximize the possibility that supplementation might aid in recovery between rounds of chemotherapy.

Note: This is generic advice. I am not a medical doctor, so it would be unethical for me to provide individualized advice on how to minimize interactions between supplements and chemotherapy. What I recommend is that you ask your doctor whether my generic recommendations make sense for your cancer and your drug regimen.

If this study advanced our knowledge at all, it would be that:

  • The supplements most likely to interfere with chemotherapy appear to be high dose antioxidants, vitamin B12, and iron supplements.
  • Multivitamins, even multivitamins with iron when appropriate, are unlikely to interfere with chemotherapy.

The Bottom Line 

Recent headlines have warned, “Supplement Use During Chemotherapy May Be Risky”. Is that true?

However, when you analyze the study behind the headlines you realize that the evidence supporting the headlines is very weak.

So, that puts us back to where we were before the study was published. Simply put:

  • It is theoretically possible that supplements interfere with chemotherapy, but we don’t know for sure.
  • A pragmatic approach is to avoid supplementation for a day or two before to a day or two after each round of chemotherapy. This is a strategy designed to minimize the possibility that supplementation would interfere with chemotherapy and maximize the possibility that supplementation might aid in recovery between rounds of chemotherapy.

Note: This is generic advice. I am not a medical doctor, so it would be unethical for me to provide individualized advice on how to minimize interactions between supplements and the chemotherapy drugs you are on. What I recommend is that you ask your doctor whether my generic recommendations make sense for your cancer and your drug regimen.

If this study advanced our knowledge at all, it would be that:

  • The supplements most likely to interfere with chemotherapy appear to be high dose antioxidants, vitamin B12, and iron supplements.
  • Multivitamins, even multivitamins with iron when appropriate, are unlikely to interfere with chemotherapy.

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.

 

Do Processed Foods Increase Your Risk Of Diabetes?

Why Do We Keep Eating Processed Foods?

Fast Food DangersUnless you are Rip Van Winkle and have been asleep for the past 20 years you probably know that the highly processed foods in the typical American diet are bad for your health. But perhaps you didn’t realize just how bad they were.

But first, let’s start with a bit of perspective. Scientists like to be precise. Even healthy foods go through some processing.

  • The oatmeal you ate this morning was either steel-cut or ground. That is processing.
  • The almond butter you put on your whole grain toast this morning was made by roasting and grinding. That is processing.

So, scientists have developed the term “ultra-processed food” to describe the worst of the worse. In short, ultra-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 contaminants. One example you may have heard about recently would be acrylamide in French fries.
  • Typically contain ingredients of no or little nutritive value, such as refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, thickening agents, and artificial colors. Some of these ingredients have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and premature death.
  • Have long shelf-lives because of added preservatives. This allows migration of chemicals 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 meats
  • Infant formula
  • Instant noodles
  • Most store-bought ice cream
  • Flavored yogurt

In short, ultra-processed foods include sodas and the junk and convenience foods Americans hold so dear. Even things like infant formula and flavored yogurt make the list.

Evidence of the ill effects of ultra-processed foods on our health is becoming overwhelming. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared recent studies that have shown that heavy consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked to increased risk of obesity and cancer. Other studies have linked ultra-processed food consumption with increased risk of depression, heart disease, and premature death.

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I:

  • Ask the important question, “If we know these foods are so bad for us, why do we still keep eating them?”

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data from this study were taken from an ongoing study in France (the NutriNet-Sante study) looking at associations between nutrition and health. This study began enrolling French adults 18 and older in 2009.

This is a web-based study. Participants are prompted to go to a dedicated website and fill out questionnaires related to things like sex, age, height, weight, smoking status, physical activity, health status, and diet.

With respect to diet, participants filled out a series of 3 nonconsecutive 24-hour dietary records at the time of enrollment and every 6 months. This is a particularly strong feature of this study. Many studies of this type only analyze participant’s diets at the beginning of the study. Those studies have no way of knowing how the participant’s diets may have changed during the study.

Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for study participants was obtained from the French centralized health records.

The study enrolled 104,708 participants, 20% men and 80% women, and followed them for an average of 6 years. The average age of the participants was 43 years.

Do Processed Foods Increase Your Risk Of Diabetes?

High Blood SugarIn this study the range of ultra-processed foods in the French diet ranged from 7% to 27% (average = 17%). High intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with:

  • Younger participants. Simply put, young people were more likely to drink sodas and eat junk food than older adults.
  • Increased caloric intake. Ultra-processed foods have a higher caloric density than whole, unprocessed foods.
  • No surprise here. Previous studies have shown that ultra-processed food consumption increases the risk of obesity.
  • Poorer diet quality. Again, no surprise. Junk foods tend to crowd healthier foods out of the dirt. Specifically, ultra-processed food consumption was associated with:
    • Higher intake of sugar and salt.
    • Lower intake of fiber.
    • Higher intake of sugary drinks, red and processed meats.
    • Lower intake of whole grains, yogurt, nuts, fruits, and vegetables.

However, even after statistically correcting for all these factors, there was a significant association between ultra-processed food consumption and the onset of type 2 diabetes in the 6-year follow-up period.

  • There was a linear relation between ultra-processed food consumption and the development of type 2 diabetes. Simply put, the more ultra-processed food the participants consumed the more likely they were to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
  • There was a 15% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes for every 10% increase in ultra-processed food consumption.

The authors concluded:

“In this large observational prospective study, a higher proportion of ultra-processed food in the diet was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Even though these results need to be confirmed in other populations and settings, they provide evidence to support efforts by public health authorities to recommend limiting ultra-processed food consumption.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanYou might be tempted to say that a 15% increase in the risk of developing diabetes is a small price to pay for continuing to eat the foods you enjoy. However, you should be alarmed by this study. Here is why.

The French diet is much healthier than the American. Remember that ultra-processed foods only comprised 17% of the French Diet. In contrast, a recent survey found that:

  • Ultra-processed foods make up 58% of the average American’s diet.
  • Ultra-processed foods account for 90% of the added sugar in our diet.

It is no wonder that obesity and diabetes are reaching epidemic proportions in our country.

You might also be tempted to think that you can just take some medications and live with type 2 diabetes. However, you should think of type 2 diabetes as a gateway disease. It increases your risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s disease, kidney damage, and neuropathy, just to name a few. These are diseases that make your life miserable and ultimately kill you.

More importantly, type 2 diabetes is completely reversible if you catch it early enough. Just lose some weight, exercise more, give up the ultra-processed foods, and eat a healthy diet. I recommend a whole food, primarily plant-based diet.

Why Do We Keep Eating Processed Foods?

Fast FoodsWe all know that ultra-processed foods are bad for us. Study after study show that they make us sick. They kill us prematurely. And, unlike most topics in the field of nutrition, this is not controversial.

For example, there have been lots of bizarre diets that have come and gone over the years. There have been books written on “The Steak Lover’s Diet” and “The Drinking Man’s Diet”. But nobody has written a book on “The Junk Food Lover’s Diet”. It simply would not be believable.

So why do we Americans keep eating such unhealthy foods. Part of the answer is physiological. A preference for sweet, salty, and fatty foods is hardwired into our brain. That’s because they had great survival value in prehistoric times.

If we think back to the time when we were hunters and gatherers:

  • Fruits are healthy foods. They are a great source of antioxidants, phytonutrients, and fiber, but there were no orchards or grocery stores back then. We had to search for fruits in the wild. Our desire for sweet tasting foods provided the motivation to seek them out.
  • Game was seasonal and sometimes scarce. We had to be prepared to go for days or weeks without eating except for the leaves and roots we could gather. Our bodies are designed to store fat as the primary energy source to get us through the lean times. Our preference for fatty foods encouraged us to store as much fat as possible in times of plenty so we would be prepared for times of scarcity.
  • If we fast forward to our early recorded history, salt was scarce. It was worth its weight in gold. Yet some salt is essential for life. Our preference for salty foods encouraged us to search out supplies of salt.

Unfortunately, the food industry has weaponized these food preferences to create the ultra-processed foods we know today. Their ads entice us by associating these foods with youth and good times. And ultra-processed foods have become ubiquitous. There are fast food restaurants on almost every street corner and shopping mall in the country.

Fortunately, we do not have to let the food industry destroy our health. We can retrain our taste buds to appreciate the sweetness of fresh fruits and vegetables. We can substitute healthy fats for the kinds of fat found in most ultra-processed foods. We can also retrain our taste buds to appreciate herbs and spices with just a pinch of salt.

The Bottom Line

Ultra-processed foods, such as sodas, junk foods, and convenience foods have become the biggest food group in the American diet. A recent study found:

  • Ultra-processed foods make up 58% of the average American’s diet.
  • Ultra-processed foods account for 90% of the added sugar in our diet.

That is scary because ultra-processed foods are deadly. Previous studies have shown that consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked to obesity, heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The study discussed this week looked at the association between ultra-processed food consumption and type 2 diabetes. It showed:

  • There was a linear relation between ultra-processed food consumption and the development of type 2 diabetes. Simply put, the more ultra-processed food the participants consumed the more likely they were to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
  • There was a 15% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes for every 10% increase in ultra-processed food consumption.

You might be tempted to think that you can just take some medications and live with type 2 diabetes. However, you should think of type 2 diabetes as a gateway disease. It increases your risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s disease, kidney damage, and neuropathy, just to name a few. This are diseases that make your life miserable and ultimately kill you.

More importantly, type 2 diabetes is completely reversible if you catch it early enough. Just lose some weight, exercise more, give up the ultra-processed foods, and eat a healthy diet. I recommend a whole food, primarily plant-based diet.

For more details and a discussion of why Americans continue to eat ultra-processed food even though we know it is bad for us, 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.

Should I Avoid Whole Grains?

Will Whole Grains Kill Me?

Whole GrainsIt seems like just yesterday that health experts all agreed that whole grains were good for us. After all:

  • They are a good source of fiber, B vitamins, vitamin E, and the minerals magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, and selenium.
  • Their fiber fills you up, so you are less likely to overeat. This helps with weight control.
  • Their fiber also supports the growth of friendly bacteria in your gut.

In fact, the USDA still recommends that half of the grains we eat should be whole grains. And, outside experts, not influenced by the food industry, feel this recommendation is too low. They feel most of the grains we eat should be whole grains. Foods made from refined grains should be considered as only occasional treats.

Then the low-carb craze came along. Diets like Paleo and Keto were telling you to avoid all grains, even whole grains. Even worse, Dr. Strangelove and his colleagues were telling you whole grains contained something called lectins that were bad for you. Suddenly, whole grains went from being heroes to being villains.

You are probably asking, “Should I avoid whole grains?” What is the truth? Perhaps the best way to resolve this debate is to ask, how healthy are people who consume whole grains for many years? This week I share a recent study (G Zong et al, Circulation, 133: 2370-2380, 2016) that answers that very question.

How Was The Study Done?

This study was a meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials that:

  • Enrolled a total of 786,076 participants.
  • Obtained a detailed diet history at baseline.
  • Followed the participants for an average of 15 years (range = 6-28 years).
  • Determined the effect of whole grain consumption on the risk of death from heart disease, cancer, and all causes.

Will Whole Grains Kill Me?

deadDr. Strangelove and his colleagues are claiming that whole grains cause inflammation, which increases your risk of heart disease and cancer. Heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death in this country. In fact, according to the CDC, heart disease and cancer accounted for 44% of all deaths in the US in 2017.

Therefore, if Dr. Strangelove and his colleagues were correct, consumption of whole grains should increase the risk of deaths due to heart disease and cancer – and increase the risk of death due to all causes.

That is not what this study showed.

When the highest whole grain intake (5 servings/day) was compared with the lowest whole grain intake (0 servings/day), whole grain consumption reduced the risk of death from:

  • Heart disease by 18%.
  • Cancer by 12%.
  • All causes by 16%.

Furthermore, the effect of whole grains on mortality showed an inverse dose response. Simply put, the more thumbs upwhole grains people consumed, the lower the risk of deaths from heart disease, cancer, and all causes.

However, the dose response was not linear. Simply going from 0 servings of whole grains to one serving of whole grains reduced the risk of death from.

  • Heart disease by 9%.
  • Cancer by 5%.
  • All causes by 7%.

The authors concluded: “Whole grain consumption was inversely associated with mortality in a dose-response manner, and the association with cardiovascular mortality was particularly strong and robust. These observations endorse current dietary guidelines that recommend increasing whole grain intake to replace refined grains to facilitate long-term health and to help prevent premature death.”

The authors went on to say: “Low-carbohydrate diets that ignore the health benefits of whole grain foods should be adopted with caution because they have been linked to higher cardiovascular risk and mortality.”

Should I Avoid Whole Grains?

Question MarkAs for the original question, “Should I avoid whole grains?”, the answer appears to be a clear, “No”.

The strengths of this study include the large number of participants (786,076) and the demonstration of a clear dose-response relationship between whole grain intake and reduced mortality.

This study is also consistent with several other studies that show whole grain consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer – and appears to lead to a longer, healthier life.

In short, it appears that Dr. Strangelove and the low-carb enthusiasts are wrong. Whole grains aren’t something to avoid. They reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. And they reduce the risk of premature death. We should be eating more whole grains, not less.

However, the authors did point out that this study has some weaknesses:

  • It is an association study, which does not prove cause and effect.
  • Study participants who consumed more whole grains also tended to consume more fruits and vegetables – and less red meat, sodas, and highly processed foods.

However, I would argue the second point is a strength, not a weakness. We need to give up the idea that certain foods or food groups are “heroes” or “villains”. We know that primarily plant-based diets like the Mediterranean and DASH diets are incredibly healthy. Does it really matter how much of those health benefits come from whole grains and how much comes from fruits and vegetables?

The Bottom Line

Dr. Strangelove and low-carb enthusiasts have been telling us we should avoid all grains, including whole grains. Is that good advice?

If Dr. Strangelove and his colleagues were correct, consumption of whole grains should increase the risk of deaths due to the top two killer diseases, heart disease and cancer. Furthermore, because heart disease and cancer account for 44% of all deaths in this country, whole grain consumption should also increase the risk of death due to all causes.

A recent study showed the exact opposite. The study showed:

When the highest whole grain intake (5 servings/day) was compared with the lowest whole grain intake (0 servings/day), whole grain consumption reduced the risk of death from:

  • Heart disease by 18%.
  • Cancer by 12%.
  • All causes by 16%.

Furthermore, the effect of whole grains on mortality showed an inverse dose response. Simply put, the more whole grains people consumed, the lower the risk of deaths from heart disease, cancer, and all causes.

However, the dose response was not linear. Simply going from 0 servings of whole grains to one serving of whole grains reduced the risk of death from.

  • Heart disease by 9%.
  • Cancer by 5%.
  • All causes by 7%.

The authors concluded: “Whole grain consumption was inversely associated with mortality in a dose-response manner, and the association with cardiovascular mortality was particularly strong and robust. These observations endorse current dietary guidelines that recommend increasing whole grain intake to replace refined grains to facilitate long-term health and to help prevent premature death.”

The authors went on to say: “Low-carbohydrate diets that ignore the health benefits of whole grain foods should be adopted with caution because they have been linked to higher cardiovascular risk and mortality.”

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.

Health Tips From The Professor