Health Current Events

Skinny Fat

by

Overweight Vs. Obesity

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

skinny fatAre you skinny fat?  Weight loss season is upon us. Many of you are jumping on your bathroom scales so that you can decide how much weight you need to lose this year. For some the motivation for these New Year’s resolutions to lose weight is purely cosmetic. You just want to look better. For others the motivation for losing weight is better health. Obesity is a killer. It is associated with increased risk of diabetes, heart attack and stroke – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

But what if your bathroom scale says that you are normal weight? Are you off the hook? Maybe not. A recent study suggests that if you are normal weight but have central obesity (a fancy scientific term for belly fat), you are more likely to die prematurely than someone with normal fat distribution regardless of how overweight they are. That’s a pretty scary thought. It has even generated a new risk category called “skinny fat”.

How Can You Be Obese Without Being Overweight?

In recent years there has been some controversy about the health risks of obesity. Part of that controversy has arisen because obesity can be defined in multiple ways. Most of us simply hop on the scale and rely on actuarial tables to tell us what a healthy weight is for our height. Scientists, on the other hand use two very different measures of obesity.

#1 is Body Mass Index or BMI.BMI is a person’s weight in kilograms (kg) divided by his or her height in meters squared. By this measure:

  • Normal body weight is defined as a BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2.
  • Overweight is defined as a BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2.
  • Obesity is defined as a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2.

#2 is waist to hip ratio or WHR. WHR is a measure of central adiposity (belly fat). By this measure:

  • Obesity is defined as excess central adiposity (excess belly fat), which is a waist to hip ratio ≥0.85 in women and ≥0.90 in men.

In general BMI and WHR correlate. However:

  • 11% of men and 3.3% of women are normal weight according to BMI measurements, but have excess belly fat according to WHR measurements.These are the individualswho are obese according to their WHR measurements without being overweight according to their BMI measurements. These are the individuals often referred to as “skinny fat”.
  • There are similar percentages of men and women who are overweight or obese according to BMI measurements, but have low WHR measurements. These are often referred to as “pear shaped” obese individuals to distinguish them from the “apple shaped” obese individuals with a lot of belly fat.

Being Skinny Fat Can Kill You

obesity vs. overweightNumerous studies have shown that “apple shaped” obesity is much more likely to be associated with disease and premature death than “pear shaped” obesity, but there have been very few studies comparing health outcomes for normal weight individuals who have excess belly fat (people who are “skinny fat”) with health outcomes of overweight and obese individuals. This study (Sahakyanet al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 2015 Nov 10 doi: 10.7326/M14-2525) was designed to fill that void.

These scientists analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey III (NHANES III). NHANES III collected BMI, WHR and health data from 15,184 Americans (52.8% women) aged 18 to 90 years (average age 45) and followed the study participants for 14.3 years. By that time 3222 of them had died, with 1413 of those deaths being due to heart disease. The results were enlightening:

  • Normal weight individuals with excess belly fat (“skinny fat” individuals) were 1.5 – 2.0 fold more likely to die during the 14.3 year follow up period than individuals who were normal weight and had little belly fat (“skinny lean” individuals). This was expected because this had been shown in several previous studies.
  • However, the surprising finding was that normal weight individuals with excess belly fat were also more likely to die than individuals who were overweight or obese. Specifically:
  • Men who were “skinny fat” were 2.2 – 2.4 fold more likely to die prematurely than men who were either overweight or obese, but did not have excess belly fat (men with a “pear shaped” fat distribution). “Skinny fat” women were 1.3 – 1.4 fold more likely to die prematurely than overweight or obese women with “pear shaped” fat distribution.
  • Men who were “skinny fat” were even slightly more likely to die prematurely than overweight or obese men with excess belly fat (men with “apple shaped” fat distribution). “Skinny fat” women were just as likely to die as overweight or obese women with “apple shaped” fat distribution.
  • When they looked at deaths due to cardiovascular disease the results were essentially the same.
  • These results were novel and should, perhaps serve as a wake-up call for normal weight individuals with excess belly fat.

The authors concluded:

  • “Our analysis of data…show that normal-weight U.S. adults with central obesity [excess belly fat] have the worst long-term survival compared with participants with normal fat distribution, regardless of BMI category.”
  • “To our knowledge, our study is the first to show that normal-weight central obesity, measured by WHR, is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.”
  • “Our findings suggest that persons with normal-weight central obesity may represent an important target population for lifestyle modification and other preventative strategies.”

Why Is Being Skinny Fat So Dangerous?

health riskAs the authors of this study pointed out, it is well established that excess belly fat is associated with:

  • Insulin resistance, which can lead to diabetes and predispose to heart disease.
  • High triglycerides and high levels of “bad” cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease.
  • Inflammation, which can lead to a number of deadly diseases.

The metabolic effects of excess belly fat are sufficient to explain why someone who is “skinny fat” is more likely to die prematurely than someone who is “skinny lean”. However, the effect of excess belly fat is not sufficient by itself to explain why a “skinny fat” individual is more likely to die prematurely than someone who is overweight or obese.

To understand this we need to recognize that both fat and muscle contribute to body weight (and to BMI). The “skinny fat” individual has more fat mass AND less muscle mass than a “skinny lean” individual of the same weight. That is a huge factor because metabolically speaking muscle is protective. It opposes all of the bad metabolic effects of belly fat.

Simply put, being “skinny fat” is extremely dangerous because you have increased all the bad metabolic effects of excess belly fat, ANDyou have decreased the protective metabolic effect of muscle mass.

How Do You Go From Being “Skinny Lean” To “Skinny Fat”?

Most of us were lean in our younger years. For those of us who end up as “skinny fat” as we age, it is pretty obvious that there are two processes going on simultaneously.

#1: Loss of Muscle Mass:It would be easy to say that becoming “skinny fat” is a natural part of aging. The natural tendency is to loose muscle mass and replace it with fat mass as we age. If we “just go with the flow” all of us will end up being “skinny fat” at some point. However, the loss of muscle mass as we age is accelerated by our sedentary lifestyle and our diet (more on that below).

#2: Gain of Belly Fat:To some extent whether we store excess fat as “pears” or “apples” is genetically determined. However, what we eat can also exert a major influence. For example:

  • Alcohol: The term “beer belly” says it all. Excess alcohol consumption is associated with an increase in belly fat. Once you understand the metabolism of alcohol the explanation is pretty simple. Alcohol causes blood sugar to drop, which increases appetite. Alcohol also interferes with our judgement, which can cause us to make poor food choices.
  • Excess saturated fat tends to be stored preferentially as belly fat.
  • Excess sugars and simple carbohydrates are rapidly converted to fat stores and stored as belly fat.

What Can You Do If You Are Already Skinny Fat?

gain muscle massLet’s start with what you shouldn’t do. You should not go on a reduced calorie weight loss diet to get rid of your excess belly fat. The last thing you want to do is to end up being underweight with excess belly fat! Here is what you should do:

#1: Increase Your Muscle Mass:I said that loss of muscle mass was a natural part of aging. I didn’t say that it was an inevitable part of aging. If you want to prevent or reverse loss of muscle mass you need to:

  • Get really serious about exercise. I’m talking about 30 minute workouts at least 3-5 times per week. These workouts need to include strength training as well as aerobics and flexibility exercises. I would suggest you ask your health professional what kind of exercise program is best for you and start your exercise program under the guidance of a personal trainer or physical therapist.
  • Make sure that your diet contains enough protein and enough of the essential amino acid leucine to maximize the gain of lean muscle mass following your workouts. I have covered the latest age-appropriate recommendations in, leucine and muscle gain, a previous “Health Tips From The Professor.”

#2: Lose Your Belly Fat:To some extent you will start to lose your belly fat naturally if you follow the recommendations above. In addition, you will want to:

  • Drink alcohol in moderation.
  • Make food choices that allow you to replace saturated fat with monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fats, especially the omega-3 polyunsaturated fats.
  • Replace excess sugars and simple carbohydrates with complex carbohydrates from fresh fruits and vegetables along with modest amounts of whole grain foods.

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study has shown that being “skinny fat” (having normal body weight, but excess belly fat) is more likely to result in premature death than if you were overweight, or even obese.
  • The most likely explanation for this alarming statistic is that someone who is “skinny fat” has excess belly fat, which predisposes to a number of diseases, and a loss of muscle mass, which protects against those same diseases.
  • If you are overweight or obese, you need to reduce your caloric intake to lose weight. However, if you are “skinny fat”, you don’t want to reduce your caloric intake. You need to change your exercise and diet habits.
  • Loss of muscle mass and gain of fat mass is a normal part of aging. However, you can slow or reverse the age-related loss of muscle mass with an exercise program and enough protein and leucine in your diet to maximize the effects of that workout program (details above).
  • You can prevent or get rid of excess belly fat by:
  • Following the exercise program and nutritional support of that exercise program described above.
  • Making food choices that replace saturated fats with monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats, especially omega-3 polyunsaturated fats.
  • Replacing foods high in sugar and simple carbohydrates with fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains in moderation.

 

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

The Fake Chocolate Study

by

How To Game The Peer Review Process

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

fake chocolate studyPeer review is supposed to assure that clinical studies are well designed, well executed, and correctly interpreted before they are accepted for publication. That is why I frequently advise you, my readers, to look for clinical studies on their nutritional products that are published in peer reviewed scientific journals as a criteria for choosing a supplement company that you can trust.

But, can the system be gamed? Sadly, the answer is yes. There are journals that only pay lip service to the peer review process. Earlier this year an investigative reporter set out to prove just how easy it is to game the peer review process. It is a fascinating story of how a journalist created the fake chocolate study.

Creating The Fake Chocolate Study Hoax

chocolateThe fake chocolate study was a hoax put together by John Bohannon, an investigative journalist and correspondent to Science (a very well respected scientific journal) to test the peer review system. The study was real, but it was seriously flawed. For example, it had only 16 subjects, there was no effort made to determine what the subjects were eating other than chocolate, and the conclusions were not supported by the data. In short, it was a very bad study—one that would have been rejected by any reputable journal.

For the purposes of the test he called himself Dr. Johannes Bohannon from the “Institute of Diet and Health”, a nonexistent entity that consisted of nothing more than a fake website he set up. He then wrote up the study and titled it “Chocolate with High Cocoa Content as a Weight Loss Accelerator” with the conclusion (not supported by the data) that “Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of chocolate, the so-called ‘weight loss turbo’, seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.”

Journals Take The Bait

baitIn March 2015 he submitted the article to 20 online journals. Several accepted it within 24 hours. He chose to publish it in the “International Archives of Medicine.” His paper was published online without any revisions a mere two weeks later. [Note: You should not assume the fact that several out of just 20 journals accepted his paper as in indication that a significant percentage of journals accept sub-standard papers without serious peer review. He had, in fact, done previous research for Science magazine identifying those journals most likely to accept flawed studies. It was those types of journals he sent his study to.]

John Bohannon was later quoted as saying “Editors of reputable journals reject [these kinds of studies] out of hand without even sending them to peer reviewers. But there are plenty of journals that care more about money than reputation.” [It costs $650 to have an article published in the International Archives of Medicine.]

The Media Fans The Flames

flamesIf this study had just been published in an obscure journal and had been ignored, that would have been bad enough. But the story gets even worse.  He then created a press release that he sent to news outlets. The press release made some pretty outrageous statements and even contained a link to an unrelated music video. However, the study made news headlines in more than 20 countries in half a dozen languages. For example, headlines from the Daily Express in England blared: “Chocolate Accelerates Weight Loss: Research Claims it Lowers Cholesterol and Aids Sleep.”

John Bohannon’s take was: “The key is to exploit journalist’s incredible laziness. If you lay out the information just right, you can shape the story that emerges in the media almost like you were writing those stories yourself. In fact, that’s literally what you are doing, since many reporters just copied and pasted our text.”

For the complete story of how John Bohannon pulled off this hoax, read his blog post about the “fake study.”

 

The Bottom Line

  • An investigative reporter for Science magazine demonstrated recently just how easy it is to get a fake study published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • He created a completely bogus study about chocolate aiding weight loss.
  • He submitted it to several journals that he had previously identified as having substandard peer review processes.
  • Several journals accepted it within 24 hours without any peer review process. One published it two weeks later without any revisions.
  • The story of a new “study” showing that chocolate aids weight loss was picked up by the new media and made the headlines in more than 20 countries in half a dozen languages.
  • The vast majority of journals have a very exacting peer review process, which means that most published clinical studies have been thoroughly reviewed and edited prior to publication. For the most part the peer review process works exactly as it is supposed to.
  • However, this hoax shows just how easy it would be for an unethical supplement company to subvert the peer review process and publish bogus studies to support their product claims. That is why when you are choosing a supplement company it is important to choose one with a reputation for scientific integrity.
  • This hoax also shows just how easy it is for bogus information to be picked up by the media and make it into the headlines. You simply cannot believe everything you read in the press, see on the TV and view online. That is why I created “Health Tips From The Professor.”  I wanted to create a place where you can go for accurate information.

 

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.

Heart Disease Risk and Multivitamins

by

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

heart disease riskIt’s so confusing. One week vitamins are going to reduce your heart disease risk and cancer risk. The next week they are worthless. They might even kill you. So when you saw the recent headlines suggesting that multivitamin-mineral supplement use might decrease heart disease risk in women, you probably weren’t sure what to think.

More to the point, you may be thinking “Why is it so hard to get this right? Why can’t scientists decide once and for all whether vitamins are beneficial or not?”

Perhaps, the best way to understand the significance of the present study is to look at the strengths and limitations of previous studies. Then we can start to gain perspective on why it is so difficult to come to a definitive conclusion about this very important question.

How Good Is The Evidence That Multivitamin Use Doesn’t Reduce Heart Disease Risk?

heart disease and multivitaminsMedical authorities are fond of telling you, with a great deal of confidence, that studies have conclusively proven multivitamin use does not decrease heart disease risk. However, in fact, that conclusion is based on only a few studies, and those studies have their limitations.

For example, the Physician’s Health Study II (Sesso et al, JAMA, 308: 1751-1760, 2012) reported that use of a multivitamin-mineral supplement for 11 years did not decrease cardiovascular incidence or mortality. It was a double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study. That’s the best kind of study, so it would be tempting to consider the case closed.

However, this study looked at a very small segment of the population. The participants were all male, primarily non-Hispanic whites, well to do, highly educated and health conscious. It also turns out that the participants that were in the poorest health and had the poorest health habits tended to drop out of the study and were not included in the final data analysis.

That means that the vast majority of participants in the study were at low risk of heart disease and were eating relatively healthy diets. Those are the people who would be least likely to benefit from supplementation. In short, this study proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the people least likely to benefit from supplementation did, in fact, not benefit from supplementation.

The studies that medical authorities quote as proving their case for women have all looked at antioxidant supplements and cardiovascular disease. There are three double-blind, placebo controlled studies that have all come to the conclusion that antioxidant supplements do not decrease cardiovascular risk in women. Once again, it might be tempting to consider the case closed.

However, in two of those studies (Lee et al, JAMA, 294: 56-65, 2005; Cook et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, 167: 1610-1618, 2007) when they looked at the subset of women who were at high risk of cardiovascular disease (either because of age or pre-existing disease), antioxidant supplements significantly decreased the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths. In short, these studies showed that those people most likely to benefit from supplementation, did, in fact, benefit from supplementation.

Finally, medical authorities have chosen to completely ignore a recent study reporting that multivitamin use significantly decreased heart attack risk in women, especially if they had been using the multivitamins for 5 years or more (Rautiainen et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92: 1251-1256, 2010). In short, previous studies have not conclusively proven much of anything except that it is really hard to get definitive answers to this kind of question.

Does Multivitamin Use Decrease Cardiovascular Disease Risk In Women?

cardiovascular disease in womenThe current study (Bailey et al, Journal of Nutrition, 145: 572-580, 2015) compared multivitamin use in 8678 adults(65% women) 40 years or older, from the USDA’s NHANES III database and compared it with cardiovascular death reports in the National Death Index 18 years later.

At the time of the NHANES III study, 45% of the adults surveyed had used some kind of supplement within the past 30 days. When the researchers broke the data down further:

  • 21% were using multivitamin-mineral supplements (3 or more vitamins and 1 or more minerals)
  • 14% were using multivitamin supplements (3 or more vitamins, no minerals).
  • Among multivitamin-mineral and multivitamin supplement users, only 46% had been using them for 3 years or more.

When they compared supplement usage with cardiovascular deaths 18 years later, the results were as follows:

  • When they asked if multivitamin-mineral or multivitamin use at the beginning of the study affected cardiovascular mortality 18 years later, the answer was a clear no.
  • When they looked at women, use of a multivitamin-mineral supplement for 3 years or more was associated with a 35% decreased risk of cardiovascular mortality.
  • However, they did not find any cardiovascular benefit from long term use of a multivitamin supplement alone for women. From this, they concluded that the beneficial effects of the multivitamin-mineral supplement came from one of the minerals, most likely magnesium or calcium.
  • There was a slight hint that multivitamin use might be beneficial for men, but the number of cardiovascular deaths in that group was too small for the results to be statistically significant.

What Does This Study Mean?

This study suggests that long term use of a multivitamin-mineral supplement may decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease deaths in women. Whether long term multivitamin use also reduces risk of cardiovascular disease in men is an open question. This study is consistent with another recent study looking at multivitamin use in women (Rautiainen et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92: 1251-1256, 2010). However, these studies are just a piece of the puzzle. It will take time and more studies before we will really be able to definitively say whether or not multivitamin use can decrease the risk of heart disease, or any other disease.

How Can You Reduce Your Heart Disease Risk?

The surest way to reduce your risk of heart disease is to develop a heart healthy lifestyle.

  • reduce heart disease riskLose weight and/or maintain ideal body weight. Overweight and obesity dramatically increase all of the major risk factors for heart disease – LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, hypertension and inflammation.
  • Exercise for more than 30 minutes – 3 times or more/week. Regular exercise reduces the risk of heart disease by 30-40%.
  • Follow a diet low in saturated fat and trans-fat (substitute monounsaturated fats like olive oil and omega-3 fats); low in sugars and artificial sweeteners; and high in fiber, whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and fish.
  • Work with your physician to control predisposing diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

What about supplementation? What role does it play in a heart healthy lifestyle? At present it’s pretty clear that the scientific community cannot definitively prove whether supplementation reduces the risk of heart disease or not. All the available evidence suggests that supplementation is most likely to prove beneficial for those who are at highest risk for heart disease and/or are most likely to be deficient in key nutrients – either because of poor diet or genetic variations that increase nutrient requirements.

In the best of all possible worlds we would know who was at high risk for heart disease and who was deficient in key nutrients. We would know who would benefit from supplements and who would not, but we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds.

  • Most people don’t know they are at risk for heart disease until it is too late. For far too many people the first symptom of heart disease is sudden death.
  • Genetics can greatly increase the need for key nutrients, and most people are completely unaware of those genetic predispositions until it is too late. In the future, we may be able to design genetic tests to determine individual nutritional requirements with precision, but we are decades away from that Utopian age at present.
  • Finally, many people are either blissfully unaware how unhealthy their diet is, or they just don’t want to do anything about it.

For all of the reasons above, I recommend a balanced supplementation program as part of a heart healthy lifestyle. The supplements most likely to be beneficial are a multivitamin-mineral supplement, antioxidants, omega-3s, and B vitamins. I have covered the evidence for the role of each of these nutrients in preserving heart health in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Of course, I do not recommend supplementation as an alternative to a heart healthy lifestyle. Taking a multivitamin along with your Big Mac is probably not going to do much for your heart health.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study reported that women who used a multivitamin – mineral supplement for 3 years or more decreased their risk of dying from heart disease over the next 18 years by 35%. The men in the study may have received some benefit from multivitamin – mineral supplementation, but the numbers were not large enough to be statistically significant.
  • This study is fully consistent with the results of a previous study with women. However, when we look at all of the available studies it is not possible to definitively conclude whether supplementation decreases the risk of heart disease or not.
  • All of the available evidence suggests that supplementation is most likely to be beneficial for those people who are at highest risk of heart disease and/or are most likely to be deficient in key nutrients.
  • In the best of all possible worlds we would know who was at high risk for heart disease and who was deficient in key nutrients. We would know who would benefit from supplements and who would not, but we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds.
  • Most people don’t know they are at risk for heart disease until it is too late. For far too many people the first symptom of heart disease is sudden death.
  • Genetics can greatly increase the need for key nutrients, and most people are completely unaware of those genetic predispositions until it is too late. In the future, we may be able to design genetic tests to determine individual nutritional requirements with precision, but we are decades away from that Utopian age at present.
  • Finally many people are either blissfully unaware how unhealthy their diet is, or they just don’t want to do anything about it.
  • For the reasons above, I recommend a balanced supplementation program as part of a heart healthy lifestyle. The supplements most likely to be beneficial are a multivitamin-mineral supplement, antioxidants, omega-3s, and B vitamins.
  • Of course,I do not recommend supplementation as an alternative to a heart healthy lifestyle. Taking a multivitamin along with your Big Mac is probably not going to do much for your heart health.

 

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.

Healthy Thanksgiving

by

The Holidays Don’t Have To Be Unhealthy

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

healthy thanksgivingIt’s time for my annual “Healthy Thanksgiving” blog. While “Healthy Thanksgiving” doesn’t quite have the appeal of the more familiar “Happy Thanksgiving” greeting, I used it here to make the point that Thanksgiving dinner (and many other holiday meals) doesn’t have to be an unhealthy affair.

After all, there is a lot to like about the ingredients in Thanksgiving dinner.  Turkey can be a healthy, low- fat meat, if prepared correctly.  Sweet potatoes, yams, winter squash and pumpkin are all loaded with vitamin A and other important nutrients.  And cranberries are a nutrition powerhouse.

Healthy Thanksgiving

Here are some tips to make your Thanksgiving meal one that contributes to your health:

1) Skip the basting.  Choose a plain bird and cook in a bag to seal in the moisture.  Remove the skin before serving.

2) Refrigerate the turkey juices and skim off the hardened fat before making gravy and use a gravy cup that pours from the bottom to minimize fat.

3) Use ingredients like whole wheat bread, vegetables, fruits (cranberries, raisins, dates or apples), nuts and your favorite spices for the stuffing and bake it in the oven rather than in the turkey.

4) Serve your sweet potatoes or yams baked rather than candied and let your guests add butter to taste.

5) Use skim milk or buttermilk rather than whole milk and skip the butter for your mashed potatoes.

6) Give your meal gourmet appeal by cooking your green vegetables with garlic, nuts and herbs rather than creamy or fat-laden sauces.

7) Don’t serve the meal on your largest plates. By using smaller plates you ensure smaller portion size and even that second helping isn’t quite so damaging.

8) Use the Shaklee 180 meal replacement products for one or more meals the day before and/or after Thanksgiving so that your total caloric intake over the three day period is not excessive.

By now you have the idea.  There are lots of little things that you can do to make your Thanksgiving dinner one that your waist and your heart will thank you for. Bon Appetit and have a Happy, Healthy Thanksgiving!

The Bottom Line

  • If you make healthy food choices and choose your portion sizes wisely, you can make this a Healthy Thanksgiving as well as a Happy Thanksgiving.

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 Food Supplements Safe?

by

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

are food supplements safeIf you saw the recent headlines proclaiming that dietary supplements were responsible for 23,000 emergency room visits and 2,100 hospitalizations every year, you are probably wondering are food supplements safe to use at all. The study behind these headlines (Geller et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 373: 1531-1540, 2015) was based on an extrapolation from 63 hospitals to every hospital in the United States.

Some experts consider this to be an overestimation since it is almost 8 times higher than the 3,200 cases/year in the official FDA’s Serious Adverse Event Reporting database. However, for the purposes of this article I will accept the 23,000 numbers.

Let me start by putting the 23,000 number into perspective.

  • It represents about 0.015% of the 150 million people in the US who use supplements.
  • It represents about 1% of the emergency room admissions caused by side effects of properly prescribed medications.

In short, the headlines are over-dramatizing the dangers of dietary supplements. Dietary supplements are actually quite safe. However, even one emergency room visit due to a dietary supplement is too many – especially if it were to happen to you or a loved one. Consequently, I will analyze the study in more detail so that I can show you how to recognize and avoid those few supplements that are truly dangerous.

Are Supplements Dangerous?

Here is a breakdown of the data:

  • 13% of the ER visits were due to allergic reactions. These were seldom serious enough to require hospitalization. This is also a type of problem that is probably unavoidable. Since many food supplements use natural ingredients, some degree of food allergies are to be expected.
  • 13% of the ER visits were due to swallowing problems, primarily in people over the age of 65. The preventative measure here is also pretty simple. If you or a loved one has difficulty swallowing, choose pills that are small and slick, chewable, powder or liquid supplements.
  • 20% of the ER visits were due to adverse effects caused by unsupervised ingestion of the supplements by children. The preventative measure here is pretty simple. Keep your supplements out of reach of small children – especially if they are chewable or have attractive colors. While the supplements may be perfectly safe when taken as recommended, the unsupervised ingestion of a whole bottle of almost any supplement by a small child is problematic.
  • 41% of the ER visits were due to weight loss products (25.5%), energy products (10%), sexual enhancement products (3.4%) and bodybuilding products (2.2%). The most common adverse effect for these products were heart palpitations, chest pain, and irregular heartbeat. These are the kinds of supplements you really need to be most careful about.

Why Are Dangerous Supplements Even On The Market?

are supplements dangerousLet’s start with the obvious question: Why are weight loss, energy, sexual enhancement and bodybuilding products the ones most likely to be dangerous? To quote Pogo (now I’m really dating myself): “We have met the enemy, and he is us”

  • Weight Loss Products: We can listen all day long to experts tell us that we need to make lifestyle changes, and we should aim for no more than one or two pounds of weight loss per week. However, for most of us that advice goes in one ear and out the other. We want to lose weight fast, and we want it to be easy.
  • Energy Products: Many of us are just plain exhausted because our diets are terrible; we are under stress; and we are burning the candle at both ends. We don’t want to eat better and change our lifestyle. We want high octane energy, and we want it now.
  • Body Building Products: The story is similar, especially for males in the 20-34 age range. We want big muscles, and we don’t want to wait for the years of workouts it will take to build that kind of physique naturally. We want it now.
  • Sexual Enhancement Products: ER admissions for sexual enhancement products were 100% male. What does that say about us guys? I won’t even go there.

Most supplement manufacturers are ethical and don’t make supplements that could harm us. However, there are a few unscrupulous sports supplements companies that misleadmanufacturers who are only too happy to exploit our human weaknesses if they can make a buck in the process. They will give us exactly what we want, even if it kills us in the process.

I’ve warned about these unscrupulous manufacturers in the past. The easiest way to create products that will burn off weight effortlessly, build muscle rapidly, and give you energy are to add chemically synthesized stimulants in the amphetamine family. For example, I’ve warned you about products containing stimulants such as DMAA and  DEPEA  in Are Dietary Supplements Safe and BMPEA in Are Sports Supplements Safe. They all work, but they also cause heart palpitations, chest pain, and irregular heartbeat. They can land you in the emergency room, and sometimes they can kill you.

In addition to stimulants, some weight loss products use diuretics, and some energy products use dangerous levels of caffeine, both of which can cause problems. Sexual enhancement products often use herbal ingredients like yohimbe bark that can be quite dangerous

Don’t Count On The FDA To Protect You

Unfortunately, you can’t count on the FDA to protect you. For example, in the case of the DMAA scandal, the FDA did not act until the day before a big expose was to air on 60 Minutes about the deaths caused by DMAA. They were shamed into taking strong action and removing DMAA from the shelves of retailers.

Case closed, you might think, but the truth is a bit scarier. That action was back in 2013. Since then, the FDA has ignored DMAA-containing products. The Human Performance Resource Center, an initiative of the Department of Defense, recently listed 39 products containing DMAA  that are readily available, either online or from retail stores. Even though the FDA has classified DMAA as an illegal ingredient, it is still readily available, and they don’t act.

This is just one of many examples I could cite. It’s not clear whether the FDA is unwilling to protect us, or if it is overwhelmed. However, it is clear that if we want to avoid dangerous supplements, it is up to us.

How Can You Protect Yourself From Dangerous Supplements?

protect yourself against dangerous supplementsIf the FDA isn’t going to protect you, what can you do to protect yourself from dangerous supplements? There are threesimple things that you can do to protect yourself;

#1: Use common sense.

  • Don’t even consider those weight loss supplements that promise you’ll lose 5-10 pounds/week, or that they will make the fat melt away effortlessly.
  • Walk away from those bodybuilding supplements that promise to make your muscles “explode” or give you “insane energy”.
  • Put those energy supplements that promise a jolt of energy back on the shelf.
  • As for sexual enhancement products, consult your doctor before you reach for a magic pill. Your problems in the bedroom may be caused by a treatable medical condition.

#2: Make the Commitment. A holistic lifestyle change that includes weight control, exercise, diet and supplementation may be more work, but it is so much safer and more beneficial in the long run.

#3: Choose wisely. Look for a supplement company with integrity.

  • A company that is committed to only making products that are both safe and effective.
  • A company that does clinical studies to make sure their products are safe and effective and publishes those studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Are food supplements safe?

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study reported that 23,000 emergency visits and 2,100 hospital admissions each year were caused by dietary supplements. Some experts consider this to be an overestimate. It is an extrapolation from 63 hospitals to every hospital in the United States, and it is approximately 8-fold higher than the FDAs Adverse Events database.
  • While the headlines sound scary, when you put the data into perspective it is clear that dietary supplements are actually quite safe. Even if we accept the 23,000 ER visits/year as accurate, this represents:
  • 015% of the supplement users in the US.
  • Approximately 1% of the annual ER admissions due to side effects of properly prescribed medications.
  • The main value of this study is that it allows us to identify what the dangers are and what strategies can help us avoid those dangers.
  • 13% of the ER visits were due to allergic reactions. This is probably unavoidable. Since many food supplements use natural ingredients, some degree of food allergies are to be expected.
  • 13% of the ER visits were due to swallowing problems, primarily in people over the age of 65. If you or a loved one has difficulty swallowing, the solution is pretty simple. Choose pills that are small and slick, chewable, powder or liquid supplements.
  • 20% of the ER visits were due to adverse effects caused by unsupervised ingestion of the supplements by children. The preventative measure here is also pretty simple. Keep your supplements out of reach of small children.
  • 41% of the ER visits were due to weight loss products (25.5%), energy products (10%), sexual enhancement products (3.4%) and bodybuilding products (2.2%). These are the kinds of supplements you really need to be most careful about. Some supplements in this category are truly dangerous.
  • If we ask why these dangerous supplements exist, the answers are pretty simple.
  • Many Americans are looking for quick and easy solutions. They want a magic pill or powder.
  • A few unscrupulous supplement companies are only too happy to give them exactly what they want, even if it kills them in the process.
  • Unfortunately, the FDA is not doing a good enough job of protecting us from the truly dangerous supplements on the market, so we need to protect ourselves.
  • To protect ourselves from the dangerous supplements on the market we need to take 3 simple steps:
  • Use common sense. Don’t fall for the advertising hype promising quick and easy solutions.
  • Commit to true lifestyle change. Adopt a holistic lifestyle that includes weight control, diet, exercise, and supplementation.
  • Choose your supplement manufacturer wisely. Choose one with integrity – one that is committed to making supplements that are both safe and effective.

 

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.

Omega-3 and ADHD in Children

by

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Sometimes I write articles pointing out the fallacies in the headlines you’ve been reading. Other times I write articles because major studies have provided a definitive test of a current paradigm. And sometimes I write articles about small studies that have the potential to change existing omgega-3 and adhd in childrenparadigms. This week’s article falls in the latter category. This week’s article is on omega-3 and ADHD in children.  More precisely,  I’m going to review a study looking at the role of the omega-3s DHA and EPA in reducing ADHD symptoms.

Amid growing concern about the side effects and overuse of the stimulant medications used to treat ADHD symptoms in children, many parents have been looking for natural approaches for controlling ADHD symptoms. One of the most popular natural approaches has been omega-3 supplements, primarily the long chain omega-3s, DHA and EPA.

However, not everyone agrees that DHA and EPA are effective for reducing ADHD symptoms. Here is a brief summary of what we know:

  • Children with ADHD and learning difficulties generally have lower tissue levels of DHA and EPA than children without those deficits.
  • Animal studies show that DHA-deficient diets decrease neuron size and are associated with hyperactive and compulsive behavior.
  • Some clinical studies have reported a significant decrease in ADHD symptoms when children were given omega-3 supplements, while other studies found no effect of omega-3 supplementation on ADHD symptoms. This has led to considerable confusion as to the value of omega-3 supplementation in children with ADHD.

However, recent studies have led to a certain amount of clarity about omega-3 and ADHD in children. In particular:

  • Two recent meta-analyses of all high quality published studies have concluded that omega-3 supplements have a beneficial effect on ADHD symptoms, but the effect is relatively small (Bloch and Qawasmi, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50: omega-3s991-1000, 2011; Sonuga-Burke et al. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170: 275-289, 2013).
  • One recent study showed that when omega-3 supplementation was combined with a stimulant medication, it improved the effectiveness of the medication, which allowed physicians to decrease the amount of medication they prescribed (Barragan et al, Journal of Attention Disorders, doi: 1177/1087054713518239, 2014).
  • Previous studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation is most effective in the children who are the most deficient in DHA and EPA at the beginning of the study. This is no surprise.

However,what you may not know is that many otherwise healthy children in this country have at least some degree of DHA and EPA deficiency. That’s because major food sources of EPA and DHA, such as salmon and sardines, are not most kid’s favorite foods.

Do Omega-3s Improve Attention Span In Children?

The most recent study (Bos et al, Neuropsychopharmacolgy, 40: 2298-2306, 2015) was a double blind, placebo controlled study looking at the effectiveness of omega-3 supplementation in reducing ADHD symptoms in boys between 8 and 14 years old. It differed significantly from most previous studies in that:

  • It included a matched group of boys who had not been diagnosed with ADHD.
  • It used a 1:1 ratio of DHA to EPA, which resulted in a greater intake of DHA than in many of the previous studies.

The study included 40 boys, aged 8-14, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and 39 matched controls who did not have ADHD. Both groups were either given margarine containing 650 mg/day of both DHA and EPA or a placebo margarine containing an equal amount of monounsaturated fatty acids for 16 weeks. Compliance with the study was measured in terms of the amount of margarine consumed and the levels of DHA and EPA found in cells obtained by a cheek swab. ADHD symptoms (particularly attention span, rule-breaking behavior and aggression) were assessed on the basis of standardized parent-rated child behavior assessments. The results of the study were:

  • At the start of the study, the children with ADHD scored higher on all measures of ADHD symptoms. No surprise here.
  • can foods cause adhd in kidsThe children with the lowest omega-3 levels at the beginning of the study scored highest on all measures of ADHD symptoms. This is also not surprising given the results of previous studies.
  • Omega-3 supplementation increased attention span in boys with ADHD, and the improvement in attention span correlated with an increase in omega-3 status. No improvement was seen in other symptoms of ADHD (rule-breaking behavior and aggression).

Since different studies tend to use different symptom assessments to measure the severity of ADHD, this may explain why some of the previous studies on omega-3s and ADHD symptoms have come up empty. The authors also suggested that some previous studies may have come up empty because the omega-3 supplements they used were low in DHA.

What Is The Significance Of This Study?

Because this study included a control group of boys without ADHD, it offers a whole new perspective on the importance of omega-3s for children. For example, this study showed:

  • Omega-3 supplementation improved attention span equally well in boys with and without ADHD. This is perhaps not surprising. If you have ever had a child in the 8 to 14 year old range, you know their attention span could stand a bit of improvement.

However, when you think about it, this study represents a potential paradigm shift in how we think about omega-3s and childhood behavior. The real significance of this studyis that it suggests that omega-3 supplementation may be beneficial for any child with poor attention span, not just for children with ADHD. This interpretation would be fully consistent with previous studies showing that omega-3 supplementation improves cognitive function and reading skills in children.

 

The Bottom Line

  • Previous studies have suggested that the long chain omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA are modestly effective at improving ADHD symptoms in children, and that they are most effective in children with the lowest omega-3 status at the beginning of the studies.
  • The current study showed that supplementation with DHA and EPA improved attention span in boys aged 8-14 with ADHD, but did not improve other ADHD symptoms such a rule-breaking behavior and aggression.

What does this mean to you if you have a child with ADHD?

  • If the ADHD symptoms are mild and mostly relate to attention span or learning skills, omega-3 supplementation alone may be enough to make a difference. Based on this study you might want to choose an omega-3 supplement that is rich in DHA.
  • If the ADHD symptoms are severe, you will probably need to include omega-3 supplementation as part of a more holistic natural approach for controlling the symptoms.
  • Finally, if a holistic natural approach is just too difficult to manage, the good news is that recent studies suggest that omega-3 supplementation makes ADHD medications more effective, which means your child’s physician may be able to reduce the dose of medication if you include omega-3 supplementation along with the medication.

This study was unique in that it also included a control group of 8-14 year old boys without ADHD and found that omega-3 supplementation was equally effective at improving attention span in children without ADHD.

  • This is a single study, but if it is replicated by future studies it suggests that we may need to change our paradigm. What we have been thinking about omega-3 supplementation for children may be all wrong. Perhaps we should stop thinking of it as a supplement that might help with ADHD symptoms and start thinking of it as a supplement that might help children improve their attention span and mental focus whether they have been diagnosed with ADHD or not. This would certainly be consistent with previous studies showing that omega-3 supplementation improves cognitive function and reading skills in children.

One final thought:

  • This study was performed with boys because they are more prone to ADHD symptoms than girls. However, based on numerous previous studies it is safe to assume that it is likely to apply equally well to girls with and without ADHD.

 

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.

ADHD Diet VS Medication for ADHD

by

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

what causes adhd in kidsI came across a headline in our local newspaper recently that said “Try Nutrition, Not Drugs, for ADHD”. The article made claims like “No good evidence exists to support the ADHD disease hypothesis” and “…on numerous occasions we have seen ADHD symptoms completely disappear without medication”.

As a scientist, I am always a little skeptical about bold claims that run counter to established scientific wisdom. However, the authors of this article implied that their claims were based on a 2012 article in Pediatrics, which is a highly respected journal in its field, so I decided to investigate the article (Millichap and Yee, Pediatrics, 129: 1-8, 2012).

The article was written by two pediatricians with extensive experience treating children with ADHD. The article turned out to be a pretty thorough review of the literature on nutritional approaches for controlling ADHD. It did not approach the rigor of a meta-analysis study. Rather, it is what I refer to as an “interpretive review”. By that I mean that the clinical studies were interpreted in part on the basis of their clinical experience in treating children with ADHD.

Interpretive reviews can be either good or bad, depending on the objectiveness of the reviewers. In this case, I was familiar with many of the clinical studies they reviewed and found their interpretations to be accurate, so I decided to share their conclusions with you.

 

Is an ADHD Diet Better Than Medication For ADHD?

 

They reviewed all of the major nutritional approaches that have been used over the years to control ADHD. Let me start by saying that they are not wild-eyed proponents of “a nuts and berries diet cures all”. In fact, they use medications as the primary intervention for most of their ADHD patients. They advocate an ADHD diet approach when:

  • Medicines fail or there are adverse reactions (side effects).
  • The parents or the patients prefer a more natural approach.
  • There are symptoms or signs of a mineral deficiency (more about that below).
  • There is a need to substitute an ADHD-free healthy diet for an ADHD-linked diet (Simply put, if the child’s diet is bad enough, there are multiple benefits from switching to a healthier diet – a possible reduction in ADHD symptoms is just one of them.)

I will summarize their key findings below:

Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

can foods cause adhd in kidsThe authors reported that a number of studies have shown that children with ADHD tend to have low levels of essential fatty acids, especially the omega-3 fatty acids. They cite several studies which showed significant improvement in reading skills and reductions in ADHD symptoms when children with ADHD were give omega-3 supplements, but also noted that other studies showed no effect.They postulated that some children may benefit more from omega-3 supplementation than others.

They routinely use doses of 300-600 mg of omega-3s with their ADHD patients. They find that this intervention reduces ADHD symptoms in many children, but does not completely eliminate the need for medications.

My Two Cents: I have previously reported on the improvement in reading skills(Omega-3’s Improve Reading Skills) and reduction in ADHD symptoms (Can Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?) when children were given omega-3 supplements. In both cases, it was the children with the lowest omega-3 levels who benefitted most. No surprise there. Whether it will help your child is anyone’s guess. However, it is a natural approach with no side effects. It is certainly worth trying.

Does the Elimination of Food Additives Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

artificial food colorsThe current interest in food additives and ADHD originated with the Feingold diet. The Feingold diet eliminated food additives, foods with salicylates (apples, grapes, luncheon meats, sausage, hot dogs and drinks containing artificial colors and flavors), and chemical preservatives (e.g. BHA and BHT). It was popularized in the 1970s when some proponents claimed that it reduced ADHD symptoms in 50% of the children treated. After clinical studies showed that only a small percentage of children actually benefitted from this diet, it rapidly fell out of favor.

However, Millichap and Yee pointed out that more recent studies have shown that the subset of children who responded to the Feingold diet were not a “statistical blip”. A recent review of the literature reported that when children with suspected sensitivities to food additives were challenged with artificial food colors, 65–89% of them displayed ADHD symptoms.

My Two Cents: I have previously reported on the effects of artificial food colors on ADHD (Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?). The studies I reviewed in this article reported that up to 28% of children with ADHD were sensitive to the amount of artificial food colors in the typical western diet and that removing those food colors resulted in a significant improvement in ADHD symptoms. Plus, those studies were just looking at food colors – not the hundreds of other food additives in the average American child’s diet.

I consider food additives to be problematic for many reasons. Even if doesn’t reduce their ADHD symptoms, eliminating as many of those food additives as possible is probably a good idea. It doesn’t need to be complicated. Just replacing processed foods and sodas with fresh fruits and vegetables and with low fat milk and natural fruit juices diluted with water to reduce their sugar content might make a significant difference in your child’s ADHD symptoms.

Food Sensitivities

Even natural foods can be a problem for children with food sensitivities, and it appears that there may be a large percentage of hyperactive children with food sensitivities. Millichap and Yee reported that elimination diets (diets that eliminate all foods which could cause food sensitivity) improve behavior in 76-82% of hyperactive children.

Even though this approach can be very effective Millichap and Yee don’t normally recommend it for their patients because it is difficult and time-consuming. The elimination diet is very restrictive and needs to be followed for a few weeks. Then individual foods need to be added back one at a time until the offending food(s) are identified. (They reported that antigen testing is not a particularly effective way of identifying food sensitivities associated with hyperactivity)

My Two Cents: I have previously reported on the link between food sensitivities and hyperactivity (What Causes ADHD?). I agree with Millichap and Yee that elimination diets are difficult and view this as something to be tried after all other natural approaches have failed. However, if there is a particular food that causes hyperactivity in your child, identifying it and eliminating it from their diet could just be something that will benefit them for the rest of their life.

Sugar

SugarThis is a particularly interesting topic. Many parents are absolutely convinced that sugary foods cause hyperactivity in their children, but the experts are saying that clinical studies have disproven that hypothesis. They claim that sugar has absolutely no effect on hyperactivity.

Millichap and Yee have an interesting perspective on the subject. They agree that clinical studies show that a sugar load does not affect behavior or cognitive function in small children, but they point to numerous clinical studies showing that the reactive hypoglycemia that occurs an hour or two after a sugar load adversely affects cognitive function in children, and that some children are more adversely affected than others.

My Two Cents: Reducing intake of refined sugars in your child’s diet makes sense for many reasons, especially considering the role of sugar intake in obesity. If your child has a tendency towards reactive hypoglycemia, it may also reduce ADHD symptoms.

Does Eliminating Iron and Zinc Deficiencies Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

Millichap and Yee reporting some studies suggested that iron and zinc deficiencies may be associated with ADHD symptoms, and recommend supplementation with an iron or zinc supplement when there is a documented deficiency.

My Two Cents: A simpler and less expensive approach would be a children’s multivitamin to prevent the possibility of iron or zinc deficiency. Of course, I would recommend that you choose one without artificial colors, preservatives and sweeteners.

Does Eating A Healthy Diet Reduce ADHD Symptoms?

Millichap and Yee closed their review by discussing a recent study in Australia that reported a significant reduction in ADHD symptoms in children eating “Healthy” diets (fish, vegetables, tomato, fresh fruit, whole grains & low fat dairy products) compared to children eating “Western” diets (Fast foods, red meat, processed meats, processed snacks, high fat dairy products & soft drinks). This is the ADHD diet approach, along with omega-3 supplementation, that they recommend most frequently for their patients.

My Two Cents: I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, if you and your family were to follow a “Healthy” diet instead of a “Western” diet it would likely have numerous health benefits. Plus, you are automatically removing ADHD triggers like food additives and sugar from your child’s diet.

 

The Bottom Line

A recent review of natural approaches for controlling ADHD symptoms (Millichap and Yee, Pediatrics, 129: 1-8, 2012) is both good news and bad news. The good news is that there are multiple nutritional approaches that can significantly reduce ADHD symptoms. These include:

  • Use of omega-3 supplements. They recommended 300-600 mg/day.
  • Removal of food additives (particularly food colors) from the diet.
  • Identification of food sensitivities and removal of those foods from the diet.
  • Reducing the amount of simple sugars in the diet.
  • Elimination of iron and zinc deficiencies if they exist (Iron deficiency is relatively common in American children. Zinc deficiency is not.) Alternatively, I recommend a children’s multivitamin to prevent iron and zinc deficiencies in the first place.
  • Eating a healthy diet rather than a Western diet. This also has the benefit of reducing the amount of food additives and sugars in the diet.

The bad news is that each of these approaches seems to work only in a subset of children with ADHD.

  • If you are a parent who is interested in a natural alternative to ADHD stimulant medications this means you may need to be patient and try several natural approaches until you find the one(s) that work(s) best for your child. The benefit of making the effort is that all of these approaches will also improve the health of your child in other important ways, and none of them have any side effects.
  • Unfortunately, the physician with only about 10 minutes to spend with each patient (which is increasingly the medical model in this country), may not have time to explore natural options. Medications are much easier to prescribe. You may need to be the one who takes the responsibility of exploring natural alternatives for your child.

 

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 Genetics Determine Weight?

by

Does Genetics Cause Obesity?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Overweight & Skinny WomenIt’s frustrating. Try as hard as you might, you just can’t seem to lose weight. Even worse you suspect that your friends – and maybe your doctor – assume that you are cheating on your diet. It just doesn’t seem fair.

Perhaps there is a simple explanation. Maybe your genes are keeping you from losing weight. Does genetics determine weight?  It has been hypothesized that some of us have a “thrifty” phenotype when it comes to weight loss while others are “spendthrifts”. The theory is that people with a “thrifty” phenotype hold on to weight more tightly when they are “fasting” (i.e. trying to lose weight) and gain weight more readily when they are “feasting” (i.e. eating excess calories).

The metabolism of the “spendthrifts” is exactly the opposite. They lose weight rapidly when fasting and gain weight slowly when feasting. Those would be all of your skinny friends who just can’t seem to understand why you have such difficulty losing weight.

Those experts who favor the “thrifty” phenotype hypothesis point out that it would have provided a tremendous survival advantage in prehistoric times when food was scarce. That’s why some of those same experts think that up to 80% of the population has the “thrifty” phenotype. When you couple the thrifty phenotype with the typical American diet and lifestyle it becomes easy to understand why we have an obesity epidemic in this country.

Is the “thrifty” phenotype hypothesis true? Could it explain why you have such difficulty losing weight? A recent study suggests the answer to those two questions may be yes. I will outline the evidence below.

Then I will address what are probably the two most important questions for you: “If the thrifty phenotype hypothesis is true and you have the thrifty phenotype, are you destined to be overweight? Is there anything you can do about it?

How The Study Was Designed

medical studyThis study (Reinhardt et al, Diabetes, 64: 2859-2867, 2015) was truly a remarkable study. 15 healthy, but obese volunteers were put in a metabolic ward for a total of 11 weeks. In the metabolic ward every aspect of their metabolism was closely controlled and measured.

  • They were given diets that were precisely calibrated to provide a predetermined caloric (energy) input.
  • Urine and feces were collected and analyzed in an instrument called a bomb calorimeter to determine calorie (energy) output.
  • They were limited to primarily sedentary activity for the duration of the experiments, and the temperature of the metabolic ward was maintained constant. This eliminated variation in energy expenditures due to activity and temperature.
  • Metabolic energy expenditure was calculated by placing them in a special room designed to precisely measure oxygen consumption and CO2 production by the subjects over a 24 hour period. Don’t worry about the details. Just know that this is the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure.

Here is what the subject’s 11 weeks in the metabolic ward looked like:

  • During the first 3 weeks the subjects were provided with a diet designed with just enough calories to maintain their weight based on their weight and sex. If weight gain or loss was observed the calories were adjusted accordingly.
  • During one 24 hour period in week 3 the subjects were place on a diet that decreased their calories by 50%, (defined as “fasting” in this study) and the resulting decrease in metabolic energy expenditure was measured as described above.
  • During another 24 hour period in week 3 the subjects were place on a diet that increased their calories by 200% (defined as “overfeeding” in this study), and the resulting increase in metabolic energy expenditure was measured.
  • During the next 6 weeks the subjects were placed on calorie restricted diet that only provided 50% of the calories they needed to lose weight.
  • During the final 2 weeks the subjects were placed on a diet designed to provide the calories needed to maintain their new weight, whatever it was.

How Does Genetics Determine Weight?

do genetics cause obesityThe results of the study were quite interesting:

  • All of the subjects lost weight, but the amount of weight loss ranged from 5% to 12% of the original body weight.
  • Their starting weight did not influence their rate of weight loss during calorie restriction, but their metabolic response to fasting and overfeeding significantly affected their rate of weight loss. Specifically:
  • The subjects with the smallest decrease in energy expenditure during fasting and the largest increase in energy expenditure during overfeeding (the spendthrifts) lost significantly more weight during the 6 week caloric restriction period (what most of us call a diet).
  • The subjects with the largest decrease in energy expenditure during fasting and the smallest increase in energy expenditure during overfeeding (the thrifty) lost significantly less weight during the 6 week caloric restriction period.
  • The amount of caloric restriction needed to lose one pound of weight ranged from 1,558-2,993 depending on whether the subjects displayed the spendthrift or thrifty phenotype. That’s almost a 2-fold difference.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

life-is-sometimes-unfairLife isn’t fair. You probably already suspected that. Your skinny friends actually do have a much easier time losing weight than you do. In fact, they may be able to lose up to twice the amount of weight with exactly the same amount of caloric restriction.

However, the good news is that weight loss is possible – even for you. Everyone in the study lost weight – even those subjects with the thriftiest phenotype. So the question becomes what can you do to lose weight successfully? Here are 5 simple tips.

#1: Don’t give up. Stick with it. Pounds may come off slowly for you, but this study shows they will come off. You just have to keep the faith and be consistent.

#2: Watch what you eat very carefully. The researchers in this study controlled every morsel of food the subjects ate. People always lose weight more rapidly when they are in a metabolic ward. My recommendation is to track what you eat daily using one of the many available tracking apps.

#3: Be consistent with your exercise. The subjects in this study were not allowed to exercise, but that is one of the best ways to increase energy expenditure. Aerobic exercise gives you a small increase in energy expenditure during and immediately following the exercise. Weight bearing exercise gives a long term increase in energy expenditure because it increases muscle mass, and muscle burns calories faster than any other tissue.

#4: Choose a diet that preserves muscle mass (High Protein Diets and Weight Loss ) while you are losing weight.

#5: Avoid all those diets with herbal and pharmaceutical stimulants. They are dangerous and they may just kill you.  Check out  Are Dietary Supplements Safe.

 

The Bottom Line

A recent study (Reinhardt et al, Diabetes, 64: 2859-2867, 2015) did a very careful metabolic analysis and divided subjects into what they characterized as either a “thrifty” or “spendthrift” phenotype based on their changes in metabolic energy expenditure in response to fasting and overfeeding. They then looked at how those phenotypes affected weight loss during a 6 week period of caloric restriction. Does genetics cause obesity or help determine weight?  Here’s what they found:

  • All of the subjects lost weight, but the amount of weight loss ranged from 5% to 12% of the original body weight.
  • Their starting weight did not influence their rate of weight loss during caloric restriction, but their metabolic response to fasting and overfeeding significantly affected their rate of weight loss. Specifically:
  • The subjects with the smallest decrease in energy expenditure during fasting and the largest increase in energy expenditure during overfeeding (the spendthrifts) lost significantly more weight during the 6 week caloric restriction period (what most of us call a diet).
  • The subjects with the largest decrease in energy expenditure during fasting and the smallest increase in energy expenditure during overfeeding (the thrifty) lost significantly less weight during the 6 week caloric restriction period.
  • If you struggle to lose weight, this is a good news – bad news study.
  • The bad news is that life isn’t fair. You probably already suspected that. Your skinny friends actually do have a much easier time losing weight than you do.
  • The good news is that weight loss is possible – even for you. Everyone in the study lost weight – even those subjects with the thriftiest phenotype. So the question becomes what can you do to lose weight successfully? I’ve given you 5 simple tips in 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.

Artificial Sweeteners And Diabetes

by

Another Myth Bites The Dust

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

artificial sweeteners and diabetesArtificial sweeteners and diabetes; is there a relationship?

Once again, artificial sweeteners have come up empty. They were supposed to help you lose weight, but several recent clinical studies have suggested that artificially sweetened beverages are just as likely to lead to weight gain as sugar sweetened beverages, see  Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat.

What about type 2 diabetes? There have been several clinical trials that have suggested that excess consumption of sugar sweetened beverages may increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes (For example, Basu et al, Am J Pub Health, 103: 2071-2077, 2013; Malik et al, Diabetes Care, 33: 2477-2483, 2010).

As a consequence if you are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, you’ve probably been advised by your doctor or dietitian to switch from sugar sweetened beverages to artificially sweetened beverages or natural fruit juices. But, does that really work? Maybe not.

In fact, some studies have suggested that excess consumption of artificially sweetened beverages or fruit juice may be just as likely to lead to type 2 diabetes as consuming sugar sweetened beverages (For example, Greenwood et al, Br J Nutr, 112: 725-734, 2014; Xi et al, PloS One, 9:e93471, 2014).

A Systematic Study Of Beverage Consumption And Diabetes Risk

However, this has been a very controversial topic. The problem is that it is devilishly difficult to design studies that provide definitive answers to these important questions.

To start with there are problems with confounding factors. For example,

  • It is pretty well established that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages leads to obesity and obesity leads to type 2 diabetes, but many of the studies did not adjust the data for obesity.
  • In addition, many people who are overweight often switch to artificially sweetened beverages in the mistaken belief that they will help them lose weight. Once again, many of the published studies did not correct for that.

There are also problems with study design. For example, many of the studies did not directly compare sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages in the same population group. If the population groups are different enough between studies, it can be a little like trying to compare apples to oranges.

Because of these limitations an international team of experts designed a major systematic review and meta-analysis (Imamura et al, Br J Med, doi: 101136/bmj.h3576, 2015) of all reasonably well designed prospective studies that measured the effect of beverage consumption on the development of type 2 diabetes over time.

They evaluated the data from 17 studies that represented 38,253 people who developed type 2 diabetes over a period of at least two years. They used the most rigorous statistical analysis methods available, and they interpreted their results very cautiously.

In short, this was a major study. So, what did the study show?

Is There a Relationship Between Artificial Sweeteners And  Diabetes?

On face value, the data appeared to be fairly clear:

  • prevent diabetesAn additional one serving per day of a sugar-sweetened beverage increases your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 18%. When you correct for obesity, the increased risk is 13%. (Note: we are talking about an 8 ounce serving here, not a 32 ounce Big Gulp or 64 ounce Double Gulp).
  • An additional one serving per day of an artificially-sweetened beverage increases your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 25%. When you correct for obesity, the increased risk is 8%.
  • An additional one serving per day of fruit juice increases your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 5%. When you correct for obesity, the risk actually increases to 7%.

In short, if you want to decrease your risk of developing type 2 diabetes, none of these options is a particularly good choice.

How Were These Data Interpreted

Of course, the strength of any meta-analysis is limited by the quality of the studies that were included in the meta-analysis. It is the old GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) principle. The authors acknowledged that limitation and analyzed in great detail the quality of the individual studies included in their meta-analysis. Their conclusions were as follows:

  • garbage in garbage outThe quality of the data on sugar sweetened beverages was strong enough that they could conclude that “habitual consumption of sugar sweetened beverages is associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, independent of obesity”. In short, you want to stay away from sugar sweetened beverages. They can cause obesity AND they can cause type 2 diabetes.
  • They also said that “…artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice also showed positive associations with incidence of type 2 diabetes”, but did not feel the existing data were strong enough to make a definitive conclusion. They felt that more studies are needed.
  • However, they did feel that the existing data were strong enough to conclude that “neither artificially sweetened beverages nor fruit juice are suitable alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the preventing of type 2 diabetes.” In short, consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice may not cause type 2 diabetes, but they clearly don’t prevent it.

 

The Bottom Line

If you are overweight or otherwise at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, you have probably been advised to switch from sugar-sweetened beverages to either artificially sweetened beverages or fruit juices. A major study has just turned that advice on its head!

This study (Imamura et al, Br J Med, doi: 101136/bmj.h3576, 2015) was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 previously published clinical studies that measured the effect of beverage consumption on the development of type 2 diabetes over time. Based on a very careful analysis of the data from this meta-analysis the authors concluded:

  • The quality of the data on sugar sweetened beverages was strong enough that they could unequivocally state that “habitual consumption of sugar sweetened beverages is associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, independent of obesity”. In short, you want to stay away from sugar sweetened beverages. They can cause obesity AND they can cause type 2 diabetes.
  • They also said that “…artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice also showed positive associations with incidence of type 2 diabetes”, but did not feel the existing data were strong enough to make a definitive conclusion. They felt that more studies are needed.
  • However, they did feel that the existing data were strong enough to conclude that “neither artificially sweetened beverages nor fruit juice are suitable alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the preventing of type 2 diabetes.” In short, consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice may not cause type 2 diabetes, but they clearly don’t prevent it.

So what kind of beverages should you consume if you don’t want your beverage intake to contribute to type 2 diabetes?

  • Water is always the first choice.
  • Milk, protein shakes and similar beverages can also be an excellent choice as long as you take the calories into account. The protein content of those beverages generally slows the rate of sugar uptake. Look for products with a low glycemic index.
  • High intensity or long endurance exercise requires a lot of carbohydrate, so sugars in rehydration or recovery sports supplements are well tolerated. However, those same sports drinks would be a concern if used as part of a sedentary lifestyle.
  • Finally, tea, coffee, and non-caffeinated herbal teas are excellent choices as long as you learn to enjoy them without adding sugar or artificial sweeteners.

 

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

Soy and Hot Flashes

by

Will Soy Put Out The Fire?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

soy and hot flashesThere has been a lot of controversy in recent years about soy and hot flashes. The question is whether soy isoflavones reduce the hot flashes associated with menopause.

And this is an important question! Because of concerns about increase heart attack risk with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) many women have been looking for natural alternatives to HRT for reducing hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause. They’ve been asking whether soy isoflavones are effective, and the answers that they’ve been getting have been confusing.

For example, you can still find many experts and health professionals who will tell you that soy isoflavones have no proven effect on menopause symptoms.

That is somewhat surprising since two recent meta-analyses (Howes et al, Maturitas, 55: 203-211, 2006; Williamson-Hughes, Menopause, 55: 203-211, 2006) and a 2010 expert panel of The North American Menopause Society have all concluded that soy isoflavones alleviate hot flashes.

Will Soy Put Out The Fire?

However, clear guidance in this area was sorely needed, so Taku et al (Menopause, DOI: soy10.1097/gme.0b013e3182410159, 2012) performed an even larger meta-analysis that included 19 published clinical trials – some of which had been published after the previous two meta-analyses were performed.

I’ve talked about meta-analyses before, so you probably already know that they are very powerful because they combine the results of many individual clinical trials into a single data analysis.

But you also may remember me telling you that meta-analyses can be misleading if they introduce bias because of the kinds of clinical studies that they exclude from their analysis.

So I examined the design of this meta-analysis very carefully. It excluded clinical trials that:

  • were not double blind, placebo controlled and designed in such a manner that the placebo was indistinguishable from the soy isoflavone preparation.
  • contained other substances in addition to the soy isoflavones (The presence of other substances in the preparation might have influenced the response).

There were several other well justified reasons for excluding some studies from the meta-analysis, but they were technical in nature. In my opinion this was a very well designed study.

And the results were clear cut. An average of 54 mg of soy isoflavones (some studies used a little less, some a little more) was sufficient to reduce:

  • the frequency of hot flashes by 21% – and –
  • the severity of hot flashes by 26%

Soy and Hot Flashes: What This Study Mean For You?

The results of this study were highly statistically significant. So if you are suffering from hot flashes and are wondering whether soy isoflavones will put out the fire, the answer appears to be YES.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that 21-26% is not a huge effect.

And, if you look at the individual clinical studies it is apparent that the response is highly variable. Some women experience major relief from hot flashes and other menopause symptoms, while other women experience little or no relief.

The reason for this variability is not known, but it is likely that the effectiveness of soy isoflavones on reducing hot flashes is modified by other components of the diet and by lifestyle factors such as obesity, exercise and stress.

Soy and hot flashes; the bottom line.

My take on this is that soy isoflavones should not be thought of as a “magic bullet” that will make hot flashes go away by themselves, but rather as a proven part of a holistic approach that encompasses a healthy diet, exercise, weight control and stress reduction

The Bottom Line

  • A recent meta-analysis of 19 published clinical studies showed that soy isoflavones reduced the frequency of hot flashes by 21% and the severity of hot flashes by 26%.
  • The results were highly statistically significant, but 21-26% reduction in symptoms is not a huge effect.
  • When they looked at the individual clinical studies it was apparent that the response is highly variable. Some women experienced major relief from hot flashes and other menopause symptoms, while other women experienced little or no relief.
  • My take on this is that soy isoflavones should not be thought of as a “magic bullet” that will make hot flashes go away by themselves, but rather as a proven part of a holistic approach that encompasses a healthy diet, exercise, weight control and stress reduction

 

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