Heart Disease

Does Hormone Replacement Therapy Cause Dementia?

by

The Dark Side Of Hormone Replacement Therapy

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

When I was still teaching, a physician and I were co-directors of one of the first courses medical students took at UNC. In his opening lecture to these brand-new medical students, one of his pearls of wisdom was the statement, “The only safe drug is a new drug.”

After a pause to let the students think about it, he followed up with, “That’s because the side effects haven’t been discovered yet.”

He would then go on to explain that every drug must go through rigorous clinical trials, and some side effects are discovered then. But some of the most serious side effects aren’t discovered until years later after 100’s of thousands of patients had used the drugs.

Hormone replacement therapy is a perfect example of this principle. Hormone replacement therapy was first introduced in the 1960s. At first it seemed to be an almost miraculous solution to menopausal symptoms.

Millions of women were overjoyed. After all, menopause symptoms can make life miserable. They include:

  • Hot flashes
  • Night sweats
  • Sleep disturbances
  • Mood swings
  • Depression
  • Anxiety
  • Forgetfulness
  • Food cravings
  • Tiredness

Just to name a few. While only 25% of women experience severe symptoms, why would anyone want to experience any of these symptoms?

And doctors were only too happy to oblige. Why not? The known side effects were mild. Why should any woman experience menopause symptoms?

But that was before the dark side of hormone replacement therapy started to emerge.

The Dark Side Of Hormone Replacement Therapy

Darth VaderThe popularity of hormone replacement therapy peaked in the 1990s. It was around that time that reports started to emerge suggesting that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of heart disease and breast cancer. Those risks were confirmed in a major study called the Woman’s Health Initiative that was published in 2002.

That study caused a major shift in how the medical community regarded hormone replacement therapy. Within a few years doctors shifted from recommending hormone replacement therapy for every woman with menopausal symptoms to recommending it only in cases where the symptoms were debilitating and only for the shortest possible time.

The effect on women’s health was huge. In fact, switching from universal hormone replacement therapy to targeted hormone replacement therapy remains the single most effective public health measure for reducing the incidence of breast cancer. It is more effective than any of new drugs and measures to improve breast cancer screening since then.

I wish I could tell you that was the end of the story. But recent studies have suggested that hormone replacement therapy also increases the risk of dementia. Unfortunately, most of those studies have had flaws, so the link between hormone replacement therapy and dementia has remained controversial – until now.

The study (N Pourhadi et al, British Medical Journal, 382, e072770, 2023) I will describe today was designed to provide a more definitive test of this hypothesis.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis was done in Denmark and used the Danish health registries. As Americans, you might not be aware of what a rich resource those health registries are. One advantage of socialized medicine is that every aspect of your health is tracked and recorded from cradle to grave.

[I’m not sure I would be comfortable with our government knowing that much about me, but it is a treasure-trove of information if you want to conduct a study like this one.]

The authors used the Danish National Health registries to:

  • Identify all Danish women aged 50-60 who had no incidence of dementia and were not on hormone replacement therapy as of January 1, 2000.
  • Identify 5589 women (1.8% of the population) from this group who were diagnosed with dementia between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2018 and match them with 55,890 controls who remained dementia-free through the end of 2018.
  • Using the National Prescription registry, they were able to track which women used hormone-replacement therapy, what kind of therapy it was (there are several variations of hormone replacement therapy), and how long they remained on hormone replacement therapy.

The average age at which hormone replacement therapy began was 53, and the average duration of use was 3.8 years. The average age of a dementia diagnosis was 70.

Does Hormone Replacement Therapy Cause Dementia?

Dementia-WomanWhen the authors compared women who used an estrogen-progestin combination hormone replacement therapy (the most common kind) with women who never used hormone replacement therapy, the hormone replacement therapy users were:

  • 24% more likely to develop dementia of any kind.
  • 21% more likely to develop late-onset dementia.
  • 22% more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease.

Longer duration of hormone replacement use was associated with an increased risk of dementia. The increased risk of dementia was:

  • 21% for ≤ 1 year duration.
  • 39% for 8-12 years duration.
  • 74% for > 12 years duration.

The age at which hormone replacement therapy was begun had a slight effect on dementia risk. The increased risk of dementia was:

  • 26% when it was started at age 45-50.
  • 21% when it was started at age 51-60.

Finally, other forms of hormone replacement therapy such as progestin only therapy and vaginal estrogen treatment did not have a statistically significant effect on dementia risk. But it was not clear whether this was due to a smaller sample size or whether it was a true null effect.

The authors concluded, “Menopausal hormone replacement therapy was positively associated with the development of all cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, even in women who received treatment at the age of 55 years or younger.”

The Pros And Cons Of This Study

pros and consThe pros are obvious. This was a large, well-designed study. And its use of the Danish National Health registry and National Prescription registry allowed it to address the dementia risk of hormone replacement therapy in a comprehensive manner.

The cons are also obvious. This was an observational study. It can only show associations, not prove cause and effect. [I should note that it would be impossible to do a double-blind study to prove cause and effect. The size of the population group and the length of time required would make that kind of study unworkable.]

As I have said in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, the Achilles heel of observational studies is the possibility that a confounding variable (something else about the women who developed dementia) was the true cause of the observed outcome (in this case, increased dementia risk).

The authors did an excellent job of identifying known confounding variables that might have contributed to dementia and statistically correcting for them. However, the authors identified one potential confounding variable I would not have thought of.

In the words of the authors, “Further studies are warranted to determine whether these findings represent an actual effect of menopausal hormone therapy on dementia risk, or whether they reflect an underlying predisposition in women in need of these treatments.”

In case you need a translation, the authors are saying that it is possible that certain women have an underlying disease state or genetic predisposition that makes them very sensitive to menopausal symptoms (which increases the likelihood that they would receive hormone replacement therapy to reduce their symptoms) and increases their risk of dementia. In that case, it would be the underlying medical condition or genetic predisposition that was responsible for the increased dementia risk, not the hormone replacement therapy.”

I consider that unlikely, but it does warrant future studies.

Is Hormone Replacement Therapy Right For You?

Questioning WomanUltimately, this is your decision. But this is a decision you should make with your health care provider.

It is clear that hormone replacement therapy increases your risk of heart disease, breast cancer, and may increase your risk of dementia.

In part, your decision depends on the severity of your symptoms and your willingness to accept the risks associated with alleviating those symptoms.

But your health care provider can also help you consider family history and unrelated health conditions that may also increase your risk of these diseases. If your underlying disease risk is low, would you be more willing or less willing to accept the risks associated with hormone replacement therapy? Again, this is your decision.

And, if you decide to proceed with hormone replacement therapy, your health care provider can recommend the type of therapy and length of therapy that will minimize your risks.

The Bottom Line 

Several recent studies have suggested that hormone replacement therapy may increase the risk of dementia, but this has remained controversial.

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I share a very large, well designed study that supports the link between hormone replacement therapy and dementia.

When the authors of this study compared women who had used hormone replacement therapy with women who never used hormone replacement therapy, the hormone replacement therapy users were:

  • 24% more likely to develop dementia of any kind.
  • 21% more likely to develop late-onset dementia.
  • 22% more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease.

The authors concluded, “Menopausal hormone replacement therapy was positively associated with the development of all cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, even in women who received treatment at the age of 55 years or younger.”

For more information on the strengths and weaknesses of this study and a discussion of whether hormone replacement therapy might be right for you, read the article above.

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

___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy?

by

What Does A Heart Healthy Diet Look Like?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

heart attacksHeart disease is a big deal. According to the CDC, “Heart disease is the leading cause of death for men, women, and people of most racial and ethnic groups in the United States. One person dies every 33 seconds in the United States from cardiovascular disease. About 695,000 people in the United States died from heart disease in 2021 – that’s 1 in every 5 deaths”.

This doesn’t have to happen. According to the Cleveland Clinic, “90 percent of heart disease is preventable through healthier diet, regular exercise, and not smoking”. For this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, I will focus on the role of diet on heart health.

The problem is many Americans are confused. They don’t know what a heart-healthy diet is. There is so much conflicting information on the internet.

Fortunately, the American Heart Association has stepped in to clear up the confusion.

In 2021 they reviewed hundreds of clinical studies and published “Evidence-Based Dietary Guidance to Promote Cardiovascular Health”.

And recently they have published a comprehensive review (CD Gardner et al, Circulation, 147: 1715-1730, 2023) of how well popular diets align with their 2021 dietary guidelines.

I will cover both publications below. But first I want to address why Americans are so confused about which diets reduce heart disease risk.

Why Are Americans Confused About Diet And Heart Disease Risk?

I should start by addressing the “elephant in the room”.

  • As I discussed in last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article, Big Food Inc has seduced us. They have developed an unending supply of highly processed foods that are cheap, convenient, easy to prepare, and fulfill all our cravings. These foods are not heart-healthy, but they make up 73% of our food supply.

The Institute of Medicine, the scientific body that sets dietary standards, states that a wide range of macronutrient intakes are consistent with healthy diets. Specifically, they recommend carbohydrate intake at 45% to 65%, fat intake at 20% to 35%, and protein intake at 10% to 35% of total calories. (Of course, they are referring to healthy carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.)

The authors of this article pointed to several reasons why Americans have been misled about heart-healthy diets.

  • Many of the most popular diets fall outside of the “Acceptable Macronutrient Range”.
  • Many popular diets exclude heart-healthy food groups.

And, the words of the authors,

  • “Further contributing to consumer misunderstanding is the proliferation of diet books, [and] blogs [by] clinicians with limited understanding of what the dietary patterns entail and the evidence base for promoting cardiometabolic health.” I call these the Dr. Strangeloves of our world.

What Does A Heart Healthy Diet Look Like?

Let me start by sharing the American Heart Association’s 10 “Evidence-Based Dietary Guidelines to Promote Cardiovascular Health.

#1: Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight
#2: Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits; choose a wide variety
#3: Choose foods made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains
#4: Choose healthy sources of protein
Mostly from plants (beans, other legumes, and nuts)
Fish and seafood
Low-fat or fat-free dairy products instead of full-fat dairy products
If meat or poultry are desired, choose lean cuts and avoid processed forms
#5. Use liquid plant oils (olive, safflower, corn) rather than animal fats (butter and lard) and tropical oils (coconut and palm kernel)
#6. Use minimally processed foods instead of highly processed foods
#7: Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars
#8: Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt
#9: If you do not drink alcohol, do not start; if you choose to drink alcohol, limit intake
#10: Adhere to this guidance regardless of where food is prepared or consumed

Here are my comments on these guidelines:

  • If you have been reading my “Health Tips From the Professor” blog for a while, you probably realize that these aren’t just guidelines to promote heart health. These guidelines also reduce the risk of diabetes, cancer, inflammatory diseases, and much more.
  • If you have read my post on coconut oil, you will know that I have a minor disagreement with the AHA recommendation to avoid it. There is no long-term evidence that coconut oil is bad for the heart. But there is also no long-term evidence that it is good for the heart. My recommendation is to use it sparingly.
  • And you probably know there has been considerable discussion recently about whether full fat dairy is actually bad for the heart. In my most recent review of the topic, I concluded that if full fat dairy is heart healthy, it is only in the context of a primarily plant-based diet and may only be true for fermented dairy foods like unpasteurized yogurt and kefir.
  • Finally, guideline 10 may need some translation. Basically, this guideline is just asking how easy it is to follow the diet when you are away from home.

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy?

confusionIn evaluating how well diets adhered to the American Heart Association guidelines the authors ignored item 1 (energy intake) because most of the diets they evaluated did not provide any guidelines on how many calories should be consumed.

Each diet was given a score between 0 (Fail) and 1 (A+) for each of the other 9 guidelines by a panel of experts. The points for all 9 guidelines were added up, giving each diet a rating of 0 (worst) to 9 (best). Finally, a score of 9 was assigned 100%, so each diet could be given a percentage score for adherence to heart-healthy guidelines.

Here are the results:

Tier 1 diets (the most heart healthy diets) received scores of 86% to 100%. Going from highest (100%) to lowest (86%), these diets were:

  • DASH, Nordic, Mediterranean, Pescetarian (vegetarian diets that allow fish), and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian (vegetarian diets that allow dairy, eggs, or both).
  • You will notice that these are all primarily plant-based diets.

Tier 2 diets were Vegan and other low-fat diets (TLC, Volumetrics). They both received scores of 78%.

  • The Vegan diet received 0 points for category 10 (ease of following the diet when eating out). It was also downgraded in category 7 for not having clear guidance for the use of salt when preparing foods.
  • The other low-fat diets were downgraded in categories 7, 10, and 5 (use of tropical oils).

Tier 3 diets received scores of 64% to 72%. They included very-low fat diets (<10% fat, very strict vegan diets) and low-carb diets (Zone, South Beach, Low-Glycemic Index).

  • They received 0 points for category 10 and were downgraded for eliminating heart-healthy food groups (liquid plant oils for the very low-fat diets, and fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and plant proteins for the low-carb diets).

Tier 4 diets (the least heart healthy diets) were the Paleo diet with a score of 53% and very low-carb diets (Atkins and Ketogenic) with a score of 31%.

  • The Paleo diet received 0 points for categories 10, 3 (choose whole grains), and 5 (using liquid plant oils rather than animal fats or tropical oils). It was also downgraded for lack of healthy plant-based protein sources.
  • The very low-carb diets were the least heart healthy. They received 0 points for categories 2 (eat plenty of fruits and vegetables), 3 (choose whole grains), 3 (healthy protein sources), 5 (use liquid plant oils instead of animal fats), 7 (minimize salt consumption), and 10 (ease of following the diet away from home).

The authors concluded, “Numerous [dietary] patterns [are] strongly aligned with 2021 American Heart Association Dietary Guidance (ie, Mediterranean, DASH, pescetarian, vegetarian) [and] can be adopted to reflect personal and cultural preferences and budgetary constraints.

Thus, optimal cardiovascular health would be best supported by developing a food environment that supports adherence to these patterns wherever food is prepared or consumed.”

Given our current food environment that last statement is wildly optimistic. But at least you have the information needed to make the best food choices for you and your family

The Bottom Line 

In 2021 the American Heart Association published 10 guidelines for evaluating heart-healthy diets. A recent study looked at how well popular diets adhered to those guidelines. The authors separated the diets into four categories (tiers) based on how heart-healthy they were. The results were not surprising:

  • Tier 1 diets (the most heart healthy diets) were DASH, Nordic, Mediterranean, Pescetarian (vegetarian diets that allow fish), and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian (vegetarian diets that allow dairy, eggs, or both).
  • Tier 2 diets were Vegan and other low-fat diets (TLC, Volumetrics).
  • Tier 3 diets included very-low fat diets (<10% fat, very strict vegan diets) and low-carb diets (Zone, South Beach, Low-Glycemic Index).
  • Tier 4 diets (the least heart healthy diets) were the Paleo diet and very low-carb diets (Atkins and Ketogenic).

The authors concluded, “Numerous [dietary] patterns [are] strongly aligned with 2021 American Heart Association Dietary Guidance (ie, Mediterranean, DASH, pescetarian, vegetarian) [and] can be adopted to reflect personal and cultural preferences and budgetary constraints.

Thus, optimal cardiovascular health would be best supported by developing a food environment that supports adherence to these patterns wherever food is prepared or consumed.”

Given our current food environment that last statement is wildly optimistic. But at least you have the information needed to make the best food choices for you and your family.

For more information on 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Is Whole Fat Dairy Healthy?

by

Is It Dairy Or Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

CheesesFor years we have been told to select low fat dairy foods. But recent headlines claim, “That’s nonsense. Whole fat dairy foods are healthy.” Are those headlines true?

In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have kept you abreast of recent studies suggesting that whole fat dairy foods may not be as bad for us as we thought. I also cautioned you that the headlines may not have accurately represented the studies they described.

Headlines have to be simple. But truth is often more nuanced. If we believed the current headlines, we might be asking ourselves questions like, “Should we ditch the current health guidelines recommending low-fat dairy foods? Are foods like ice cream, sour cream, and cheddar cheese actually be good for us?

To answer these questions, I will look at the study (A Mente et al, European Heart Journal, 44, 2560-2579, 2023) behind the current headlines and put the study into perspective.

Spoiler alert: If I could summarize the study findings in two sentences, they would be, “Whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet. But can it be part of an unhealthy diet?”

Stay tuned. I will discuss the science behind that statement below.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study started with data collected from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The PURE study is an ongoing study correlating diet, lifestyle, and environmental effects on health outcomes. It has enrolled 166,762 individuals, age 35-70, from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries on 5 continents.

Habitual food intake was determined using country-specific food frequency questionnaires at the time participants joined the study. Participants (166,762) from the PURE study who had complete dietary information were included in this study and were followed for an average of 9.3 years.

Based on preliminary analysis of data from the PURE study, the authors developed their version of a healthy diet, which they call the PURE diet. Like most other healthy diets, the PURE diet emphasizes fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and fish. However:

  • Based on studies suggesting that whole fat dairy foods can be part of a healthy diet, the PURE diet includes whole fat dairy foods.

This is different from most other healthy diet recommendations.

They went on to develop what they referred to as the PURE healthy diet score by:

  • Determining the median intake for each of the 6 food groups included in their PURE diet (fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, fish, and whole fat dairy).
  • Assigning each participant in the study a score of 0 or 1 depending on whether their intake for that food group was below or above the median intake.
  • Adding up the points. Since 6 food groups were included in the PURE diet, this means that each participant in the study was assigned a PURE diet score ranging from 0-6.

Once they had developed a PURE diet score, they expanded their data by including five additional large independent studies that included people from 70 countries. The combined data from all six studies amounted to 245,597 people from 80 countries. Of the people included in the data analysis:

  • 21% came from high income countries.
  • 60% came from middle income countries.
  • 19% came from low-income countries.

This is very similar to the global population distribution. This is a strength of this study because it allowed them to ask whether the PURE diet score worked as well in low-income countries as in high-income countries.

Finally, they correlated the PURE diet score with outcomes like all-cause mortality, heart attack, and stroke.

Is Whole Fat Dairy Healthy?

QuestionsThe authors of this study divided the participants of all 6 studies into quintiles based on their PURE diet score and compared those in the highest quintile (PURE score of ≥ 5) with those in the lowest quintile (PURE score of ≤ 1).

The people in the highest quintile were eating on average 5 servings/day of fruits and vegetables, 0.5 servings/day of legumes, 1.2 servings/day of nuts, 0.3 servings/day of fish, 2 servings/day of dairy (of which 1.4 servings/day was whole fat dairy), 0.5 servings/day of unprocessed red meat, and 0.3 servings/day of poultry.

 

The people in the lowest quintile ate significantly less fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and dairy; and slightly less legumes, unprocessed red meat, and poultry than those in the highest quintile.

However, they consumed significantly more refined wheat foods and white rice. This study did not track consumption of highly processed foods, but the high consumption of white flour leads me to suspect they ate a lot more highly processed food.

With that in mind, when the authors compared people with the highest PURE diet scores to those with the lowest PURE diet scores:

  • All-cause mortality was reduced by 30%.
  • Cardiovascular disease was reduced by 18%.
  • Heart attacks were reduced by 14%.
  • Strokes were reduced by 19%.
  • The PURE healthy eating score was slightly better at predicting health outcomes than the Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI (Healthy Eating Index) scores. But the differences were small. So, I still recommend choosing the healthy diet that best fits your preferred foods and your lifestyle.
  • The PURE healthy eating score was significantly better at predicting health outcomes than the Planetary diet score. I will discuss the nutritional inadequacy of “sustainable diets” like the Planetary diet in next week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article.

Because of the size and design of this study, they were able to make three interesting observations.

  1. The PURE, Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI diet scores were predictive of health outcomes in every country across the globe. You no longer have to wonder if what works in the United States will work in low-income countries and in countries with very different food preferences. Previous studies have not been able to make that claim.

2) You don’t have to be perfect.

    • A 20% increase (one quintile) in PURE score was associated with a 6% lower risk of major cardiovascular events and an 8% lower risk of mortality. In other words, even small improvements in your diet may improve your health outcomes.
    • The health benefits of the PURE diet started to plateau at a score of 3 (with 6 being the highest score). The authors concluded that most of the health benefits were associated with a modestly higher consumption of healthy foods compared to little or no consumption of healthy foods.

Simply put, that means the health benefits gained by going from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet are not as great as the health benefits gained by going from a poor diet to a moderately healthy diet.

[Note: There are still improvements in health outcomes when you go from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet.  My recommendation: “You don’t need to achieve perfection, but you shouldn’t accept mediocrity”.]

3) The PURE diet score was more predictive of health outcomes in some countries than in others.

    • The PURE diet score was more predictive of health outcomes in low-income countries. The authors felt that was because low-income countries started with average PURE scores of 2.1, whereas higher-income countries started with average PURE scores of 3.5.

The authors felt this was another example getting more “bang for the buck” by going from a poor diet to a moderately healthy diet than from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet. (Remember, the health benefits associated with improving PURE diet scores start to plateau at a PURE score of 3.

    • The difference in benefits for low-income countries compared to high-income countries was observed for the Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI diet scores. So, it is probably safe to say for any healthy diet you don’t need to be perfect. You just need to be better.

The authors concluded, “A diet composed of higher amounts of fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, and whole fat dairy is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in all world regions, especially in countries with lower income where consumption of these foods is low.”

Is It Dairy Or Diet?

CheesesThe headlines are telling us that recommendations to choose low-fat dairy products are out of date. They say there is no reason to fear whole fat dairy foods. They are good for you. Bring on the ice cream, sour cream, cream cheese, and high fat hard cheeses!

As usual, there is a kernel of truth in the headlines, but headlines have to be simple. And the latest headlines are an oversimplification of what the studies actually show. Let me provide perspective to the headlines by asking two questions.

#1: Is it dairy or diet? A major weakness of this and similar studies is that they fail to consider diet context. What do I mean by that? Let’s dig a little deeper into this study.

  • Let’s start with a description of the PURE diet. It is a diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and fish. In other words, it is a primarily plant-based diet.
  • Although the authors keep referring to the diet as one that includes whole fat dairy. It would be more accurate to say that it includes dairy, which was 30% low-fat and 70% whole fat.
  • The authors said that removal of any one food group from this combination reduced the predictive power of the PURE diet. In other words, the beneficial effect of 70% whole fat dairy is best seen in the context of a primarily plant-based diet.
  • The PURE diet was most effective at predicting health outcomes in low-income countries where a significant percent of the population consumes a primarily plant-based diet because meats are expensive.

So, a more accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet. But that is too complicated for a headline.

#2: If whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet, can it also be part of an unhealthy diet?

To answer that question let’s compare the potential effects of whole fat dairy on a primarily plant-based diet compared to the typical American or European diet.

  • Milk and other dairy foods are excellent sources of calcium, vitamin B12, and iodine and good sources of protein, vitamin D, choline, zinc, and selenium – nutrients that are often low or missing in plant-based diet. And this is true whether the dairy foods are low-fat or whole fat.
  • Primarily plant-based diets tend to be low in saturated fat, so the potential negative effects of adding a small amount of saturated fat to the diet may be outweighed by the beneficial effects of the nutrients dairy foods provide.

On the other hand,

  • The typical American or European diet provides plenty of protein and vitamin B12 and significantly more choline, vitamin D, iodine, and zinc than a plant-based diet. The added nutrients from adding dairy foods to this kind of diet is still beneficial, but the benefits are not as great as adding dairy foods to a primarily plant-based diet.
  • If you read the American Heart Association statement on saturated fats, it does not say that any amount of saturated fat is bad for you. In fact, small amounts of saturated fats play some beneficial roles in our bodies. The American Heart Association says, “Eating too much saturated fat can raise the level of LDL cholesterol in your blood…[which] increases your risk of heart disease and stroke.”
  • Here is where the problem lies. The typical American or European diet already contains too much saturated fat. Whole fat dairy just adds to that excess.

So, the most accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet but may not be a healthy addition to the typical American diet. But that is way too complicated for a headline.

You are probably wondering what this means for you. Here are my recommendations.

If you eat like most Americans, you should continue to follow the current health guidelines to choose low-fat dairy foods.

If you happen to be among the few Americans who eat a primarily plant-based diet, you will probably benefit by adding a mixture of low-fat and whole fat dairy foods to your diet.

The Bottom Line 

Once again, the headlines are telling us that recommendations to choose low-fat dairy products are out of date. The articles say there is no reason to fear whole fat dairy foods. They are good for you. Bring on the ice cream, sour cream, cream cheese, and high fat hard cheeses!

As usual, there is a kernel of truth in the headlines, but headlines have to be simple. And the latest headlines are an oversimplification of what the studies actually show. In this post I looked at the study behind the most recent headlines and provided perspective to the headlines by asking two questions.

#1: Is it dairy or diet? A major weakness of this and similar studies is that they fail to consider diet context.

When you consider diet context a more accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet. But that is too complicated for a headline.

#2: If whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet, can it also be part of an unhealthy diet?

When you consider that question the most accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet but may not be a healthy addition to the typical American diet. But that is way too complicated for a headline.

You are probably wondering what this means for you. Here are my recommendations.

If you eat like most Americans, you should continue to follow the current health guidelines to choose low-fat dairy foods.

If you happen to be among the few Americans who eat a primarily plant-based diet, you will probably benefit by adding a mixture of low-fat and whole fat dairy foods to your diet.

For more information on this study, and the science behind my summary of the 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.

_________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Are All Carbs Bad?

by

Are Low Carb Enthusiasts Right About The Dangers Of Carbohydrates?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Low carb enthusiasts have been on the warpath against carbohydrates for years.

Almost everyone agrees that sugar-sweetened sodas and highly processed, refined foods with added sugar are bad for us. But low carb enthusiasts claim that we should also avoid fruits, grains, and starchy vegetables. Have they gone too far?

Several recent studies suggest they have. For example, both association studies and randomized controlled studies suggest that total carbohydrate intake is neither harmful nor beneficial for heart health.

In addition, recent studies suggest that free sugar intake is associated with both elevated triglyceride levels and an increase in heart disease risk.

But those studies have mostly looked at free sugar intake from sugar-sweetened sodas. The authors of this study (RK Kelley et al, BMC Medicine, 21:34, 2023) decided to look more carefully at the effect of all free sugars and other types of carbohydrates on triglyceride levels and heart disease risk.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe 110,497 people chosen for this study were a subgroup of participants in the UK Biobank Study, a large, long-term study looking at the contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure (including diet) to the development of disease in England, Scotland, and Wales.

The participants in this study were aged between 37 and 73 (average age = 56) on enrollment and were followed for an average of 9.4 years. None of them had a history of heart disease or diabetes or were taking diabetic medications at the time of enrollment.

During the 9.4-year follow-up, five 24-hour dietary recalls were performed, so that usual dietary intake could be measured rather than dietary intake at a single time point. The people in this study participated in an average of 2.9 diet surveys, and none of them had less than two diet surveys.

The averaged data from the dietary recalls were analyzed for the amount and kinds of carbohydrate in the diet. With respect to the types of carbohydrate, the following definitions would be useful.

  • The term free sugars includes all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, and unsweetened fruit juices.
  • The term non-free sugars includes all sugars not in the free sugar category, mostly sugars naturally occurring in fruits, vegetables, and dairy products.
  • The term refined grains includes white bread, white pasta, white rice, most crackers and cereals, pizza, and grain dishes with added fat.
  • The term whole grains includes wholegrain bread, wholegrain pasta, brown rice, bran cereal, wholegrain cereals, oat cereal, and muesli.

Finally, the study looked at the association of total carbohydrate and each class of carbohydrate defined above with all heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, and triglyceride levels.

Are All Carbs Bad?

Question MarkThe study looked at total carbohydrate intake, free sugar intake, and fiber intake. In each case, the study divided the participants into quartiles and compared those in the highest quartile with those in the lowest quartile.

Using this criterion:

  • Total carbohydrate intake was not associated with any cardiovascular outcome measured (total heart disease risk, heart attack risk, and stroke risk).
  • Free sugar intake was positively associated with all cardiovascular outcomes measured. Each 5% increase in caloric intake from free sugars was associated with a:
    • 7% increase in total heart disease risk.
    • 6% increase in heart attack risk.
    • 10% increase in stroke risk.
    • 3% increase in triglyceride levels.
  • Fiber intake was inversely associated with total heart disease risk. Specifically, each 5 gram/day increase in fiber was associated with a:
    • 4% decrease in total heart disease risk.

The investigators also looked at the effect of replacing less healthy carbohydrates with healthier carbohydrates. They found that:

  • Replacing 5% of caloric intake from refined grains with whole grains reduced both total heart disease risk and stroke risk by 6%.
  • Replacing 5% of caloric intake from free sugars (mostly sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugar) with non-free sugars (mostly fruits, vegetables, and dairy products) reduced total heart disease risk by 5% and stroke risk by 9%.

Are Low Carb Enthusiasts Right About The Dangers Of Carbohydrates?

With these data in mind let’s look at the claims of the low-carb enthusiasts.

Claim #1: Carbohydrates raise triglyceride levels. This study shows:

  • This claim is false with respect to total carbohydrate intake and high fiber carbohydrate intake (fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This study did not measure intake of beans, nuts, and seeds, but they would likely be in the same category).
  • However, this claim is true with respect to foods high in free sugars (sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juices, and processed foods with added sugar).

Claim #2: Carbohydrates increase heart disease risk. This study shows:

  • That claim is false with respect to total carbohydrate intake and high fiber carbohydrate intake.
  • However, this claim is true with respect to foods high in free sugars.

Claim #3: Carbohydrates cause weight gain [Note: Low carb enthusiasts usually word it differently. Their claim is that eliminating carbohydrates will help you lose weight. But that claim doesn’t make sense unless you believed eating carbohydrates caused you to gain weight.] This study shows:

  • This claim is false with respect to total carbohydrate intake and high fiber carbohydrate intake.
  • Once again, this claim is true with respect to foods high in free sugars.

The data with high fiber carbohydrates was particularly interesting. When the authors compared the group with the highest fiber intake to the group with the lowest fiber intake, the high-fiber group:

  • Consumed 33% more calories per day.
  • But had lower BMI and waste circumference (measures of obesity) than the low-carbohydrate group.

This suggests that you don’t need to starve yourself to lose weight. You just need to eat healthier foods.

And, in case you were wondering, the high fiber group ate:

  • 5 more servings of fruits and vegetables and…
  • 2 more servings of whole grain foods than the low fiber group.

This is consistent with several previous studies showing that diets containing a lot of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are associated with a healthier weight.

The authors concluded, “Higher free sugar intake was associated with higher cardiovascular disease incidence and higher triglyceride concentrations…Higher fiber intake and replacement of refined grain starch and free sugars with wholegrain starch and non-free sugars, respectively, may be protective for incident heart disease.”

In short, with respect to heart disease, the type, not the amount of dietary carbohydrate is the important risk factor.

What Does This Mean For You?

Questioning WomanForget the low carb “mumbo jumbo”.

  • Carbohydrates aren’t the problem. The wrong kind of carbohydrates are the problem. Fruit juice, sugar-sweetened sodas, and processed foods with added sugar:
    • Increase triglyceride levels.
    • Are associated with weight gain.
    • Increase the risk for heart disease.
  • In other words, they are the villains. They are responsible for the bad effects that low carb enthusiasts ascribe to all carbohydrates.
  • Don’t fear whole fruits, vegetables, dairy, and whole grain foods. They are the good guys.
    • They have minimal effect on triglyceride levels.
    • They are associated with healthier weight.
    • They are associated with a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes.

So, the bottom line for you is simple. Not all carbs are created equal.

  • Your mother was right. Eat your fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
  • Avoid fruit juice, sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods with added sugar. [Note: Artificially sweetened beverages are no better than sugar-sweetened beverages, but that’s another story for another day.]

And, if you were wondering why low carb diets appear to work for weight loss, it’s because any restrictive diet works short term. As I have noted previously, keto and vegan diets work equally well for short-term weight loss.

The Bottom Line 

Low carb enthusiasts have been telling us for years to avoid all carbohydrates (including fruits, starchy vegetables, and whole grains) because carbohydrates:

  • Increase triglyceride levels.
  • Cause weight gain.
  • Increase our risk for heart disease.

A recent study has shown that these claims are only true for some carbohydrates, namely fruit juices, sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods with added sugar.

Whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods have the opposite effect. They:

  • Have a minimal effect on triglyceride levels.
  • Are associated with a healthier weight.
  • Are associated with a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes.

So, forget the low carb “mumbo jumbo” and be sure to eat your fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

by

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

  • It is supported by multiple clinical studies.
  • Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support the paradigm.
  • It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.
  • It is the recommendation of most health professionals.
  • It has been repeated so often by so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

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

  • Raising your HDL levels naturally takes effort. Pharmaceutical companies have been pursuing the “magic pill” that raises HDL levels without any effort on your part.
  • Low carb diets like the Keto and Paleo diets are high in saturated fat. The low carb enthusiasts claim this is a good thing because saturated fat raises HDL levels, and HDL is good for your heart.

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

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

Do Drugs That Increase HDL Levels Work?

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

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

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

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

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

Does Saturated Fat Decrease Heart Disease Risk?

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

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

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

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

  • The type of fat determines the property of the HDL particles.
    • When polyunsaturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have an anti-inflammatory effect. When saturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have a pro-inflammatory effect.
  • Anti-inflammatory HDL particles relax the endothelial cells lining our blood vessels. That makes the lining of our blood vessels more pliable, which improves blood flow and reduces blood pressure.
    • Anti-inflammatory HDL particles also help reduce inflammation of the endothelial lining. This is important because an inflamed endothelial lining is more likely to accumulate fatty plaques and to trigger blood clot formation that can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

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

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

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

strong heartOnce the studies were published showing that…

  • Drug-induced increase of HDL levels without any change in health habits is not sufficient to decrease heart attack risk, and…
  • Not all HDL particles are healthy. There are anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory HDL particles, which likely have opposite effects on heart attack risk…

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

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

  • The studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm are association studies. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (in this case, increase in HDL levels) and an outcome (in this case, heart disease events, heart disease deaths, and total deaths).
  • Associations need to be corrected for other variables known to affect the same outcome (things like age, gender, smoking, and diabetes would be examples in this case).
  • Confounding variables are variables that also affect the outcome but are unknown or ignored. Thus, they are not used to correct the associations, which can bias the results.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 7.1% reduction in heart disease events (both heart disease deaths and non-fatal heart attacks).
  • 7.2% reduction in heart disease deaths.
  • 4.4% reduction in total deaths.

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

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

In other words, this study:

  • Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.
  • Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

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

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

  • Losing weight when overweight increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to weight loss than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • Exercise increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to exercise than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • Reversing pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the reversal of diabetes than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • High-dose omega-3 fatty acids increase HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the omega-3 fatty acids than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • The Mediterranean diet increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the diet than to the increase in HDL levels.

And if you want to go the drug route:

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

On the other hand:

  • Saturated fats increase HDL levels. But saturated fats increase heart disease risk and create pro-inflammatory HDL particles. So, in this case the increase in HDL levels is not a good omen for your heart.
  • Drugs have been discovered that selectively increase HDL levels. However, there is nothing of value behind this increase in HDL levels, so the drugs have no effect on heart disease outcomes.

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

In other words, this study:

  • Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.
  • Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Are Low Carb Diets Healthier?

by

The “Goldilocks Effect”

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

Are Low Carb Diets Healthier?

GravestoneThe results from the ARIC study were:

  • The relationship between mortality and carbohydrate intake was a U-shaped curve.
    • The lowest risk of death was observed with a moderate carbohydrate intake (50-55%). This is the intake recommended by current nutrition guidelines.
    • The highest risk of death was observed with a low carbohydrate intake (<40%).
    • The risk of death also increased with very high carbohydrate intake (>70%).
  • When the investigators used the mortality data to estimate life expectancy, they predicted a 50-year old participant would have a projected life expectancy of:
    • 33.1 years if they had a moderate intake of carbohydrates.
    • 4 years less if they had a low carbohydrate intake.
    • 1.1 year less if they had a very high carbohydrate intake.
  • The risk associated with low carbohydrate intake was affected by what the carbohydrate was replaced with.
    • When carbohydrates were replaced with animal protein and animal fat there was an increased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet. The animal-based low-carb diet contained more beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and fish. It was also higher in saturated fat.Beans and Nuts
    • When carbohydrates were replaced with plant protein and plant fats, there was a decreased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet. The plant-based low-carb diet contained more nuts, peanut butter, dark or whole grain breads, chocolate, and white bread. It was also higher in polyunsaturated fats.
  • The effect of carbohydrate intake on mortality was virtually the same for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.
  • There was no significant effect of carbohydrate intake on long-term weight gain (another myth busted).

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

  • Both very low carbohydrate diets and very high carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality.
  • Meat-based low-carb diets increased mortality, and plant-based low-carb diets decreased mortality.
  • Once again, the results were the same for total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.

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

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

The “Goldilocks Effect”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

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

  • All major studies agree that very high carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. In part, that reflects the fact that diets with high carbohydrate intake are likely to be high in sodas and sugary junk foods. It may also reflect the fact that diets which are high in carbohydrate are often low in plant protein or healthy fats or both.
  • All studies that cover the full range of carbohydrate intake agree that very low carbohydrate intake is also unhealthy. It shortens the life expectancy of a 50-year-old by about 4 years.
  • The studies quoted by low carb enthusiasts to support their claim that low-carb diets are healthy don’t include carbohydrate intakes below 40%. That means their claims are misleading. The studies they quote are incapable of detecting the risks of low carbohydrate diets.
  • Meat-based low-carb diets decrease life expectancy while plant-based low carb diets increase life expectancy. This is consistent with previous studies. For more details on those studies, see my article, “Are Any Low-Carb Diets Healthy?”, in “Health Tips From The Professor” or my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Specifically, this study reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Are Easter Eggs Bad For You?

by

Clearing Up The Eggfusion 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The Easter Bunny will be here soon bringing beautifully decorated eggs for all the children. But wait. Aren’t eggs bad for us? Should we really be encouraging our kids to eat Easter eggs? Maybe we should encourage them to eat Easter candy instead (just kidding).

What is the truth about eggs on our health? Perhaps it’s time for the professor to clear up the “eggfusion” (That’s short for egg confusion). Let me start with a brief historical summary:

  • First there were the warnings that eggs were bad for your heart because egg yolks contained cholesterol, and cholesterol was to be avoided at all costs.
  • Then experts decided that dietary cholesterol wasn’t all that bad for you. It was saturated fats, obesity, and lack of exercise that raised “bad” (LDL) cholesterol levels in your bloodstream.
  • That was followed by several US studies suggesting that eggs in moderation (one per day) did not affect your risk of heart disease.
  • Then a major study claimed that an egg a day actually lowered your risk of heart disease.

Now, the most recent headlines claim that eggs increase your risk of heart disease, and you should avoid them. No wonder you are experiencing eggfusion. Let me review the latest study and put it into perspective by comparing it to previous studies. Let me clear up the eggfusion.

But let me warn you. This is a bit complex, as the truth often is. When I try to explain the contradictions between major studies on egg consumption and heart health, I think the best analogy might be the tale of the blind men trying to tell what an elephant was like by touching different parts of the elephant. None of them could provide an accurate description because none of them could see the whole elephant.

We need to look at the “whole elephant” to see what these studies missed.

How Was The Study Done?

Heart Disease StudyThis study (WW Zhong et al, JAMA, 321: djw322, 2017) combined the data from 6 clinical trials in the United States that assessed dietary intake and measured cardiovascular health outcomes. In all, these studies included 29,615 adults who were followed for an average of 17.5 years.

The diet of the participants was assessed upon entry into each of the clinical trials. The primary variables derived from the dietary information were cholesterol and egg consumption. Diet was not assessed at later times in these studies.

The primary outcomes measured were heart disease and all-cause mortality. In this study heart disease was an umbrella term that included fatal and non-fatal heart attacks, stroke, heart failure, and death from other heart-related causes.

Do Eggs Increase Heart Disease Risk?

heart attacksHere are the main findings from this study.

  • Each additional half an egg consumed per day (which is equivalent to 3-4 eggs per week) was associated with a:
    • 6% increased risk of heart disease. While that doesn’t sound like much, the increased risk was over 13% for one egg per day and almost 27% for two eggs per day.
  • The increased heart disease risk associated with one half egg per day was greater for:
    • Women (13% increase) than men (3% increase).
    • People who already had high blood cholesterol (7% increase), not people who already had low cholesterol levels (0% increase). This suggests that the effect of eggs on heart disease risk primarily affects people who are already having trouble controlling their blood cholesterol levels – either due to genetics or due to diet & lifestyle.

Of course, the question is whether it was the eggs that increased the risk of heart disease or was it something else in the diet. This study attempted to answer that question by systematically subtracting out other variables that affect heart disease risk to see whether that correction eliminated the association between egg consumption and heart disease risk. When this was done:

  • The association between egg consumption and heart disease risk disappeared after correcting for dietary cholesterol intake.
  • The association between egg consumption and heart disease risk remained significant after correcting for other components of the diet, such as fats, animal protein, fiber, sodium, or overall “diet quality”. There were 3 main measures of diet quality.
    • The Med diet score measures how closely the diet resembles the Mediterranean diet.
    • The DASH diet score measures how closely the diet resembles the DASH diet.
    • The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) measures how closely the diet aligns with the USDA Dietary Guidelines For Americans. Basically, the HEI recommends a whole food diet containing foods from all 5 food groups with a heavy emphasis on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. It also recommends limiting saturated and trans fats, added sugars, and sodium.

In simple terms the authors concluded that the effect of eggs on heart disease risk was primarily due to their cholesterol content and was not influenced by other components of the overall diet. [I will revisit this conclusion latter.]

What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Study?

SkepticThe strengths are obvious. This was a very large study (29,615 participants) and the people enrolled in the study were followed for a long time (an average of 17.5 years). The primary variables in the study (cholesterol consumption, egg consumption, heart disease, and all-cause mortality) were accurately measured in each of the clinical trials included in the study.

However, there were some significant weaknesses as well:

  • Cholesterol and egg consumption were only measured by a single dietary survey when people entered the study. This study assumes they did not change over the course of the study. That is very unlikely. Both cholesterol intake and egg consumption in the US population have waxed and waned over the years, in part due to variations in dietary guidelines.
  • The measurements of diet quality used were based on US and European food preferences. That is significant because the only studies showing that egg consumption lowers heart disease risk were performed in China and Japan, where the diet is closer to semi-vegetarian than to US or European diets.

Are Easter Eggs Bad For You?

thumbs down symbolThis is very large, well designed study that combines the data from 6 clinical trials spanning the years 1974 to 2013.

The strongest conclusions from the study are:

  • In the context of a Western diet (the US diet) egg consumption slightly increases your risk developing heart disease. The increased risk is ~6% for 3-4 eggs/week, ~13% for 1 egg per day, and ~27% for two eggs per day.
  • The increased risk of heart disease appears to be almost entirely due to the cholesterol content of eggs.

The significance of this study needs to be weighed in the context of:

  • Recent studies in the US and Europe showing eggs do not increase heart disease risk.
  • Studies in China and Japan (where the diets can best be described as semi-vegetarian) showing that eggs decrease heart disease risk.

The significance of this study also needs to be weighed in the context of:

  • Studies showing that obesity, saturated fat, and physical inactivity have bigger effects on serum cholesterol levels and heart disease risk than dietary cholesterol from foods like eggs.

What Did This Study Miss?

EggsIf, as this study suggests, the effect of eggs on heart disease risk is due to their cholesterol content, this study (and most previous studies) missed a very important point. The effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels is not strongly affected by the overall composition of the diet. It is affected by the composition of the diet at the time foods containing dietary cholesterol are eaten.

  • The kind of fiber found in certain fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes bind to dietary cholesterol, preventing it from being absorbed as it passes through the intestine.
  • Certain phytonutrients in plant foods affect how dietary cholesterol is utilized by the body.
  • However, to blunt the effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels the fiber and phytonutrient-containing foods must be consumed at the same meal.

Simply put, if your breakfast consists of eggs, sausage, biscuits, and hash browns, the cholesterol in the eggs will likely increase your blood cholesterol level, which in turn increases your risk of heart disease. This will occur even if you eat lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes with your other meals.

If, on the other hand, your breakfast consists of eggs and fiber-rich plant foods like oatmeal and beans, the cholesterol in the eggs will likely have a much smaller effect on your blood cholesterol levels and your heart disease risk.

The fact that previous studies have not looked at what foods were consumed along with the eggs may explain some of the variation in their conclusions about the effect of egg consumption on heart disease risk.

The Professor’s Story

professor owlLet me share my story with you. About 25 years ago, my doctor told me that my cholesterol levels were getting high and wanted to put me on statins. I didn’t take a stain, and I didn’t stop eating eggs for breakfast. I changed breakfast.

Now I soft boil my eggs or fry them in olive oil. I eat them along with oatmeal, which contains a fiber that binds cholesterol, and walnuts, which contain omega-3s and phytonutrients that lower blood cholesterol. I also include whatever fruit is in season. Finally, I take a supplement providing 2 grams of plant stanols and sterols, which blocks cholesterol absorption from the intestine.

My blood cholesterol levels have been low ever since. I have not had to take statins, and I get to enjoy the taste and health benefits of an egg any time I want to. Of course, what worked for me may not work for you. The effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels is also affected by genetics, weight, and fitness, just to name the top three.

Are Easter Eggs Good For You?

thumbs upOnce you get past the cholesterol problem, eggs are a very healthy food.

  1. Studies have shown that egg protein results in improved blood sugar control, better satiety (feeling of fullness), and reduced subsequent food intake in healthy and overweight individuals. In layman’s terms that means egg protein can help you achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

2) Egg yolks are a good source of lutein and zeaxanthin. We think of lutein and zeaxanthin as good for eye health. They also play an important role in protecting against oxidation, inflammation, and atherosclerosis.

3) Egg yolks also contain choline. We think of choline as good for brain and nerves. But, choline and other phospholipids in the yolk also raise HDL levels and enhance HDL function.

4) Eggs are a good source of vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin B12, riboflavin, selenium and iron.

5) Eggs contain almost twice as much monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats as saturated fats.

Clearing Up The “Eggfusion”

egg confusion

  1. The latest study suggests that eggs may increase your risk of heart disease, and this is due to their cholesterol content.

2) This study needs to be considered in the context of recent studies in the US showing that egg consumption did not increase heart disease risk and studies in China and Japan showing that egg consumption lowered heart disease risk.

3) It is also important to consider that egg consumption in China and Japan is in the context of a semi-vegetarian diet. This suggests that diet plays a role in determining the effect of egg consumption on heart disease risk.

4) However, if you take this study at face value, there are two things you can do to reduce your risk of heart disease:

  • Reduce dietary cholesterol by avoiding eggs or using egg whites.
    • Eat eggs in moderation along with fiber- and phytonutrient-rich plant foods that negate the effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels. I recommend oatmeal or beans, nuts or seeds, and fiber rich fruits and vegetables. These should be consumed at the same meal to minimize the effect of the cholesterol in the eggs on blood cholesterol levels. As for Easter eggs, they are a perfect addition to a green salad.
    • Eggs are a very healthy food, so I recommend the second option if possible. Get your blood cholesterol levels measured to determine which approach works best for you.

5) Finally, we need to recognize that egg consumption plays a relatively minor role in determining heart disease risk. Other factors play a much larger role in influencing heart disease risk. For example:

    • Smoking, obesity, inactivity, saturated and trans fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease.
    • Omega-3s, antioxidants, and a primarily plant-based diet like the Mediterranean diet significantly decrease your risk of heart disease.

If we wish to reduce our risk of heart disease, this is where we should focus most of our attention. We can minimize the effect of egg consumption on heart disease risk by changing the foods we eat with the eggs. For more information on how to reduce your risk of heart disease, read my books, “Slaying The Food Myths” and “Slaying The Supplement Myths”.

The Bottom Line

1) The latest study suggests that eggs increase your risk of heart disease because of their cholesterol content.

2) This was a very large study. It combined the data from 6 clinical trials spanning the years 1974 to 2013. It followed 29,615 people for an average of 17.5 years. However, it has two significant weaknesses:

  • It only determined cholesterol intake and egg consumption at the time people entered the clinical trials. Both cholesterol intake and egg consumption have waxed and waned considerably over the years covered by these clinical trials.
  • It did not measure what foods were consumed along with the eggs. Foods consumed along with eggs have a strong influence on how much the cholesterol in the eggs influences blood cholesterol levels, which, in turn, influences the effect eggs have on heart disease risk.

3) This study also needs to be considered in the context of recent studies in the US showing that egg consumption did not increase heart disease risk and studies in China and Japan showing that egg consumption lowered heart disease risk.

4) However, if you take this study at face value, there are two things you can do to reduce your risk of heart disease:

  • Reduce dietary cholesterol by avoiding eggs or using egg whites.
  • Eat eggs in moderation along with fiber- and phytonutrient-rich plant foods that negate the effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels. I recommend oatmeal or beans, nuts or seeds, and fiber rich fruits and vegetables. These should be consumed at the same meal to minimize the effect of the cholesterol in the eggs on blood cholesterol levels. As for Easter eggs, they are a perfect addition to a green salad.
  • Eggs are a very healthy food, so I recommend the second option if possible. Get your blood cholesterol levels measured to determine which approach works best for you.

5) Finally, we need to recognize that egg consumption plays a relatively minor role in determining heart disease risk. Other factors play a much larger role in influencing heart disease risk. For example:

  • Smoking, obesity, inactivity, saturated and trans fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease.
  • Omega-3s, antioxidants, and a primarily plant-based diet like the Mediterranean diet significantly decrease your risk of heart disease.

For more information on how to reduce your risk of heart disease, read my books, “Slaying The Food Myths” and “Slaying The Supplement Myths”.

For more details and to learn what the professor does about egg consumption, read the article above.

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

 

 

 

Is Erythritol Bad For Your Heart?

by

Who Should Be Concerned About Erythritol Intake?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Everyone is searching for the perfect sweetener. And if you were in the marketing department of Big Food Inc, the perfect sweetener would be defined as:

  • Natural, meaning that it is found in fruits, vegetables, or other plant foods.
  • Low in calories. Of course, a perfect sweetener would have zero calories because it is not metabolized in our bodies.
  • Low glycemic, meaning that it would have a minimal effect on blood sugar levels. Once again, a perfect sweetener would have zero effect on blood sugar levels.
  • Safe, meaning that it has no adverse effects on our health.

Sugar alcohols appear to meet all these criteria, so they have become the sweetener of choice for lots of highly processed foods. This is especially true for the sugar alcohol, erythritol, since it is currently the least expensive of the sugar alcohols.

So, a recent study (M Witowski et al, Nature Medicine, 2023) suggesting that erythritol might increase the risk of heart disease was quite surprising.

This is the first study to suggest a link between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a flawed study (I will discuss the flaws below).

Reputable scientists don’t put much credence in a weak first study like this one. We generally consider the conclusions of a first study like this one to be an unproven hypothesis at this point.

But we are cautious. There will be many follow-up, better designed studies, to test this hypothesis. Once these studies have been published, the scientific community will look at all the evidence and either issue a warning or conclude that there is no reason for concern.

But that doesn’t stop the Dr. Strangeloves of the world from warning you of the “dangers” of erythritol and telling you to avoid it at all costs.

For that reason, I felt it was appropriate to address this issue. I will:

  • Describe the study and its flaws.
  • Put the study into the broader perspective of what we know about sweeteners.
  • Identify the two population groups who should be most concerned about erythritol.

How Was The Study Done And What Did It Show?

This study can be divided into three parts.

heart disease#1: An Association Between Erythritol Blood Levels And Heart Disease.

There were three separate experiments included in this section of the study. In each experiment patients were recruited after visiting cardiac clinics for diagnostic procedures. The average age of these patients was 67 and 45% of them already had experienced a non-fatal heart attack prior to the study. In other words, these were all older patients with pre-existing heart disease who were at high risk of heart attack or stroke in the near future.

The first study was a metabolomic study. In simple terms this means that high-tech equipment and computing were used to measure hundreds of metabolites in the blood of the patients and, in this case, correlate each of them with the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes over the next three years.

  • This study identified 16 sugar alcohols and related metabolites in the blood of these patients that were associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. (I will discuss the significance of this observation in more detail later.)

Because erythritol was among the top 6 compounds in terms of association with increased heart attack and stroke risk, and erythritol is the most commonly used sugar alcohol in processed foods, the next two studies focused on the association between blood levels of erythritol and heart attack/stroke risk. Their results were predictable.

  • High blood levels of erythritol were associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke over the next three years.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • As the authors of the study pointed out, these studies were done with older patients with pre-existing heart disease who were at high risk of heart attack or stroke. They acknowledged that it is not known whether these associations exist with younger, healthier patients.
  • As the authors also pointed out, these are associations. They do not prove cause and effect. In particular, the studies did not measure the diet, exercise habits, and other lifestyle factors of these patients that may have contributed to their increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
  • When you look closely at the data, it is clear that the association is only seen at the highest blood levels of erythritol. Specifically, the blood levels of erythritol in these patients were divided into quartiles. The risk of heart attack and stroke in the first three quartiles (low to moderate blood levels of erythritol) were identical to the control. However, the fourth quartile (highest blood levels of erythritol) was associated with a dramatically increased risk of heart attack and stroke. That raises three important questions:
    • “How much erythritol were patients in the fourth quartile consuming?”
      • The authors did not look at dietary intake of erythritol but did note a previous study estimated that Americans consume up to 30 grams of erythritol a day.
    • 30 grams of erythritol a day is a huge amount of erythritol. Where does that erythritol come from?
      • Much of it comes from erythritol-containing highly processed foods like zero calorie sugar substitutes (either erythritol alone or erythritol mixed with artificial sweeteners to improve the taste); reduced- and low calorie carbonated and non-carbonated beverages; hard candy and cough drops, cookies, cakes, pastries, and bars; puddings and pie fillings; soft candies; syrups and toppings; ready to eat cereals; fruit novelty snacks; and frozen desserts.
      • But it is also found in foods you might not suspect, such as plant-based “milk” substitutes; chocolate and flavored milks; barbecue and tomato sauce, fruit-based smoothies, the syrup used in canned fruits, yoghurt; low calorie salad dressings; and salty snacks.
      • In other words, the only way anyone can consume 30 grams of erythritol in a day is to consume large quantities of erythritol-containing highly processed foods (I will discuss the significance of this observation later).
    • “What else was different about patients in the fourth quartile?”
      • When you look carefully at the data, the patients in the fourth quartile were significantly older, with a higher incidence of diabetes, pre-existing coronary artery disease, previous non-fatal heart attacks, congestive heart failure, and greater triglycerides – all of which significantly increase their risk of heart attack and stroke.

#2: Mechanistic Studies:

Next the authors did in vitro and animal studies looking at the effect of high levels of erythritol on blood clotting.

  • These studies showed that high levels of erythritol promoted blood clotting both in vitro and in mice. The authors concluded that these studies provided a plausible mechanism for a link between high erythritol blood levels and increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • Other critics have pointed out that the assays used were not accurate models of blood clotting in humans. This particular critique is beyond my expertise, so I won’t comment further. However:
    • As someone who was involved in cancer drug development for over 30 years, I know that in vitro and animal models are poor indicators of how things work in humans.
    • And as a biochemist, I have two concerns:
      • The authors provided no mechanistic rationale for why erythritol would enhance blood clotting.
      • The authors made no effort to show that the effect of erythritol was unique. Would high levels of other sugar alcohols or other naturally occurring sugars have the same effect on blood clotting in their assays? We don’t know.

#3: Blood Levels Of Erythritol After Oral Intake.

Finally, the authors gave subjects 30 grams of erythritol and measured blood levels over the next several days.

  • This experiment showed that very high blood levels of erythritol were attained and maintained for at least two days before gradually decreasing to baseline. The authors concluded this experiment showed that it was feasible to attain and maintain high blood levels of erythritol for several days following a single ingestion of 30 grams of erythritol.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • I have already pointed out that 30 grams per day is a huge amount of erythritol. However, erythritol in the diet will come from a variety of foods, some of which will contain components (fiber etc.) that slow the absorption of erythritol.
  • In contrast, the subjects in this experiment were given 300 ml of liquid containing 30 grams of erythritol and told to drink it in two minutes!
  • In other words, these subjects were consuming 30 grams of erythritol in 2 minutes rather than 24 hours, and they were consuming it in the most easily absorbable form. For a study like this, that makes the effective dose orders of magnitude greater than the amount of erythritol that anyone consumes from their diet over a 24-hour period. The study design was completely unrealistic.

Is Erythritol Bad For Your Heart?

Question MarkAs described above, this is the first study to suggest an association between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a highly flawed study.

It is also important to know that erythritol is not an artificial sweetener. It is found naturally in foods like grapes, peaches, pears, watermelons, and mushrooms. It is also found in some fermented foods like cheese, soy sauce, beer, sake, and wine.

It is also a byproduct of normal human metabolism, so we always have some of it circulating in our bloodstream. Our body knows how to handle low to moderate intakes of erythritol.

However, to help you really understand what this study means, I need to put it into the context of other studies. I will do this in story form (You will find more details about these studies in my book “Slaying The Food Myths”).

First, let’s look at highly processed food consumption:

  • Multiple recent studies have shown that high consumption of highly processed food is associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death. We don’t know what it is about highly processed food consumption that is responsible for the increased risk, but it is unlikely to be just one thing.
  • As I pointed out above, the only way to achieve the high blood levels of erythritol associated with increased heart disease risk is to consume large quantities of erythritol-containing highly processed foods.

Next, let’s follow the history of sweeteners in highly processed foods.

  • When I was a young man, sucrose (table sugar) was added to most highly processed foods. Sucrose is foundsugar cubes naturally in many fruits and vegetables. Small to moderate intake of sucrose in unprocessed and minimally processed foods posed no problem. However, large intakes of sugar in highly processed foods were found to increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.
  • At that point, sucrose became a “sugar villain”, and Big Food, Inc substituted fructose and high fructose corn syrup (a mixture of fructose and glucose) for sugar in their highly processed foods. As with sucrose, fructose is found naturally in many foods, and small to moderate intakes of fructose and high fructose corn syrup posed no health risks. However, large intakes of fructose and high fructose corn syrup in highly processed foods were found to increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.
  • Fructose and high fructose corn syrup then became the sugar villains. And because high fructose corn syrup is chemically and biologically indistinguishable from natural sugars like honey, date sugar, coconut sugar, it is likely that high intakes of these sugars in highly processed foods would cause the same problem.
  • So Big Food, Inc started relying on artificial sweeteners in their highly processed foods. But guess what? Artificial SweetenersRecent studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners in highly processed foods are associated with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
  • That has caused Big Food, Inc to rely more on sugar alcohols in their highly processed foods, particularly erythritol because it is the least expensive of the sugar alcohols. Now the current study comes along and suggests that high intake of erythritol in highly processed foods may increase the risk of heart disease.
  • If this hypothesis is confirmed by better designed studies, it is not clear what Big Food, Inc will do next. The metabolomic study described above showed that high blood levels of several other sugar alcohols are associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

Hopefully, you are starting to see a pattern here. It’s time to ask the question, “Is it the sweetener, or is it the food?”

Clearly, it doesn’t matter what sweetener we are talking about. Large intake of any natural sweetener in the context of a diet rich in highly processed foods appears to have an adverse effect on our health. And we don’t know whether these adverse health effects are caused by the sweetener or some other component of the highly processed foods.

If you want to improve your health, the best solution is to decrease your intake of highly processed foods. That will automatically reduce your intake of sweeteners and other unhealthy components of highly processed foods and increase your intake of healthy components from the whole foods you will be eating instead.

Who Should Be Concerned About Erythritol Intake?

The authors of this study identified two groups who should be most concerned about erythritol consumption – diabetics and adherents of the keto diet.

  • Diabetics are at high risk because they are told to consume non-caloric sweeteners instead of sugars, and they are not told to avoid highly processed foods. Consequently, they consume much higher amounts of non-caloric sweeteners than the average American.
  • I must admit that I didn’t foresee keto adherents as a high-risk group. However, it appears that keto enthusiasts love their sweets as much as the rest of us, and the sweetener of choice for keto-friendly sweets is erythritol. The authors said that a single serving of keto ice cream contains 30 grams of erythritol. I can hardly imagine how much erythritol they must be getting in their diet.

And, once again, the best advice for both groups is to simply decrease the amount of highly processed food in their diet.

The Bottom Line 

Erythritol is not an artificial sweetener. It is found naturally in foods like grapes, peaches, pears, watermelons, and mushrooms. It is also found in some fermented foods like cheese, soy sauce, beer, sake, and wine.

It is also a byproduct of normal human metabolism, so we always have some of it circulating in our bloodstream. Our body knows how to handle erythritol.

That is why it was a surprise when a recent study claimed that high intake of erythritol is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The Dr. Strangeloves of the world are already starting to tell you that erythritol is deadly and you should avoid it at all costs. But reputable scientists are saying, “Not so fast”.

This is the first study to suggest an association between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a highly flawed study.

In fact, the study showed that low to moderate intakes of erythritol had no effect on heart disease risk. It was only the highest intake of erythritol that was associated with increased risk of heart disease. And given the distribution of erythritol in the American diet, the only way someone could take in that much erythritol is to consume large amounts of erythritol-sweetened highly processed foods.

A brief review of the literature on sweeteners reveals that this is a common pattern for every natural sweetener tested. Low to moderate intake of these sweeteners has no adverse health effects. However, high intake of every sweetener tested in the context of a highly processed food diet is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.

That raises the question, “Is it the sweetener, or is it the food?”

Clearly, it doesn’t matter what sweetener we are talking about. Large intake of any natural sweetener in the context of a diet rich in highly processed foods is likely to have an adverse effect on our health. And we don’t know whether these adverse health effects are caused by the sweetener or some other component of a highly processed food diet.

If you want to improve your health, the best solution is to decrease your intake of highly processed foods. That will automatically reduce your intake of sweeteners and other unhealthy components of highly processed foods and increase your intake of healthy components from the whole foods you will be eating instead.

For more details on the study and information about which foods are likely to contain erythritol and the population groups who should be most concerned about erythritol consumption, read the article above.

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

Which Supplements Are Good For Your Heart?

by

How Should You Interpret This Study? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

strong heartFebruary is Heart Health month. So, it is fitting that we ask, “What is the status of heart health in this country?” The American Heart Association just published an update of heart health statistics through 2019 (CW Tsao et al, Circulation, 145: e153-e639, 2022). And the statistics aren’t encouraging. [Note: The American Heart Association only reported statistics through 2019 because the COVID-19 pandemic significantly skewed the statistics in 2020 and 2021].

The Good News is that between 2009 and 2019:

  • All heart disease deaths have decreased by 25%.
  • Heart attack deaths have decreased by 6.6%.
  • Stroke deaths have decreased by 6%.

The Bad News is that:

  • Heart disease is still the leading cause of death in this country.
  • Someone dies from a heart attack every 40 seconds.
  • Someone dies from a stroke every 3 minutes.

Diet, exercise, and weight control play a major role in reducing the risk of heart disease. Best of all, they have no side effects. They represent a risk-free approach that each of us can control.

But is there something else? Could supplements play a role? Are supplements hype or hope for a healthy heart?

All the Dr. Strangeloves in the nutrition space have their favorite heart health supplements. They claim their supplements will single-handedly abolish heart disease (and help you leap tall buildings in a single bound).

On the other hand, many doctors will tell you these supplements are a waste of money. They don’t work. They just drain your wallet.

It’s so confusing. Who should you believe? Fortunately, a recent study (P An et al, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 80: 2269-2285, 2022) has separated the hype from the hope and tells us which “heart-healthy” supplements work, and which don’t.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis was a major clinical study carried out by researchers from the China Agricultural University and Brown University in the US. It was a meta-analysis, which means it combined the data from many published clinical trials.

The investigators searched three major databases of clinical trials to identify:

  • 884 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies…
  • Of 27 types of micronutrients…
  • With a total of 883,627 patients…
  • Looking at the effectiveness of micronutrient supplementation lasting an average of 3 years on either…
    • Cardiovascular risk factors like blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides…or…
    • Cardiovascular outcomes such as coronary heart disease (CHD), heart attacks, strokes, and deaths due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all causes.

[Note: Coronary heart disease (CHD) refers to build up of plaque in the coronary arteries (the arteries leading to the heart). It is often referred to as heart disease and can lead to heart attacks (myocardial infarction). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a more inclusive term that includes coronary heart disease, stroke, congenital heart defects, and peripheral artery disease.]

The investigators also included an analysis of the quality of the data in each of the clinical studies and rated the evidence of each of their findings as high quality, moderate quality, or low quality.

Which Supplements Are Good For Your Heart?

The top 3 heart-healthy supplements in this study were:

Omega-3s And Heart DiseaseOmega-3 Fatty Acids:

  • Increased HDL cholesterol and decreased triglycerides, both favorable risk factors for heart health.
  • Deceased risk of heart attacks by 15%, all CHD events by 14%, and CVD deaths by 7% (see definitions of CHD and CVD above).
  • The median dose of omega-3 fatty acids in these studies was 1.8 g/day.
  • The evidence was moderate quality for all these findings.

Folic Acid:

  • Decreased LDL cholesterol (moderate quality evidence) and decreased blood pressure and total cholesterol (low quality evidence).
  • Decreased stroke risk by 16% (moderate quality evidence).

Coenzyme Q10:

  • Decreased triglycerides (high quality evidence) and reduced blood pressure (low quality evidence).
  • Decreased the risk of all-cause mortality by 32% (moderate quality evidence).
  • These studies were performed with patients diagnosed with heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 is often recommended for these patients, so the studies were likely performed to test the efficacy of this treatment.

There were three micronutrients (vitamin C, vitamin E, and vitamin D) that did not appear to affect heart disease outcomes.

Finally, as reported in previous studies, β-carotene increased the risk of stroke, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality.

In terms of the question I asked at the beginning of this article, this study concluded that:

  • Omega-3, folic acid, and coenzyme Q10 supplements represent hope for a healthy heart.
  • Vitamin C, vitamin E, and vitamin D supplements represent hype for a healthy heart.
  • β-carotene supplements represent danger for a healthy heart.

But these conclusions just scratch the surface. To put them into perspective we need to dig a bit deeper.

How Should You Interpret This Study?

Question MarkIn evaluating the significance of these findings there are two things to keep in mind.

#1: This study is a meta-analysis and meta-analyses have both strengths and weaknesses.

The strength of meta-analyses is that by combining multiple clinical studies they can end up with a database containing 100s of thousands of subjects. This allows them to do two things:

  • It allows the meta-analysis to detect statistically significant effects that might be too small to detect in an individual study.
  • It allows the meta-analysis to detect the average effect of all the clinical studies it includes.

The weakness of meta-analyses is that the design of individual studies included in the analysis varies greatly. The individual studies vary in things like dose, duration, type of subjects included in the study, and much more.

This is why this study rated most of their conclusions as backed by moderate- or low-quality evidence. [Note: The fact that the authors evaluated the quality of evidence is a strength of this study. Most meta-analyses just report their conclusions without telling you how strong the evidence behind those conclusions is.]

#2: Most clinical studies of supplements (including those included in this meta-analysis) have two significant weaknesses.

  • Most studies do not measure the nutritional status of their subjects prior to adding the supplement. If their nutritional status for a particular nutrient was already optimal, there is no reason to expect more of that nutrient to provide any benefit.
  • Most studies measure the effect of a supplement on a cross-section of the population without asking who would be most likely to benefit.

You would almost never design a clinical study that way if you were evaluating the effectiveness of a potential drug. So, why would you design clinical studies of supplements that way?

With these considerations in mind, let me provide some perspective on the conclusions of this study.

Coenzyme Q10:

This meta-analysis found that coenzyme Q10 significantly reduced all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure. This is consistent with multiple clinical studies and a recent Cochrane Collaboration review.

Does coenzyme Q10 have any heart health benefits for people without congestive heart failure? There is no direct evidence that it does, but let me offer an analogy with statin drugs.

Statin drugs are very effective at reducing heart attacks in high-risk patients. But they have no detectable effect on heart attacks in low-risk patients. However, this has not stopped the medical profession from recommending statins for millions of low-risk patients. The rationale is that if they are so clearly beneficial in high-risk patients, they are “probably” beneficial in low-risk patients.

I would argue a similar rationale should apply to supplements like coenzyme Q10.

Omega-3s:

This study found that omega-3 reduced both heart attacks and the risk of dying from heart disease. Most previous meta-analyses of omega-3s and heart disease have come to the same conclusion. However, some meta-analyses have failed to find any heart health benefits of omega-3s. Unfortunately, this has allowed both proponents and opponents of omega-3 use for heart health to quote studies supporting their viewpoint.

However, there is one meta-analysis that stands out from all the others. A group of 17 scientists from across the globe collaborated in developing a “best practices” experimental design protocol for assessing the effect of omega-3 supplementation on heart health. They conducted their clinical studies independently, and when their data (from 42,000 subjects) were pooled, the results showed that omega-3 supplementation decreased:

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

This study eliminates the limitations of previous meta-analyses. That makes it much stronger than the other meta-analyses. And these results are consistent with the current meta-analysis.

Omega-3s have long been recognized as essential nutrients. It is past time to set Daily Value (DV) recommendations for omega-3s. Based on the recommendations of other experts in the field, I think the DV should be set at 500-1,000 mg/day. I take more than that, but this would represent a good minimum recommendation for heart health.

folic acidFolic acid:

As with omega-3s, this meta-analysis reported a positive effect of folic acid on heart health. But many other studies have come up empty. Why is that?

It may be because, between food fortification and multivitamin use, many Americans already have sufficient blood levels of folic acid. For example, one study reported that 70% of the subjects in their study had optimal levels of folates in their blood. And that study also reported:

  • Subjects with adequate levels of folates in their blood received no additional benefit from folic acid supplementation.
  • However, for subjects with inadequate blood folate levels, folic acid supplementation decreased their risk of heart disease by ~15%.

We see this pattern over and over in supplement studies. Supplement opponents interpret these studies as showing that supplements are worthless. But a better interpretation is that supplements benefit those who need them.

The problem is that we don’t know our blood levels of essential nutrients. We don’t know which nutrients we need, and which we don’t. That’s why I like to think of supplements as “insurance” against the effects of an imperfect diet.

Vitamins E and D:

The situation with vitamins E and D is similar. This meta-analysis found no heart health benefit of either vitamin E or D. That is because the clinical studies included in the meta-analysis asked whether vitamin E or vitamin D improved heart health for everyone in the study.

Previous studies focusing on patients with low blood levels of these nutrients and/or at high risk of heart disease have shown some benefits of both vitamins at reducing heart disease risk.

So, for folic acid, vitamin E, and vitamin D (and possibly vitamin C) the take-home message should be:

  • Ignore all the Dr. Strangeloves telling you that these vitamins are “magic bullets” that will dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease.
  • Ignore the naysayers who tell you they are worthless.
  • Use supplementation wisely to make sure you have the recommended intake of these and other essential nutrients.

β-carotene:

This meta-analysis reported that β-carotene increased the risk of heart disease. This is not a new finding. Multiple previous studies have come to the same conclusion.

And we know why this is. There are many naturally occurring carotenoids, and they each have unique heart health benefits. A high dose β-carotene supplement interferes with the absorption of the other carotenoids. You are creating a deficiency of other heart-healthy carotenoids.

If you are not getting lots of colorful fruits and vegetables from your diet, my recommendation is to choose a supplement with all the naturally occurring carotenoids in balance – not a pure β-carotene supplement.

The Bottom Line 

The Dr. Strangeloves in the nutrition space all have their favorite heart health supplements. They claim their supplements will single-handedly abolish heart disease (and help you leap tall buildings in a single bound).

On the other hand, many doctors will tell you these supplements are a waste of money. They don’t work. They just drain your wallet.

It’s so confusing. Who should you believe? Fortunately, a recent study has separated the hype from the hope and tells us which “heart-healthy” supplements work, and which don’t.

This study was a meta-analysis of 884 clinical studies with 883,627 participants. It reported:

  • Omega-3 supplementation deceased risk of heart attacks by 15% and all cardiovascular deaths by 7%.
  • Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk by 16%.
  • Coenzyme Q10 supplementation decreased the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure by 32%.
  • Vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin D did not appear to affect heart disease outcomes.
  • β-carotene increased the risk of stroke, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality.

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

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

Walking Your Way To Health

by

How Much Should You Walk? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) How fast should I walk?

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

How Were These Studies Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walking Your Way To Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Much Should You Walk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

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

3) How fast should I walk?

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

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

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

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

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

 

Health Tips From The Professor