Uncategorized

The Alcohol Myth

by

How Were We Led Astray?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

But is it a myth? You may have been surprised when you saw recent headlines saying, “Having an alcoholic drink or two per day is not healthier than abstaining.”

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

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

How Were We Lead Astray?

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

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

1) Most scientific studies are designed to disprove existing scientific paradigms. This is such a study.

  • In the scientific world, there is no glory in being the 10th person to prove that a scientific paradigm is correct. The glory comes from being the first person to disprove a scientific paradigm and create a new paradigm in the process.
  • This constant testing of existing paradigms is one of the most important strengths of the scientific method.

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

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

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

  • All the studies supporting the current paradigm were association studies. Association studies measure the association between a selected variable and an outcome. For these studies, the selected variable was alcohol consumption, and the outcome was increased mortality.
  • Association studies try to statistically correct for other variables known to affect the outcome. For example, diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer increase the risk of premature death. These are known variables that would be corrected for in any well-designed study of alcohol consumption and mortality.
  • “Confounding variables” are unknown variables that also affect the outcome of the study. But since they are unknown, they are not corrected for.

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

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

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

Could The Current Paradigm Be Incorrect?

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

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

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

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

How Was This Study Done?

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

  • Assessed the correlation between alcohol consumption and mortality.
  • Had data that allowed the investigators to separate lifetime abstainers from former drinkers who had become abstainers.

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

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

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

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

The Alcohol Myth

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

  • The former drinkers were 31% more likely to die, and this difference was highly significant.
  • This is consistent with their hypothesis that the “former drinkers” group was a confounding variable that may have biased the conclusions of previous studies.

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

  • The risk of mortality associated with low (1-2 drinks/day) and moderate (2-3 drinks/day) alcohol intake was statistically identical to the risk of mortality for lifetime abstainers.
  • The high alcohol intake group (3-4 drinks/day) was 24% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.
  • The very high alcohol intake group (>4 drinks/day) was 39% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.

In short, when lifetime abstainers were used as the baseline group, low to moderate alcohol intake did not reduce the risk of dying, as previous studies had suggested. This study suggests the idea that low to moderate alcohol consumption is good for us may not be accurate. It may be a myth.

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

For women:

  • Even moderate alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Only low alcohol consumption posed no increase in mortality.
  • The increased risk of mortality for women was significantly higher than for men with every level of alcohol consumption.

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the current CDC guidelines are:

  • Adults of legal drinking age should limit alcohol intake to 2 drinks or less per day for men and one drink or less per day for women.
  • Adults who do not drink alcohol should not start. [The current study strengthens this recommendation because it takes away the excuse that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than abstinence.]
  • Drinking less is better than drinking more.

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

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

  • Women who are pregnant or might become pregnant.
  • Anyone younger than 21.
  • Anyone with medical conditions or medications that interact with alcohol.
  • Anyone recovering from an alcohol use disorder or who has trouble controlling the amount they drink.

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

The revised data showed no health benefit of low to moderate alcohol consumption compared to total abstinence. When you look at the data more closely, the current paradigm may be a myth.

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

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

  • There is no health risk associated with low to moderate alcohol intake compared to total abstinence.
  • High alcohol intake (>3 drinks/day) is associated with increased mortality.
  • Women are more sensitive to the adverse effects of alcohol than men.

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Do Omega-3s Benefit Athletes?

by

What Do These Recommendations Mean For Non-Athletes?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

fish and fish oilI have been following the research on omega-3s for athletes. But I have been reluctant to review that research in “Health Tips From the Professor” because:

  • Most of the studies are small.
  • Each study measures the effect of omega-3 supplementation on different aspects of exercise and fitness.
  • The dose of omega-3s used in the studies varies widely.
  • To the casual observer, the studies appear to come to conflicting conclusions.

I have been waiting for a respected organization to do an in-depth analysis of the published studies before commenting. The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) has just published such a study (R Jager et al, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Issue 22 (1), 2441775, 2025) and have provided a position statement on the use of omega-3 supplements by athletes and active adults.

I would add that the ISSN is regarded as a trusted source of nutrition information for athletes.

Do Omega-3s Benefit Athletes?

Question MarkThe position of the ISSN is summarized below. What I like is they give the best recommendations based on current data and summarize the strength of the data behind each recommendation.

Statement 1: Athletes may be at higher risk of omega-3 insufficiency, and diets rich in omega-3s, including supplements, are effective for increasing omega-3 levels. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Omega-3s (ie EPA and DHA) are conditionally essential nutrients.
  • Fatty fish and omega-3 supplements are both effective in raising omega-3 levels.
  • Athletes belong to the groups at higher risk of omega-3 inadequacy.

My Comments:

    • This conclusion was primarily based on studies with Division I college football players. More research is needed for high-level athletes in other sports.
    • The reason for this omega-3 insufficiency was not discussed. However, I suspect it has to do with the recognition that high-level athletes need extra protein, and that fish is not usually included as a recommended source of additional protein for athletes.
    • The average Omega-3 Index for the football players was 4.4% which is considered at high risk for heart disease. The authors of the ISSN report noted that previous studies have shown that around 1.4 g/day of EPA + DHA is recommended to increase the Omega-3 Index to an optimal 8%.

Statement 2: Omega-3 supplementation, particularly EPA and DHA, has been shown to enhance Sprinterendurance capacity and cardiovascular function during aerobic-type exercise. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Omega-3s can improve cardiovascular dynamics during and after exercise as evidenced by enhanced red blood cell deformability, endothelial function, and heart rate recovery after exercise.
  • The incorporation of omega-3s into skeletal muscle membranes has been found to result in changes in muscle omega-3 composition, particularly in the sarcolemma, which is essential for muscle remodeling and/or regeneration after endurance exercise.
  • While these changes may help the heart pump more efficiently during exercise and muscle recover quicker after exercise, their direct impact on endurance performance remains inconsistent. More studies are needed.

My Comments:

    • These studies should be interpreted through the lens of your desired outcome. High-intensity exercise is hard on the heart.
    • If your goal is increased endurance the role of omega-3s is uncertain.
    • If your goal is to have your heart operate more efficiently during aerobic exercise, omega-3 supplementation may be beneficial.

Weight TrainingStatement 3: Omega-3 supplementation in combination with resistance training may improve strength in a dose- and duration-dependent manner. Specifically, they reported.

  • The incorporation of omega-3s into muscle cells may take a minimum of four weeks, and this is dose-dependent. It takes longer to optimize the omega-3 content in muscle cells at lower doses.
  • Once the omega-3 content of muscle cells has been optimized, it may take another three to six months until the improvement in strength plateaus.

My Comment:

    • In short, don’t expect immediate results, but omega-3 supplementation may help increase muscle strength over the long haul.

Statement 4: Omega-3 supplementation may not confer a hypertrophic benefit in young adults. [In plain English they are saying that omega-3s may not stimulate any increase in muscle mass beyond that due to exercise alone for young adults.] They went on to say:

  • More high-quality research is warranted to investigate the effects of omega-3 supplementation on body composition.

My Comments:

    • We need to remember that the ISSN recommendations are for serious athletes and may not apply to the rest of us.
    • For example, the authors state that omega-3 supplementation may enhance an increase in muscle mass…
      • When protein intake is suboptimal.
      • For older adults who are experiencing age-related loss of muscle mass.
      • For people who have previous been inactive and are just beginning an exercise program.
    • In other words, omega-3 supplements may help a lot of us non-athletes who are exercising to retain or increase muscle mass and strength.

Inflammed HeelStatement 5: Omega-3 supplementation may decrease subjective measures of muscle soreness following intensive exercise. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Omega-3 supplementation may attenuate indirect measures of muscle damage following intense exercise.
    • For example, when muscles are damaged, they release muscle-specific enzymes such as creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase into the blood. Some studies have shown that omega-3s reduce the release of these muscle enzymes following intense exercise.
  • Omega-3 supplementation is equivocal in decreasing subjective measures of muscle soreness following intense exercise.
  • Omega-3 supplementation does not decrease measures of inflammation following exercise-induced muscle damage.

My Comments:

    • Don’t count on omega-3 supplementation for reducing muscle soreness. But if you experience a decrease in muscle soreness, count it as an unexpected side benefit.
    • The lack of an effect of omega-3s at reducing inflammation post exercise may be a good thing. Some experts think that the inflammatory response plays a role in stimulating muscle repair following exercise.

Statement 6: Omega-3 supplementation can positively affect various immune cell responses in athletic populations. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Many athletes develop a compromised immune system due to the stress of high training volumes, which can increase the likelihood of developing acute respiratory infections that negatively impact their ability to train and compete.
  • Omega-3 supplementation can affect various immune cell responses in non-athlete, clinical, and athletic populations.
  • Many clinical studies conducted in athletic populations have indicated that omega-3 supplementation can influence the production and regulation of various inflammatory cytokines, which may lead to physiological benefits for the athletes [An example would be a reduction in exercise-induced asthma].

My Comments:

    • These recommendations are based on the effect of omega-3s on blood markers of immune health and inflammation. Clinical studies looking at the effect of omega-3s on exercise-induced respiratory infections or asthma are either nonexistent or conflicting.
    • So, if you experience decreased respiratory infections or exercise induced asthma when you add omega-3s to your exercise regimen, consider it an unexpected side benefit.

Statement 7: Omega-3 supplementation may offer neuroprotective benefits in athletes exposed to repeated head impacts. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Omega-3s are crucial for optimal brain development and functioning.
  • Omega-3 supplementation can increase membrane fluidity, neurotransmitter synthesis and release, and cerebral blood flow.
  • In humans, a limited amount of evidence suggests that omega-3 supplementation may offer neuroprotective benefits in athletes following repeated head impacts.

My Comments:

  • This is an important recommendation. Long-term cognitive decline, associated with repetitive traumatic brain injuries, is a serious concern for many high-impact sports. And there are no established protocols to prevent cognitive decline from occurring.
  • I have covered this in more detail in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

Statement 8: Omega-3 supplementation is associated with improved sleep quality. In this category, they reported three key findings:

  • Omega-3 supplementation has been linked to improved sleep quality in some studies.
  • Omega-3 supplementation may help sleep quality due to anti-inflammatory properties and effects on neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin, a precursor of melatonin, which helps regulate sleep-wake cycles.
  • However, inconsistency of results indicates more research is needed to fully understand the relationship between omega-3 supplementation and sleep.

My Comment:

  • If you experience improved sleep when you add omega-3s to your exercise regimen, consider it an unexpected side benefit.

Summary Of ISSN Recommendations

A strength of the ISSN recommendations is that they acknowledge where there is good agreement in the studies supporting their recommendations and where the data are scanty or conflicting. Based on the studies behind each recommendation, I would divide their recommendations into three categories.

#1: Recommendations backed by a limited number of strong studies. Confidence in these recommendations can be improved with more studies, but the recommendations are strong. These include:

  • Statement 1: Athletes are at higher risk of omega-3 insufficiency, and diets rich in omega-3s, including supplements, are effective for increasing omega-3 levels.
  • Statement 4: Omega-3 supplementation in combination with resistance training may improve strength in a dose- and duration-dependent manner.

#2: Recommendations where the evidence is weak for athletes, but valuable for non-athletes. I will discuss those in more detail below. These include:

  • Statement 2: Omega-3 supplementation has been shown to enhance endurance capacity and cardiovascular function during aerobic-type exercise.
  • Statement 3: Omega-3 supplementation may not confer a muscle hypertrophic benefit [increase in muscle mass] in young adults.

#3: Recommendations that are weak and/or conflicting. These fall in the category of “don’t count on it. But if you do experience it, consider it an unexpected side-benefit of omega-3 supplementation”. These include”

  • Statement 5: Omega-3 supplementation may decrease subjective measures of muscle soreness following intense exercise.
  • Statement 6: Omega-3 supplementation can positively affect various immune cell responses in athletic populations.
  • Statement 8: Omega-3 supplementation is associated with improved sleep quality.

Finally, the effect of omega-3 supplementation on preventing the cognitive consequences of repeated head trauma (Statement 7) is a very important topic. I have covered this in more detail in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

What Do These Recommendations Mean For Non-Athletes?

confusionAs their name (International Society of Sports Nutrition) suggests, their recommendations are meant primarily for athletes. But what about those of us who are not athletes but work out on a regular basis for fitness, weight management, maintaining muscle mass as we age, or other reasons?

In general, the recommendations apply equally well for athletes and non-athletes with a couple of caveats:

1) Dosage: Some of the studies with athletes were done with 3 to 6 grams/day of omega-3s. However, in most cases similar results were obtained 1-2 grams/day. Since 1-2 grams/day is enough to increase omega-3 levels to optimal for 90% of the population, I would recommend this dosage rather than the higher doses used in some of the studies with athletes.

2) Different Priorities for athletes and non-athletes: As I described earlier, this applies to two of the ISSN recommendations, namely:

  • Statement 2: Omega-3 supplementation has been shown to enhance endurance capacity and cardiovascular function during aerobic-type exercise. As I said above:
    • Young athletes are primarily interested in endurance, and the evidence for an endurance benefit for omega-3 supplementation is weak.
    • However, the rest of us are more interested in how efficiently our heart is functioning during high-intensity exercise, especially as we age. And the evidence for that benefit is strong.
  • Statement 3: Omega-3 supplementation may not confer a hypertrophic muscle benefit [increase in muscle mass] in young adults.
    • That is a true statement for young, high-performance athletes who are consuming high protein diets. For the rest of us, we need to remember the authors of the ISSN report stated that omega-3 supplementation may enhance an increase in muscle mass:
      • When protein intake is suboptimal.
      • For older adults who are experiencing age-related loss of muscle mass.
      • For people who have previous been inactive and are just beginning an exercise program.

The Bottom Line

The International Society For Sports Nutrition (ISSN) is recognized as a trusted source of nutrition advice for athletes. They recently reviewed the literature on the value of omega-3 supplementation for athletes and released a position paper with eight statements (recommendations).

I have divided these recommendations into 3 categories:

  • Recommendations backed by strong data.
  • Recommendations backed by weak data.
  • Recommendations that have different significance for high-performing athletes and the rest of us.

For more details about the ISSN recommendations and what they mean for you, read the article above.

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

 

Why Is Keeping Weight Off So Hard?

by

Can You Achieve Permanent Weight Loss? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Why is the dreaded yo-yo rearing its ugly head again? You tried a new diet this year, and it worked really well. The weight came off easily. But the diet is over, and the pounds are starting to creep up once again.

You are beginning to wonder if this diet was just like all the other yo-yo diets you’ve tried in the past. You are wondering whether those pounds you lost will come back and bring their friends with them. If so, you’ll be like 156 million Americans who lose weight and gain it all back each year.

And it’s so frustrating. You are trying to be good. You are still exercising and trying to eat healthily. Why isn’t it working?

Could it be that your fat cells have a memory? Could it be they like to be big and bulky with lots of stored fat? While that description is a bit fanciful, a new study (LC Hinte et al, Nature Online, 2024) suggests your fat cells may have a memory, which could explain why it is so hard to keep the weight off.

This is a highly technical study. So, before I discuss how the study was done, I should perhaps review a little bit of Biochemistry 101.

Biochemistry101: Epigenetics and Gene Activity

EpigeneticsWhat Is Epigenetics? When I was a young graduate student (which is more than just a few years ago), I was taught that all genetic information resided in our DNA. During conception, we picked up some DNA from our dad and some from our mom, and that DNA was what made us a unique individual.

In recent years, the hype has centered on DNA sequencing. It seems like everyone is offering to sequence your genome and tell you what kind of diet is best for you, what foods to eat, and what supplements to take. But can DNA sequencing fulfill those promises?

The problem is that DNA sequencing only tells you what genes you have. It doesn’t tell you whether those genes are active. Simply put, it doesn’t tell you whether those genes are turned on or turned off.

This is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics is the science of modifications that alter gene expression. In simple terms, both DNA and the proteins that bind to DNA can be modified. This does not change the DNA sequence. But these modifications can determine whether a gene is active (turned on) or inactive (turned off).

This sounds simple enough, but here is where it really gets interesting. These modifications are affected by our diet, our lifestyle (body weight and exercise, for example), our microbiome (gut bacteria), and our environment.

And if that weren’t complicated enough, some of these epigenetic changes (DNA modifications) can be transitory and others are long-lasting.

The authors of this study hypothesized that obesity causes long-lasting epigenetic changes to certain critical genes in our fat cells that slow metabolism and promote fat accumulation, even after we have lost weight. In other words, these epigenetic changes “prime” our fat cells to regain all the weight we’ve lost.

How Do You Measure the Effect of Epigenetic Changes? As you might expect this study measured epigenetic modifications to critical genes in fat cells. But that’s only part of the story. Epigenetic modification can turn genes on, turn them off, or have no effect on gene activity.

So, the investigators also needed to monitor the activity of the genes to determine the effect of the epigenetic modifications. Fortunately, one fact you may have learned in high school or college biology is mostly unchanged by the passage of time.

It is that the genetic sequence of DNA is translated into messenger RNA and that messenger RNA is used to code for proteins. If epigenetic modifications turned on a gene, we would expect higher levels of the corresponding messenger RNA and corresponding protein in those cells. Conversely, if epigenetic modifications turned off a gene, we would expect the opposite.

It turns out that it is much easier to measure changes in messenger RNA levels than individual protein levels that correspond to specific genes. So, the investigators used cellular messenger levels to measure the effect of epigenetic modifications on gene activity.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators measured the effect of obesity and subsequent weight loss on fat cell gene expression in a limited set of human subjects and supplemented those results with a more expansive set of experiments with mice.

I don’t normally report on animal studies or very small human studies because these studies often lead to misleading results that are not supported by subsequent long-term, large clinical studies.

However, I am making an exception for this study because it leads to an interesting paradigm shift which, if true, changes the way we think about how to keep weight off long term.

Human Study: The investigators determined messenger RNA levels for key genes in fat cells from human volunteers who were:

  • At a healthy weight.
  • Obese both before and 2 years after bariatric surgery that resulted in at least 25% weight loss.

The groups were small (10-16 total), in part because obtaining fat cell samples is an invasive and painful procedure.

Mouse study: The investigators determined both messenger RNA levels and epigenic modifications for key genes in fat cells from 6-week-old male mice who were:

  • Fed either a low-fat or high-fat chow diet for 25 weeks. As expected, the mice fed the low-fat diet remained lean and the mice fed the high-fat diet became obese.
  • Subsequently, the obese mice were put on low-fat chow for 8 weeks during which time their weight returned to normal.
  • Finally, both the ‘always lean’ and ‘formerly obese’ mice were put on high-fat chow to compare how rapidly they gained weight.

What Happens To Fat Cells During Obesity And Weight Loss?

This study is best viewed as a story of what happens to fat cells during obesity and subsequent weight loss. There are two parts – what happens to human fat cells and what happens to mouse fat cells:

 Human Fat Cells: When obese individuals were compared to lean individuals:

  • Genes coding for fat storage and inflammation (which is known to be associated with obesity) were more active.
  • Fat-burning genes were less active.
  • These changes in gene expression were retained even after the obese individuals lost substantial weight through bariatric surgery.

[Note: The measurements of gene expression were based on the amount of messenger RNA produced by those genes.]

The human study had a couple of important limitations, which is why the investigators also did a similar study with mice.

#1: Because the study did not include a habitually lean group who became obese after going on a high-fat diet (no clinical review board would approve such a study), it could not determine whether the differences in gene expression were caused by the onset of obesity or whether they caused obesity.

Simply put, we know some individuals are genetically predisposed to obesity. The differences in gene expression between lean and obese individuals could have simply represented a genetic predisposition to obesity.

The mouse experiments did not suffer from that limitation because it was possible to put lean mice on a high fat diet until they became obese.

#2: The study did not measure epigenetic changes that may have caused the changes in gene expression. That is because humans are genetically heterogeneous. Consequently, you need population studies with hundreds of individuals to reliably determine epigenetic differences between groups.

The mouse experiments did not suffer from that limitation because laboratory mice are genetically homogeneous.

Mouse Fat Cells:

When the investigators looked at the physical effects of obesity:

  • When mice became obese on a high-fat diet:
    • Blood glucose levels rose.
    • Insulin levels rose, indicating the mice had become insulin resistant.
    • Fat accumulated in their livers.
  • When the obese mice lost the excess weight on a low-fat diet all these parameters returned to normal.
  • When the ‘always lean’ and ‘previously obese’ mice were put back on a high fat diet at the end of the study, the previously obese mice gained weight more quickly than the always lean mice.

In other words, mice responded to obesity in the same way that humans do except none of these effects could be explained by genetics. This strain of mice was genetically homogeneous.

When the investigators compared gene expression (as measured by messenger RNA levels) in mice who had become obese to ‘always lean’ mice:

  • Genes coding for fat storage and inflammation were more active.
  • Fat-burning genes were less active.
  • These changes in gene expression were retained even after the obese mice lost weight.

In other words, mice responded to obesity in the same ways as humans with respect to gene expression. However, in this case it was clear that obesity caused the changes in gene expression.

When the investigators looked at epigenetic modifications:

  • They identified epigenetic modifications to the regulatory regions of genes whose activity was increased or decreased when the mice became obese.
  • These epigenetic modifications were retained even after the mice lost weight.

These data suggest, but do not prove, that the epigenetic modifications were responsible for the changes in gene activity.

The authors concluded, “We show that both human and mouse adipose tissues retain transcriptional changes after appreciable weight loss.

Furthermore, we find persistent obesity induced alterations in the epigenome of mouse adipocytes that negatively affect their function and response to metabolic stimuli. Mice carrying this obesogenic memory show accelerated rebound weight gain…in response to high-fat diet feeding.

In summary, our findings indicate the existence of an obesogenic memory, largely on the basis of stable epigenetic changes, in mouse adipocytes and probably other cell types. These changes seem to prime cells for pathological response [weight gain] in an obesogenic environment, contributing to the problematic ‘yo-yo’ effect often seen with dieting.”

More simply put, the investigators concluded that obesity causes epigenetic modifications to the DNA of fat cells that prime them to regain their fat stores. They said that this may contribute to the ‘yo-yo’ effect often seen with dieting and explain why keeping weight off is so hard.

Why Is Keeping Weight Off So Hard?

Question MarkYou are not alone. You are like millions of other Americans. You lose weight effectively, but you struggle to keep it off. You just look at a donut and the fat jumps from the donut to your hips. You try to eat right, but the pounds keep creeping back on.

Experts have told us for years that our fat cells (and perhaps other cells in our body) are the culprit. Those cells have switched from a fat burning mode to a fat storage mode. There have been lots of attempts to explain that phenomenon, but my favorite is one that hypothesizes that our metabolism was designed for paleolithic times when it was either feast or famine.

Simply put, the theory is that our bodies were designed to store energy reserves in times of plenty and hold on to those energy reserves as long as possible in times of famine. Holding on to energy reserves was essential for prehistoric man to survive cold winters when food was hard to come by. And our number one energy reserve is, you guessed it, fat.

That is an appealing hypothesis, but it doesn’t tell us how our bodies manage to do that.

That’s what makes this study so intriguing. It may be wrong. It needs to be substantiated by large scale clinical trials. But the idea that epigenic changes occur during obesity and persist after substantial weight loss is novel. More importantly, it may explain the “feast or famine” response and why it is so hard to keep weight off after substantial weight loss.

Can You Achieve Permanent Weight Loss?

By now you may be thinking, “I thought my weight loss woes were due to my genetics. Now you’re telling me that they could be due to my epigenetics. Am I doubly cursed? Is there nothing I can do to keep my weight off?”

I can tell you science doesn’t have a simple answer, but there are two big clues that offer hope.

#1: Slow and steady wins the race. Obesity experts have known for years that slow weight loss often results in permanent weight loss.

  • If you are counting calories, that means a reduction of around 500 calories per week (That’s 71 calories per day, which is equivalent to one small apple, one hard-boiled egg, or 1.5 ounces of chicken breast). And a 500-calorie deficit maintained each week for a year can lead to a 20-25 pound weight loss.
  • If you are thinking of diets, it could amount to switching to a diet of unprocessed or minimally processed foods consisting of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and primarily plant-based proteins without worrying about calories or serving sizes. Again, clinical studies show that switching from the typical American diet to this kind of diet can lead to substantial weight loss over a period of years.

Neither approach is popular in the weight loss world, but they work. Why do they work? It could be because the daily reduction in calories is so small that it never triggers the famine response.

If we look at the two parts of the study I reported on above:

  • In the human study weight loss was achieved through bariatric surgery which causes a huge reduction in caloric intake and rapid weight loss.
  • In the mouse study going from high-fat chow to low-fat chow represented a large decrease in calories. And again, weight loss was very rapid. It took the mice 25 weeks to become obese and only 4-8 weeks to lose the weight they had gained.

When viewed from this perspective, the epigenetic modifications observed after weight loss in this study may have been due to the famine response rather than a retention of the modifications observed during obesity.

And when you think about it, most popular diets feature major restrictions (calories, fats, carbs, forbidden foods, time of eating) and cause rapid weight loss. They are likely to trigger a famine response as well.

#2: The secrets of the National Weight Control Registry. There are some people who manage to keep their weight off and avoid the yo-yo effect. They don’t have any genetic or epigenetic advantage over the rest of us. They have lost weight on every diet imaginable – including rapid weight loss fad diets.

Yet they have managed to keep the weight off. What are their secrets? How did they avoid regaining their weight? How did they avoid the yo-yo diet effect?

An organization called the National Weight Control Registry was established to answer that question. It has enrolled more than 10,000 people who have lost weight and kept it off. On average people in this group have lost 66 pounds and kept it off for at least 5 years.

The National Weight Control Registry kept track of what they did to keep the weight off. Everyone’s approach was a little different, but the National Weight Control Registry summarized the ones that were most frequently mentioned. Here is what they do that you may not be doing:

#1: They consume a reduced calorie, whole food diet.

#2: They get lots of exercise (around 1 hour/day).

#3: They have internalized their eating patterns. In short, this is no longer a diet. It has become a permanent part of their lifestyle. This is the way they eat without even thinking about it.

#4: They monitor their weight regularly. When they gain a few pounds, they modify their diet until they are back at their target weight.

#5: They eat breakfast on a regular basis.

#6: They watch less than 10 hours of TV/week.

#7: They are consistent (no planned cheat days).

The good news is that participants in the National Weight Control Registry reported that while maintaining weight loss was difficult at first, it became easy after 2 years.

Of course, we don’t know whether is due to epigenic modifications being reset to “lean” by these behaviors or whether the new behaviors became automatic and overrode epigenetics.

It doesn’t matter. It means you can end the ‘yo-yo’ cycle forever. You can keep weight off, and you know how to do it.

The Bottom Line

A recent study in both humans and mice suggests that epigenetic modifications to key genes in your fat cells make it hard to keep weight off. These epigenetic changes may explain why so many people struggle with yo-yo dieting.

 

For more details on this study and how you may be able to override these epigenetic modifications and prevent weight regain read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

Maternal Mortality In The United States

by

Leading Causes Of Maternal Deaths

Author: Carolyn Curtis, MSN, CNM, RN, FACNM, FAAN

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Maternal Mortality In The United States

Between 2018 and 2021, the maternal mortality (death) rate in the United States nearly doubled, placing the country last among developed nations in maternal health outcomes.  The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) is a key indicator of a nation’s overall health, making this rapid increase a cause for serious concern.

Understanding Maternal Mortality

Maternal mortality refers to the number of women who die during pregnancy or within 42 days (six weeks) after childbirth for every 100,000 live births. As per the Government Accounting Office, 25% of the increase in maternal mortality from 2020 to 2021 was due to Covid-19, which contributed to the doubling of the maternal mortality ratioi.

The maternal mortality ratio is used globally to assess the state of a country’s health. A rising MMR signals the need for urgent action.

In 2022, the U.S. recorded an overall maternal mortality ratio 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live birthsii. This decreased by about 10 deaths per 100,000 from 2021 (32 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021). However, stark racial disparities continued to exist as demonstrated through 2018 to 2021.

  • Black women: 49.5 deaths per 100,000 live births (more than 2.5 times the rate for white women)
  • White women: 19.0 deaths per 100,000 live births
  • Hispanic women: 16.9 deaths per 100,000 live births
  • Asian women: 13.2 deaths per 100,000 live births

Maternal Mortality versus Pregnancy Related Deaths

What Is The Difference?

While maternal mortality measures deaths that occur from the onset of pregnancy to six weeks post-delivery, pregnancy-related deaths extend further.  Pregnancy-related deaths are the number of deaths per 100,000 live births up to 12 months (one year) after birth or the first birthday.

Does The Age Of The Mother Make A Difference?

The age of the mother significantly affects the risk of dying during pregnancy. The ratio of deaths among women younger than 25 years of age is 14.4 deaths per 100,000 live births. Women aged 25 to 39 have a rate of 21.1/100,000 live births, while those aged 40 and older face a staggering 87.1 deaths per 100,000 live birthsiii. This means that women over 40 are dying at six times the rate of those under 25 and four times the rate of women aged 25 to 29iv.

When Are The Deaths Occurring?

Surprisingly, a little under half (47%) of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy or within the first week postpartum (Maternal Mortality).  And a little over half (53%) happen between one week and one year after childbirth or the baby’s first birthday (Pregnancy-Related Deaths).

Leading Causes Of Maternal Deaths

The primary causes of maternal mortality in the U.S. are largely preventablev. The six main causes of maternal death include:

  • Mental Health Conditions (23%) – Suicide, overdose, and substance-related poisoning are the leading causes, this affects White and Hispanic women more than Black or Asian women.
  • Hemorrhage (14%) – Severe postpartum bleeding remains one of the top causes of maternal deaths not only in the Unites States but throughout the world with Asian women being more susceptible. Hemorrhage is defined as bleeding about one half quart of blood.
  • Cardiac Conditions (13%) – Heart disease disproportionately affects Black women.
  • Blood Clots (9%) – A major contributor to maternal deaths.
  • Cardiomyopathy (9%) – A condition affecting the heart muscle, making it harder to pump blood efficiently.
  • Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy (7%) – relating to high blood pressure

Contributors to maternal death include familial, societal, health care system issues and one’s personal health. it is possible to reduce the risks of maternal death by understanding one’s personal health history and your family’s health history.

This information informs nutritional, behavioral and lifestyle changes that can be made prior to and during pregnancy to reduce health risks, enabling a healthier pregnancy outcome.

The Bottom Line

  • The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate amongst all developed countries in the world.
  • The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. has nearly doubled between 2018 and 2021; Covid-19 caused a 25% increase of maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021 which contributed to the doubling of maternal deaths. Black women have been disproportionately affected, with mortality rates 2.5x that of White women.
  • Women aged 40 and over die at four times the rate of women ages 25 to 39 and six times more than women under 25 years of age.
  • The leading causes of maternal deaths include mental health conditions, hemorrhage, cardiac conditions, blood clots, and cardiomyopathy— most of which are preventable.
  • Almost half of maternal deaths occur throughout pregnancy and the first week after childbirth. A little more than half of maternal deaths occur from the first week following birth up to the first year after birth.  It’s important to continue monitoring mothers with home visits once they return home from the hospital and up until one year after birth.

References

i General Accounting Office, Maternal Health: Outcomes Worsened and Disparities Persisted During the Pandemic.  Oct, 2022.

ii Hoyert DL.  Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2022.  NCHS Health E-Stats.  2024.  DOI:https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc/152992.

iii Ibid

iv Ibid.

vFour in five pregnancy related deaths in the US are preventable – https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0919-pregnancy-related-deaths.html.

For More Information

Feel free to visit my website, subscribe to my YouTube channel and learn more about my online coaching program, “Mastering Pregnancy and Birth”.

You-Tube Channel – Over 80 videos exploring pregnancy, labor, birth, postpartum and contraception

www.thecarabcompany.com – Website with free downloadable pregnancy and birth information

Mastering Pregnancy and Birth Coaching Program –  A program that prepares Dads and Mom’s-to-be for a healthier pregnancy and safer birth.  This course also provides information for Doulas to provide enhanced support to families.

Carolyn Curtis

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

About The Author

Carolyn Curtis, MSN, CNM, RN, FACNM, FAAN, has:

 

  • More than 40 years’ experience in the oversight of domestic and international programs and the provision of nursing and midwifery integrated service delivery in maternal child health, family planning, reproductive and women’s health care.

 

  • Twenty years’ experience in teaching, mentoring, and providing clinical oversight to undergraduate and graduate public health, medical, nursing and midwifery students.

 

About The Editor

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

How Much Should You Walk?

by

Walking Your Way To Health 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Overweight People ExercisingYou’ve made your New Year’s resolutions. And 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) and (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 per day with premature death for participants who already had prediabetes or diabetes when they entered the study.

Walking Your Way To Health

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

#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.

strong heart#5 Effect of walking on the prevention of heart disease and cancer: The investigators measured this by looking 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 diabetes diabetesand 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 effect 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 

You’ve made your New Year’s resolutions. And 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 these studies and what they mean for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

Relief From Tension Headache Pain

by

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Topic Of The Month – Tension Headaches

headacheLately a lot of people have been coming to my office complaining of headaches that have plagued them for a long time…in one case for years!

This woman had been everywhere and had every test that the medical world could offer.  Nothing showed why she had these terrible headaches.  At one point she told me the pain was a 10 on a scale of 1-10.  Imagine how terrible it was for her to suffer every day from such a crippling condition.  My heart went out to her!

Fortunately, her problem was caused by muscles, the one thing that most of the medical world doesn’t consider when looking for a solution to pain.

In fact, if you watched my TED talk: The Pain Question No One is Asking, you may have already heard me talk about this missing link. (If you haven’t heard my TED talk, go to YouTube and enter: Julie Donnelly, Pain and I’ll pop up.)

Let’s talk about muscles and why they will cause headaches (and a whole lot more!).

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

While there are many causes for headaches, such as stress, anxiety, depression, head injury, or anxiety, and life-threatening causes we won’t go into here, one type of headache that is caused by muscular tension is known as a muscle contraction tension headache.

As shown in the graphics above, muscle spasms (colored circles) will refer pain to your head, even when you don’t feel any discomfort where the spasm is actually occurring.

(In this article I will focus on treatments for pain caused by the levator scapulae and trapezius muscles).

Muscles in the neck and scalp can become tense or contract in response to stress, depression, or anxiety, leading to tension headaches.  Fortunately, in many cases, simply pressing on the trigger points (the colored circles) will release the tension being felt in your head.

To prevent tension headaches, it is important to maintain good posture, practice relaxation techniques, and use a pillow that keeps your head, neck, and spine in a horizontal plane while you sleep.

Relief From Tension Headache Pain

There are too many treatments for headaches to include all of them in this newsletter.  If you want to know them, I suggest you get one of my books, especially Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living or The Pain-Free Athlete.

Meanwhile, I want to share an important Julstro self-treatment that you may find works well for tension headaches:

 

Place a ball such as the Perfect Ball (shown in picture) or a tennis ball, on the top of your shoulder.

 

 

 

Lean into the corner of a wall, as shown.

 

headache relief shoulder muscle pressure using wall

Keep your head close to the wall to prevent the ball from slipping and landing on the floor.

 

Bend at your hips so your upper body goes up and down, causing the ball to roll along the top of your shoulder. This will treat both the levator scapulae and trapezius muscles – both are key muscles for tension headaches.

 

 

Be gentle with this treatment as it will cause pain to be felt in your head as you are doing the treatment.  Only use enough pressure that it “hurts so good.”

Do 5-6 passes on each side.  It can be repeated often during the day but give a little time between each session to allow the muscle to relax.

Drink a LOT of water so the acid that you’re pressing out of the muscle will get flushed out of your body.

This may look a bit confusing, but it’s simple when you follow the directions.  And the best part is, IT WORKS!

How to Learn the Other Treatments for Headaches

If you go to www.FlexibleAthlete.com you can read a lot more about muscles and pain.  You will also find my books and other self-treatment tools by pressing on Shop.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

www.FlexibleAthlete.com

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

 ______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Julie DonnellyJulie Donnelly has been a licensed massage therapist since 1989, specializing in the treatment of chronic pain and sports injuries. The author of several books including Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, The Pain-Free Athlete, and The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution.

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

She has a therapy practice in Sarasota, Florida, and she travels around the USA to teach massage and physical therapists how to do the Julstro Method, and she also teaches self-treatment clinics to anyone interested in taking charge of their own health and flexibility.

She may be reached at her office: 919-886-1861, or through her website: www.FlexibleAthlete.com

About The Editor

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

Are Our Teens Getting Sicker?

by

What Does This Mean For Us?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High Blood SugarThe increase of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the US adult population has been well documented. And these conditions have severe health consequences.

  • Nearly 70% of people with prediabetes will go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
    • Without a change in lifestyle and/or medical intervention, many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years.
  • Type 2 diabetes is highly correlated with increased risk for heart disease and stroke, vision loss, kidney disease, nerve damage, and cognitive decline.
  • And as we learned during COVID, diabetes suppresses the immune system, making us much more likely to die from viral infections ranging from flu to RSV and coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2.

Because both prediabetes and type-2 diabetes are highly correlated with obesity, the US Preventative Services Task Force has recently recommended regular screening of adults aged 35-70 who are overweight or obese for prediabetes and type-2 diabetes.

But what about our teenagers? Are they at risk? Should they be screened also? Recent reports have documented an alarming increase in overweight and obesity in this population group.

The prevalence of type-2 diabetes is low in this group, but previous studies have reported that approximately 1 in 5 US teenagers have prediabetes. Is this a ticking time bomb that will affect their health as adults? More importantly, is the prevalence of prediabetes getting worse, just as it is for the adult population?

The expectation is that the prevalence of prediabetes in US teens is increasing, just as it is for US adults. But scientists and health organizations like the Preventive Services task force require hard data, not just expectations.

So, the study (J Liu et al, JAMA Prediabetes, 176: 608-610, 2022) I will describe today was designed to determine the prevalence trend over the past 20 years for prediabetes in US teenagers.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe study used data from the NHANES database from 1999 to 2018. NHANES (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey) is a program administered by the CDC that collects health and nutrition information from adults and children in the United States on a biennial basis.

Among the data collected are demographic information (sex, age, race, economic status, etc.), physical exam information (BMI, blood chemistry, etc.), and health information (prediabetes, diabetes, etc.).

To have enough participants in each time period for statistically significant results, the data were combined for each two consecutive 2-year surveys. (For example, the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 NHANES surveys were combined into a single dataset from 1999 to 2002.)

The time periods included in this study were 1999-2002, 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018. A total of 6598 teenagers were included in this study, for an average of around 1,300 per time-period.

The main comparison was prediabetes prevalence among US teens in each time period. The study also looked at the effect of obesity and various sociodemographic classifications on prediabetes prevalence in teens.

Are Our Teens Getting Sicker?

diabetesWhen the 2015-2018 time period was compared to the 1999-2002 time period, the prevalence of prediabetes:

  • Increased from 11.6% to 28.2% – a 2.43-fold increase.

When broken down by age groups, the increase was:

  • 2.35-fold for ages 12-15.
  • 2.56-fold for ages 16-19.

When broken down by gender, the increase was:

  • 2.76-fold for females.
  • 2.30-fold for males.

When broken down by race and ethnicity, the increase was:

  • 2.10-fold for Hispanics.
  • 2.76-fold for Blacks.
  • 2.33-fold for Whites.

None of these differences were statistically significant, but they might have been had the sample size been larger.

In short, there has been more than a 2-fold increase in the prevalence of prediabetes in US teenagers over the last 20 years. And this increase was seen in young teenagers, older teenagers, male and female teenagers, and in every racial and ethnic category surveyed.

Why Is Prediabetes Increasing In Our Teens?

QuestionsKnowing the trend is important. But if you want to reverse the trend, it’s much more important to know what is causing it.

Of course, obesity is an obvious villain. Obesity is highly associated with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, and we know that obesity is increasing in our teens. The data from this study suggests that obesity may contribute to the increase in prediabetes prevalence. But it’s not likely to be the sole cause.

For example:

  • Obesity in our teens has only increased 1.3-fold over the last 20 years.
  • More importantly, the difference in prediabetes prevalence between normal weight and overweight teens was not significant in this study.

The authors of this study also found no significant effect of educational level of the parents, family income level, or food security on the increased prevalence of prediabetes prevalence in teens.

So, what else might be contributing to the increased prevalence of prediabetes in our teens? I have two suggestions:

  • Decreased physical activity. Teens today are spending more hours staring at screens and less time exercising. Lack of exercise contributes to obesity, but there is also emerging evidence that it may independently contribute to diseases like prediabetes and diabetes.
  • Increased junk food consumption. Teenager’s diets have never been great, but multiple studies have shown that consumption of highly processed food has skyrocketed over the past 20 years.

Obviously, more work needs to be done on proving the causes of increased prediabetes prevalence in our teens, but we know enough already to start making some needed changes.

What Does This Study Mean For Us?

If you are a parent or grandparent, this study is a wake-up call. It’s not that we didn’t already suspect it was happening. After all, the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in young US adults had to come from somewhere.

But this study makes it clear that prediabetes is increasing at an alarming rate in our teenage children (and grandchildren). This is a ticking time bomb.

As I said above, prediabetes leads to diabetes. And diabetes leads to heart disease and other debilitating diseases. Unless we reverse this trend, we may be dooming our teens to poor health and a shortened lifespan as adults.

So, the important questions become, “What can we do about it?” and “What can we do to reverse this trend?”

The top three things we can do are clear. We need to encourage our teens to:

  • Exercise more. Only 1 in 4 high school students get the recommended amount of daily activity.
  • Eat a healthier diet. Today more than 2/3 of the calories our teens consume come from ultraprocessed foods.

And we know the changes they need to make. Previous studies have shown that whole food, primarily plant-based diets reduce the risk of developing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and can even reverse both conditions as effectively as medications.

  • Maintain a healthier weight. The prevalence of obesity in our teens has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. Of course, the secret is that if they get the diet and exercise part right, weight control is much easier.

But none of these changes are easy. This can’t be a, “Do as I say, not as I do” change. This needs to be a whole family change. We need to set the example.

Of course, I know some teens like to rebel against anything their parents do or recommend. We had a teenager once.

Setting the example doesn’t necessarily mean they will accept it right away. But with time they may come around. They are listening to what you say and watching what you do even when they are doing the opposite.

And I can guarantee if you aren’t willing to make these changes, they won’t be either.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the prevalence of prediabetes in US teenagers over the past 20 years. The results were alarming.

  • The prevalence of prediabetes in US teens has more than doubled over the past 20 years.
  • In 2018, the last year in this study, the prevalence of prediabetes was in the 25-30% range.
  • The increased prevalence of diabetes was independent of gender, income, food security, ethnicity, and education level of the parents.

If you are a parent or grandparent, this is a ticking time bomb because 70% of people with prediabetes go on to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. And type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, vision loss, and cognitive decline. We may be dooming our teens to poor health and a shortened life span as adults.

For more details about this study, the causes of the increased prevalence of prediabetes in teens, and what you can do to reverse this trend for your teens, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

Are Weekend Warriors As Healthy As Regular Exercisers?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

It’s a new year and once again you have set New Year’s goals. If you are like millions of Americans your top 3 goals are probably to eat healthier, exercise more, and lose weight – not necessarily in that order. Now comes the hard part:

  • Setting realistic weight loss goals and developing strategies for achieving those goals.
  • Deciding on food choices and eating behaviors you will change.
  • Deciding on what kind of exercises you will do and how often you will do them.

With respect to exercise, the consensus is clear. We should be aiming for ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week. But how often should we be exercising? Here the answer is a bit murkier.

Most experts recommend we exercise 3-5 times a week. But that advice doesn’t work for everyone. For some people, their work schedule and family responsibilities make it difficult to find time during the week to exercise.

However, many of these individuals are very active during the weekend with things like yard work, organized sports, long hikes, and/or cycling excursions. We refer to these people as Weekend Warriors.

If you are one of these individuals, you are probably wondering if that’s enough. Are weekend warriors as healthy as people who exercise every day, or must you squeeze some exercise into your busy week?

Some recent studies have suggested that frequency of exercise is not important as long as you exceed the magical 150 minutes per week. However, each of these studies had limitations. For example:

  • They only looked at a few kinds of exercise and a few diseases.
  • Some studies depended on self-assessments of exercise frequency and intensity, which are notoriously unreliable.

The study (Circulation, 150: 1236-1247, 2024) I am reviewing today compares the health outcomes of weekend warriors and people who exercise throughout the week and was designed to eliminate the limitations of previous studies.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors used data obtained from the UK Biobank Study, which is an ongoing study following the health outcomes of individuals from all corners of the United Kingdom who enrolled in the study between 2006 and 2010. Each participant underwent a health assessment when they enrolled.

This study used data from a subset of 89,573 participants (average age 62, percent women 56%) who wore a wrist accelerometer to measure activity levels for one week between June 8, 2013, and December 30, 2015. The accelerometer measured activity levels every 5 seconds, so it was able to record the intensity, frequency, and duration of exercise during the week.

Participants were divided into three groups based on their accelerometer measurements:

  • Inactive: <150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity (34% 0f participants).
  • Weekend Warriors: ≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity with the bulk of the activity spread over 1-2 days (42% of participants).
  • Regular Exercisers: ≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity with the activity spread over multiple days (24% of participants).

The participants were followed for an average of 6.3 years with 94% of participants having >5 years of follow up. The outcome was frequency of incident diseases (diseases that were not present during the accelerometer measurements but were diagnosed during the follow-up period).

Because the United Kingdom is one of the countries with a “Big Brother knows all” health care system, the investigators were able to correlate the exercise levels of each participant with 678 diseases and health conditions. The study compared the disease incidence of weekend warriors with the inactive group, regular exercisers with the inactive group and weekend warriors with the regular exercisers.

Are Weekend Warriors As Healthy As Regular Exercisers?

Let me start with the big picture and then I will give some specific statistics.

  • Both the weekend warrior and regular exercise patterns were associated with lower risk for >200 diseases compared to the inactive group.
    • For both exercise patterns there were a small number of associations with higher disease risks – primarily musculoskeletal disorders and dermatological conditions (think sports injuries and excessive sun exposure).
    • However, both exercise patterns were associated with a lower risk of over a dozen musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis and spinal degenerative spinal conditions.
  • While both exercise patterns were associated with the risk of >200 diseases, the risk reduction was greatest for cardiometabolic diseases associated with obesity. For example, the risk reduction for:
    • Hypertension was reduced by 23% and 28%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Diabetes was reduced by 43% and 46%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Obesity was reduced by 45% and 56%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Sleep apnea (which is associated with obesity) was reduced by 43% and 51%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Chronic renal failure (Chronic renal failure can be caused by a fatty liver, which is associated with obesity) was reduced by 36% and 35%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Gallstones (which are associated with obesity) were reduced by 36% and 43%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
  • You will notice that risk reduction was generally greater for regular exercisers than for weekend warriors. That is because the regular exercisers averaged higher weekly totals for moderate-to-vigorous activity levels than weekend warriors. When the two groups were compared at the same weekly activity level, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

What Did The Authors Say About This Study?

The authors discussed the limitations of the study in detail in the discussion section of their paper. The three biggest limitations are:

  • This study measured associations. It does not prove cause and effect.
  • The study only measured exercise patterns and intensities for one week. Some participants may have changed their exercise patterns during the follow-up period.
  • The wrist accelerometer used in this study has been validated for a variety of aerobic activities. It may be less accurate at measuring some strength training exercises. And it will be unable to measure isometric exercises, which have been shown to have some cardiometabolic health benefits.

However, this is a very large, well-designed study which is consistent with several earlier studies.

The authors also expanded on the significance of their findings with these comments:

1) “Efforts to optimize physical activity may be expected to have wide-ranging health benefits that extend beyond previously published associations with cardiovascular disease…We observed strong associations between physical activity and lower risk of up to 264 diseases.”

2) “Our results suggest that the achievement of guideline-adherent physical activity volumes [≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity] is the key factor relevant to incident disease risk, as opposed to the pattern by which physical activity may be accrued…We did not identify a single condition for which risk appeared substantially different for one pattern versus the other.”

3) “Although we noted beneficial associations across a wide variety of diseases, our findings suggest that physical activity may be particularly effective for modifying risk of cardiometabolic conditions, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and sleep apnea.”

The authors concluded, “Achievement of measured physical activity volumes consistent with guideline recommendations [≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity] is associated with lower risk of >200 diseases, with prominent effects on cardiometabolic conditions. Associations appear to be similar whether the physical activity follows a weekend warrior pattern or is spread more evenly throughout the week.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

QuestionsThis study has three major take-home messages:

1) If you weren’t already motivated to increase your exercise levels in 2025, this study is a wake-up call. You already know that exercise improves your mood, makes weight control easier, and reduces the risk of major diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease.

This study just added another 200 reasons to increase your exercise levels. (If you want to know the 200+ diseases that are positively impacted by exercise, read the study.

2) If you are someone whose schedule makes it difficult to find time during the week, this study is good news. This study suggests that weekend warriors can be as fit and healthy as people who exercise daily. However, there are a couple of important caveats:

    • This study used a wrist accelerometer, so it was able to select only those weekend warriors whose total activity exceeded 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity. Unfortunately, many weekend warriors overestimate how much exercise they get during the weekend. For example:
      • Mowing the lawn is exercise, but the amount of exercise you get is vastly different if you use a riding mower instead of a push mower.
      • Weekend sports are a fun way to exercise, but the amount of exercise you get from an hour of soccer is probably different from an hour of softball.
    • I could go on, but you get the idea. If you choose the weekend warrior route, be realistic about the amount of exercise you are getting.

3) This study found that people who exercised often during the week were likely to accumulate higher weekly totals of activity than weekend warriors. Simply put, it is easier to accumulate higher exercise totals when you exercise more frequently.

So, even if your schedule is busy, it’s worthwhile to try and find some time to exercise during the week rather than limiting all your exercise to the weekend.

The Bottom Line

A recent study asked whether weekend warriors got the same benefits from exercise as people who exercised on multiple days during the week (regular exercisers). The key findings from the study were:

  • Weekly exercise levels of ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity were associated with reduced risk of over 200 diseases.
  • The reduction in risk was greatest for obesity and cardiometabolic diseases like diabetes and hypertension.
  • Once the ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity was reached, there was no significant difference in risk reduction between the weekend warrior and regular exercise patterns of activity.

For more details on this study and what this 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 

___________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

 

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

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

by

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

fad dietsFad diets abound. High protein, low carb, low fat, vegan, keto, paleo – the list is endless. They all claim to be backed by scientific studies showing that you lose weight, lower your cholesterol and triglycerides, lower your blood pressure, and smooth out your blood sugar swings.

They all claim to be the best. But any reasonable person knows they can’t all be the best. Someone must be lying.

My take on this is that fad diet proponents are relying on “smoke and mirrors” to make their diet look like the best. I have written about this before, but here is a brief synopsis:

  • They compare their diet with the typical American diet.
    • Anything looks good compared to the typical American diet.
    • Instead, they should be comparing their diet with other weight loss diets. That is the only way we can learn which diet is best.
  • They are all restrictive diets.
    • Any restrictive diet will cause you to eat fewer calories and to lose weight.
    • And as little as 5% weight loss results in lower cholesterol & triglycerides, lower blood pressure, and better control of blood sugar levels.

Simply put, any restrictive diet will give you short-term weight loss and improvement in blood parameters linked to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. But are these diets healthy long term? For some of them, the answer is a clear no. Others are unlikely to be healthy but have not been studied long term. So, we don’t know whether they are healthy or not.

What if you started from the opposite perspective? Instead of asking, “Is a diet that helps you lose weight healthy long term?”, what if you asked, “Does the diet you choose matter for weight loss? Can healthy eating help you lose weight?” The study (S Schutte et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 115: 1-18, 2022)) I will review this week asked these question.

This was an excellent study. It compared a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet with the same degree of caloric restriction. And it compared both diets to the habitual diet of people in that area. This study was performed in the Netherlands, so both weight loss diets were compared to the habitual Dutch diet.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThis was a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of clinical studies. The investigators recruited 100 healthy, abdominally obese men and women aged 40-70. At the time of entry into the study none of the participants:

  • Had diabetes.
  • Smoked.
  • Had a diagnosed medical condition.
  • Were on a medication that interfered with blood sugar control.
  • Were on a vegetarian diet.

The participants were randomly assigned to:

  • A high-nutrient quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A low-nutrient-quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A continuation of their habitual diet.

The study lasted 12 weeks. The participants met with a dietitian on a weekly basis. The dietitian gave them all the foods they needed for the next week and monitored their adherence to their assigned diet. They were advised not to change their exercise regimen during the study.

At the beginning and end of the study the participants were weighed, and cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

Vegetarian DietThis study compared a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet with the same degree of caloric restriction. And it compared both diets to the habitual diet of people in that area. This study was performed in the Netherlands, so both weight loss diets were compared to the habitual Dutch diet.

To put this study into context, these were not healthy and unhealthy diets in the traditional sense.

  • Both were whole food diets.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and lean meats.
  • Both restricted calories by 25%.

The diets were designed so that the “high-nutrient quality” diet had significantly more plant protein (in the form of soy protein), fiber, healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats), and significantly less fructose and other added sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

When the investigators measured weight loss at the end of 12 weeks:

  • Participants lost significant weight on both calorie-restricted diets compared to the group that continued to eat their habitual diet.
    • That is not surprising. Any diet that successfully restricts calories will result in weight loss.
  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 33% more weight than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet (18.5 pounds compared to 13.9 pounds).
  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 50% more inches in waist circumference than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet (1.8 inches compared to 1.2 inches).
    • Waist circumference is a direct measure of abdominal obesity.

When the investigators measured blood pressure, fasting total cholesterol levels, and triglyceride Heart Healthy Dietlevels at 12 weeks:

  • These cardiovascular risk factors were significantly improved on both diets.
    • Again, this would be expected. Any diet that causes weight loss results in an improvement in these parameters.
  • However, the reduction in total serum cholesterol was 2.5-fold greater and the reduction in triglycerides was 2-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.
  • And the reduction in systolic blood pressure was 2-fold greater and the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 1.67-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.

The authors concluded, “Our results demonstrate that the nutrient composition of an energy-restricted diet is of great importance for improvements of metabolic health in an overweight, middle-aged population. A high-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet enriched with soy protein, fiber, monounsaturated fats, omega-3 fats, and reduced in fructose and other added sugars provided additional health benefits over a low-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet, resulting in greater weight loss…and promoting an antiatherogenic blood lipid profile.”

In short, participants in this study lost more weight and had a better improvement in risk factors for heart disease on a high-nutrient-quality diet than on a low-nutrient-quality diet. Put another way, diet does matter for weight loss. Healthy eating helped them lose more weight and gave them greater improvement in their health.

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

obesity vs. overweightNone of the participants in this study had been diagnosed with diabetes when the study began. However, all of them were middle-aged, overweight, and had abdominal obesity. That means many of them likely had some degree of insulin resistance.

Because of some complex metabolic studies that I did not describe, the investigators suspected that insulin resistance might influence the relative effectiveness of the two energy-restricted diets.

To test this hypothesis, they used an assay called HOMA-IR (homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance). Simply put, this assay measures how much insulin is required to keep your blood sugar under control.

They used a HOMA-IR score of 2.5 to categorize insulin resistance among the participants.

  • Participants with a HOMA-IR score >2.5 were categorized as insulin-resistant. This was 55% of the participants.
  • Participants with a HOMA-IR score ≤2.5 were categorized as insulin-sensitive. This was 45% of the participants.

When they used this method to categorize participants they found:

  • Insulin-resistant individuals lost about the same amount of weight on both diets.
  • Insulin-sensitive individuals lost 66% more weight on the high-nutrient-quality diet than the low-nutrient-quality diet (21.6 pounds compared to 13.0 pounds).

The investigators concluded, “Overweight, insulin-sensitive subjects may benefit more from a high- than a low-nutrient-quality energy-restricted diet with respect to weight loss…”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanSimply put this study confirms that:

  • Caloric restriction leads to weight loss, and…
  • Weight loss leads to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors like total cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure.
    • This is not new.
    • This is true for any diet that results in caloric restriction.

However, this study breaks new ground in that it shows a high-nutrient quality diet results in significantly better…

  • Weight loss and…
  • Reduction in cardiovascular risk factors….

…compared to a low-nutrient quality diet with the same degree of caloric restriction.

As I said above, the distinction between a “high-nutrient-quality” diet and a “low-nutrient-quality” diet may not be what you might have expected.

  • Both diets were whole food diets. Neither diet allowed sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, grains, and lean meats.
  • Both reduced caloric intake by 25%.
    • If you want to get the most out of your weight loss diet, this is a good place to start.

However, in this study the investigators designed their “high-nutrient-quality” diet so that it contained:

  • More plant protein in the form of soy protein.
    • In this study they did not reduce the amount of animal protein in the “high-nutrient-quality” diet. They simply added soy protein foods to the diet. I would recommend substituting soy protein for some of the animal protein in the diet.
  • More fiber.
    • The additional fiber came from substituting whole grain breads and brown rice for refined grain breads and white rice, adding soy protein foods, and adding an additional serving of fruit.
  • More healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats).
    • The additional omega-3s came from adding a fish oil capsule providing 700mg of EPA and DHA.
  • Less added sugar.
    • While this study focused on fructose, their high-nutrient-quality diet was lower in all added sugars.

All these changes make great sense if you are trying to lose weight.

ProfessorI would group these changes into 7 recommendation

1) Follow a whole food diet. Avoid sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.

2) Include all 5 food groups in your weight loss diet. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and lean proteins all play an important role in your long-term health.

3) Eat a primarily plant-based diet. My recommendation is to substitute plant proteins for at least half of your high-fat animal proteins. And this study reminds us that soy protein foods are a convenient and effective way to achieve this goal.

4) Eat a diet high in natural fiber. Including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and soy foods in your diet is the best way to achieve this goal.

5) Substitute healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats) for unhealthy fats (saturated and trans fats) in your diet. And this study reminds us that it is hard to get enough omega-3s in your diet without an omega-3 supplement.

6) Reduce the amount of added sugar, especially fructose, from your diet. That is best achieved by eliminating sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods from the diet. I should add that fructose in fruits and some healthy foods is not a problem. For more information on that topic, I refer you to a previous “Health Tips” article.

7) Finally, I would like to remind you of the obvious. No diet, no matter how healthy, will help you lose weight unless you cut back on calories. Fad diets achieve that by restricting the foods you can eat. In the case of a healthy diet, the best way to do it is to cut back on portion sizes and choose foods with low caloric density.

Finally, I should touch briefly on the third major conclusion of this study, namely that the “high-nutrient quality diet” was not more effective than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet for people who were insulin resistant. In one sense, this was not news. Previous studies have suggested that insulin-resistant individuals have more difficulty losing weight. That’s the bad news.

However, there was a silver lining to this finding as well:

  • Only around half of the overweight, abdominally obese adults in this study were highly insulin resistant.
    • That means there is a ~50% chance that you will lose more weight on a healthy diet.
  • More importantly, because both diets restricted calories by 25%, insulin-resistant individuals lost weight on both diets.
    • That means you can lose weight on any diet that successfully reduces your caloric intake even if you are insulin resistant. That’s the good news.
  • However, my recommendation would still be to choose a high-nutrient quality diet that is designed to reduce caloric intake, because that diet is more likely to be healthy long term.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study asked, “Can healthy eating help you lose weight?” This study was a randomized controlled study, the gold standard of clinical studies. The participants were randomly assigned to:

  • A high-nutrient quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A low-nutrient-quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • Continue with their habitual diet.

These were not healthy and unhealthy diets in the traditional sense.

  • Both were whole food diets.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and lean meats.
  • Both restricted calories by 25%.

The diets were designed so that the “high-nutrient quality” diet had significantly more plant protein (in the form of soy protein), fiber, healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats), and significantly less fructose and other added sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

At the end of 12 weeks:

  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 33% more weight and had better cardiovascular markers than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet.

The authors concluded, “Our results demonstrate that the nutrient composition of an energy-restricted diet is of great importance for improvements of metabolic health in an overweight, middle-aged population. A high-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet enriched with soy protein, fiber, monounsaturated fats, omega-3 fats, and reduced in fructose and other added sugars provided additional health benefits over a low-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet, resulting in greater weight loss…and promoting an antiatherogenic blood lipid profile.”

In short, participants in this study lost more weight and had a better improvement in risk factors for heart disease on a high-nutrient-quality diet than on a low-nutrient-quality diet. Put another way, diet does matter for weight loss. Healthy eating helped them lose more weight and gave them greater improvement in their heart health.

For more details on this study, what this study means for you, and my 7 recommendations for a healthy weight loss diet, read the article above.

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

 ______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

 

 

Relieve Carpal Tunnel Pain Naturally

by

Why I Developed Natural Treatments For Carpal Tunnel Pain 

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

carpal tunnel syndromeIn 1997 I had wrist pain that was so incredibly severe that I couldn’t take my left hand from flat on a table and bring my thumb up to two o’clock.  I couldn’t pick up a pen, never mind write with it, and the pain was like someone was cutting my wrists with a hot knife.  It closed down my massage therapy business and was forcing me to think what I could do to support myself for the rest of my life!

I was told I had carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and that I needed surgery, but I knew that scar tissue was going to fill the space, so that’s not something I was willing to do. Also, I knew that cutting the bridge to the carpal tunnel would weaken the thumb muscle, so another reason I didn’t want surgery.

It took a LOT of thinking, but I finally figured out how to solve the problem by treating muscles from my neck to my thumb, each of which was putting a strain/pressure onto the median nerve.  The median nerve is the nerve that causes the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (numbness, tingling, pain).

And it worked!  I was completely out of pain and back to work again!  I was thrilled!!!

Muscles Affecting The Carpal Tunnel

best treatment for carpal tunnel syndromeThe muscles on the top of your arm (B) are called the Extensors.

Your extensors originate at your elbow and insert into the carpal bones (back of your hand) and into your fingertips.

Your Flexor muscles (A) are on the underside of your forearm.

The flexors also originate at your elbow, they come down your forearm and merge into the tendon at your wrist. The tendons then go through your carpal tunnel and then insert into your hand and fingers.

When your hand is flat on a table and your extensors start to contract, you lift up your hand (B). But you can see that the flexors (A) on the underside of your forearm will need to lengthen to allow this movement.

When your flexors are tight (commonly from repetitive movements) they won’t lengthen to allow your extensors to pick up your hand, and the taut flexor tendons may trap your median nerve in your carpal tunnel. This is a major cause of carpal tunnel syndrome because the nerve is being trapped right in the carpal tunnel. It was one of the primary keys to my symptoms, and an important part of the carpal tunnel treatment protocol.

Why I Developed Natural Treatments For Carpal Tunnel Pain

As you look at this graphic, you’ll see the flexor tendons surrounding the median nerve as they all pass through the carpal tunnel.  Also, notice the carpal bones, which are where the extensor muscles attach.  Finally look at the thumb muscle called Opponens Pollicis. This muscle originates on the bridge to the carpal tunnel (called the Flexor Retinaculum), and when the muscle contracts you bring your thumb into the center of your palm.

The flexor retinaculum is the ligament that is severed during carpal tunnel release surgery.  As you look at how close the median nerve is to the flexor retinaculum you can see where a potential surgical mistake could sever the nerve. This accident disables the hand and isn’t reversible. Also, severing the flexor retinaculum means your thumb loses its base, and you lose strength

This is the reason I refused surgery and sought a different carpal tunnel treatment.

As I studied each muscle and saw how they each impacted the median nerve, I realized that if I released the spasms in each muscle that it would take the pressure off the nerve.  And, sure enough, that’s exactly what happened!

It took me about 90 minutes to figure this out (it will only take you 15 minutes to do all of the carpal tunnel treatments to yourself), but in just that short amount of time I released ALL of the pain and numbness in my hand and wrist.  I was beyond being thrilled — I saved my career!

Relieve Carpal Tunnel Pain Naturally

The reason you feel pain at a location that is different from the area of a muscle spasm is pretty simple to explain:

If you pull your hair at the end, it will hurt where it inserts at your scalp.  But you don’t need to massage your scalp, you don’t need pain pills, and you definitely don’t need brain surgery to stop the pain.

You just need to let go of your hair! 

If The Extensors Are The Problem

This same principle applies with muscles. The pain will refer to the insertion point in the wrist or hand. 

If the extensor muscles are the problem, the solution is to until the knot in the muscle by applying direct pressure onto the spasm and holding it for about 30 seconds.

For example, if the knot is in the extensor muscles in your arm, you can apply pressure on your extensor muscles by following the picture on the left and pressing deeply into the muscle fibers.

It will hurt, and you’ll probably feel it refer all the way to your wrist and hand.

Hold the pressure for at least 30 seconds, longer if you want, and then move your fingers 1-2” in either direction.  You’ll keep feeling tender points. Each of them is a spasm that is causing pain in your wrist.

Then turn your arm over and use your fingers to press into the muscles on the underside of

If Your Flexors Are The Problem

Step 1:

 

 

To release the spasms in your thumb muscle, place your opposite elbow into the thick portion of your thumb as shown in the picture to the left.

 

Step 2:

Use your fingertips to guide your elbow along the muscle.  Move your elbow in a line from the center of your wrist to the base of your thumb.

Use sufficient pressure to really feel the muscle and the tender points which are spasms in the muscle fibers.

When you find a spasm, hold the pressure for 30 seconds and then deeply move back and forth a little bit.

If you are experiencing hand/wrist pain or numbness, before you make the decision to go for surgery it is worthwhile to check out my Julstro System For Hand/Wrist Pain and Numbness. You can’t undo surgery!

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Julie DonnellyJulie Donnelly has been a licensed massage therapist since 1989, specializing in the treatment of chronic pain and sports injuries. The author of several books including Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, The Pain-Free Athlete, and The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution.

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

She has a therapy practice in Sarasota, Florida, and she travels around the USA to teach massage and physical therapists how to do the Julstro Method, and she also teaches self-treatment clinics to anyone interested in taking charge of their own health and flexibility.

She may be reached at her office: 919-886-1861, or through her website: www.FlexibleAthlete.com

About The Editor

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

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

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

Health Tips From The Professor