Uncategorized

Are You Just Wasting Your Money On Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve seen the headlines. “Recent Study Finds Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.”  You are being told that supplements are of no benefit to you. They are a waste of money. You should follow a healthy diet instead. Is all of this true?

If I were like most bloggers, I would give you a simple yes or no answer that would be only partially correct. Instead, I am going to put the study behind these headlines into perspective. I am going to give you a deeper understanding of supplementation, so you can make better choices for your health.

 Should we use supplements for cardiovascular health?

In today’s article I will give you a brief overview of the subject. Here are the topics I will cover today:

• Is this fake news?
• Did the study ask the right questions?
• Is this a question of “Garbage In – Garbage Out?“
• Reducing Heart Disease Risk. What you need to know.

All these topics are covered in much more detail (with references) in my book “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, which will be published this fall.

How Was This Study Done?

This study (D.J.A. Jenkins et al, Journal of the American College Of Cardiology, 71: 2540-2584, 2018 ) was a meta-analysis. Simply put, that means the authors combined the results of many previous studies into a single database to increase the statistical power of their conclusions. This study included 127 randomized control trials published between 2012 and December 2017. These were all studies that included supplementation and looked at cardiovascular end points, cancer end points or overall mortality.

Before looking at the results, it is instructive to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Rather than giving you my interpretation, let me summarize what the authors said about strengths and weaknesses of their own study.

The strengths are obvious. Randomized control trials are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, but they have their weaknesses. Here is what the authors said about the limitations of their study:

• “Randomized control trials are of shorter duration, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.”
• “Dose-response data were not usually available [from the randomized control studies included in their analysis]. However, larger studies would allow the effect of dose to be assessed.”

There are some other limitations of this study, which I will point out below.

Is This Fake News?

When I talk about “fake news” I am referring to the headlines, not to the study behind the headlines. The headlines were definitive: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” However, when you read the study the reality is quite different:

• In contrast to the negative headlines, the study reported:
  • Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk by 20% and overall heart disease risk by 17%.

• • B complex supplements containing folic acid, B6, and B12 decreased stroke risk by 10%.
  • That’s a big deal, but somehow the headlines forgot to mention it.
• The supplements that had no significant effect on heart disease risk (multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C) were ones that would not be expected to lower heart disease risk. There was little evidence from previous studies of decreased risk. Furthermore, there is no plausible mechanism for supposing they might decrease heart disease risk.
• The study did not include vitamin E or omega-3 supplements, which are the ones most likely to prove effective in decreasing heart disease risk when the studies are done properly (see below).

Did The Study Ask The Right Question?

Most of the studies included in this meta-analysis were asking whether a supplement decreased heart disease risk or mortality for everyone. Simply put, the studies started with a group of generally healthy Americans and asked whether supplementation had a significant effect on disease risk for everyone in that population.

That is the wrong question. We should not expect supplementation to benefit everyone equally. Instead, we should be asking who is most likely to benefit from supplementation and design our clinical studies to test whether those people benefit from supplementation.

I have created the graphic on the right as a guide to help answer the question of “Who is most likely to benefit from supplementation?”. Let me summarize each of the points using folic acid as the example.

Poor Diet: It only makes sense that those people who are deficient in folate from foods are the most likely to benefit from folic acid supplementation. Think about it for a minute. Would you really expect people who are already getting plenty of folate from their diet to obtain additional benefits from folic acid supplementation?

The NIH estimates that around 20% of US women of childbearing age are deficient in folic acid. For other segments of our population, dietary folate insufficiency ranges from 5-10%. Yet, most studies of folic acid supplementation lump everyone together – even though 80-95% of the US population is already getting enough folate through foods, food fortification, and supplementation. It is no wonder most studies fail to find a beneficial effect of folic acid supplementation.

The authors of the meta-analysis I discussed above said that the beneficial effects of folic acid they saw might have been influenced by a very large Chinese study, because a much higher percentage of Chinese are deficient in folic acid. They went on to say that the Chinese study needed to be repeated in this country.

In fact, the US study has already been done. A large study called “The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)” study reported that folic acid supplementation did not reduce heart disease risk in the whole population. However, when the study focused on the subgroup of subjects who were folate-deficient at the beginning of the study, folic acid supplementation significantly decreased their risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death.  This would seem to suggest using supplements for cardiovascular health is a good idea.

Increased Need: There are many factors that increase the need for certain nutrients. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s only focus on medications. Medications that interfere with folic acid metabolism include anticonvulsants, metformin (used to treat diabetes), methotrexate and sulfasalazine (used to treat severe inflammation), birth control pills, and some diuretics. Use of these medications is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine medication use with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial.

Genetic Predisposition: The best known genetic defect affecting folic acid metabolism is MTHFR. MTHFR deficiency does not mean you have a specific need for methylfolate. However, it does increase your need for folic acid. Again, this is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine MTHFR deficiency with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial. I cover this topic in great detail in my upcoming book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths”. In the meantime, you might wish to view my video, “The Truth About Methyl Folate.”

Diseases: An underlying disease or predisposition to disease often increases the need for one or more nutrients that help reduce disease risk. The best examples of this are two major studies on the effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in women. Both studies found no effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in the whole population. However, one study reported that vitamin E reduced heart disease risk in the subgroup of women who were post-menopausal (when the risk of heart disease skyrockets). The other study found that vitamin E reduced heart attack risk in the subgroup of women who had pre-existing heart disease at the beginning of the study.

Finally, if you look at the diagram closely, you will notice a red circle in the middle. When two or three of these factors overlap, that is the “sweet spot” where supplementation is almost certain to make a difference and it may be a good idea to use supplements for cardiovascular health.

Is This A Question Of “Garbage In, Garbage Out”?

Unfortunately, most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” rather than the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question.

In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.

Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.

Should We Use Supplements For Cardiovascular Health?

If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this meta-analysis is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but the analysis did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s.

However, if you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.

I would be remiss, however, if I failed to point out that we know healthy diets can decrease heart disease risk. In the words of the authors: “The recent science-based report of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, also concerned with [heart disease] risk reduction, recommended 3 dietary patterns: 1) a healthy American diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, and meat, but high in fruits and vegetables; 2) a Mediterranean diet; and 3) a vegetarian diet. These diets, with their accompanying recommendations, continue the move towards more plant-based diets…” I cover the effect of diet on heart disease risk in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

The Bottom Line

You have probably seen the recent headlines proclaiming: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” The study behind the headlines was a meta-analysis of 127 randomized control trials looking at the effect of supplementation on heart disease risk and mortality.

• The headlines qualify as “fake news” because:
  • The study found that folic acid decreased stroke and heart disease risk, and B vitamins decreased stroke risk. Somehow the headlines forgot to mention that.
  • The study found that multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C had no effect on heart disease risk. These are nutrients that were unlikely to decrease heart disease risk to begin with.
  • The study did not include vitamin E and omega-3s. These are nutrients that are likely to decrease heart disease risk when the studies are done properly.
• The authors of the study stated that a major weakness of their study was that that randomized control studies included in their analysis were short term, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.
• The study behind the headlines is of little use for you as an individual because it asked the wrong question.
• Most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” That is the wrong question. Instead we need more clinical studies focused on the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question. I discuss that question in more detail in the article above.
• In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.
• Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.
• If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this study is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B-complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but they did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s in their analysis.
• If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.
• However, we do know that healthy, plant-based diets can decrease heart disease risk. I cover heart healthy diets in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”

For more details, read the article above.

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

Do They “Cherry Pick” Scientific Studies?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When we buy a food supplement from a company we assume that it will provide a benefit. We are trusting that company to be honest in their product claims. But, are there any honest nutritional supplement companies?

• What if they were lying to us?
• What if they had no clinical studies done with their product?
• What if they were just quoting studies done with ingredients found in their product?
• What if they were “cherry picking” the studies they listed to support the claims they wanted to make?

Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the nutraceutical industry. As an example, I came across an article in a recent issue of www.nutraingredients.com about a FDA warning letter (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2016/ucm518533.htm) to a noni juice company.  In case you are wondering, noni fruit is the latest in a long line of “magical fruits” that is going to cure everything that ails you.

The thing that brought this company to the FDA’s attention in the first place was the health claims the company made on their website. The company claimed or implied that their product would cure cancer, cure gout, cure arthritis, lower cholesterol, and help fight infections. Claims like that always invite FDA scrutiny.

What caught my attention, however, was the quote by an attorney specializing in FDA compliance issues that the studies cited on their website were “cherry picked” to support their claims. He said that the studies they cited “…do not meet the standards of third party literature…You have to include a full range [of published studies], and not just cherry pick the positive studies. It has to be a balanced presentation. It looks like they just did a literature search on noni and included only the positive studies.”

That statement caught my attention because it doesn’t just apply to just this one company. It is a practice that is common in the nutraceutical industry.  Many supplement companies cherry pick studies from third party literature. They list only the studies that support their product claims and ignore the rest. That is misleading because it implies a level of proof for their product claims that does not exist.  It is fundamentally dishonest. These are certainly not honest nutritional supplement companies.

Using Borrowed Science

The noni juice company cited in the FDA letter had no clinical studies to support their claims. Instead they quoted studies done with ingredients found in their product. This is what I call “borrowed science.”

I call this “borrowed science” because the studies were not actually done with their products. They were simply trying to “borrow” results done with individual ingredients and pretend that they applied them to their product.

Let me be clear. Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are of little value in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. To claim otherwise is dishonest.  Again, these are not honest nutritional supplement companies.

There are several reasons this is true.

• In many cases, the amount of that ingredient provided by the supplement does not match the amount actually used in the clinical study they quote. The ingredient may or may not be effective at the dose provided in the supplement.

• More importantly, a supplement usually contains multiple other components that may influence how a single ingredient works in your body. The other components may enhance the effectiveness of the ingredient in question, or they may inhibit it.

• Without clinical trials done with their product, companies actually have no idea whether their product works or not.

Unfortunately, I see this practice all too frequently in the nutraceutical industry. Clinical trials are expensive. It’s cheaper and easier to search the literature for published studies you can “borrow” to support your product.

Honest Nutritional Supplement Companies Do Not“Cherry Pick” Studies

Even worse, many companies cherry pick studies from the literature to support the product claims they want to make.

To understand what that statement means you need to know a little bit about the scientific method. Most scientists design their experiments to disprove what other scientists have published. This is a self-correcting process that is a strength of the scientific method.

However, it also means that you will find articles in the literature supporting and refuting the benefits of almost every nutraceutical ingredient. The scientific community waits until enough studies have accumulated and then relies on the weight of evidence before drawing any conclusions.

Unfortunately, unscrupulous supplement companies decide first on what claims they want to make and quote only the studies that support those claims. This is what is referred to as “cherry picking” the studies.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (otherwise known as DSHEA) is very clear about that. Section 5 of DSHEA states “…scientific journal articles, books and other publications can be used in the sale of dietary supplements provided…[they] are presented with other materials to create a balanced view of the scientific information…”

In plain words this legalese simply means that you can’t cherry pick studies. You can’t select only the studies that support your product claims and ignore those that don’t.  Honest nutritional supplement companies would not use these deceitful practices.

However, this is a practice that I see all too often in the nutraceutical industry. It is dishonest. It is disgraceful

Are There Any Honest Nutritional Supplement Companies?

The bad news is that there are lots of supplement companies that do no clinical studies of their own. Instead they rely on borrowed science from studies that really do not provide proof that their products are either safe or effective. Even worse, many of those companies cherry pick only the studies that support their product claims and ignore studies that do not. This is a practice I regard as clearly dishonest. Those are companies I would avoid.

The good news is that there are a few companies that actually support clinical studies on their key products and publish those studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. Those are companies worthy of your consideration.

There are other things to take into account in selecting the best of the best – things like the number of studies and the quality of the studies. However, that’s a topic for another day.

Many Blogs Cherry Pick As Well

I can’t leave this topic without pointing out that many popular health and nutrition blogs, including those written by some well-known doctors, do exactly the same thing.

The pressures that lead to this behavior are obvious. The very popularity of these blogs depends on them being sensational week after week.

Unfortunately, true science is rarely sensational. It’s usually pretty wishy-washy. If you do a complete search of the literature, you usually find articles that are both for and against any point of view you wish to express. Occasionally, enough evidence accumulates on one side of an issue that scientists are willing to come to a definitive conclusion, but that conclusion is hardly ever sensational.

The only way that the authors of these popular blogs can make sensational claims each week is to cherry pick only the studies that support their point of view and ignore everything else.

Unfortunately, the average reader doesn’t realize this. They see the list of references supporting the claims and believe what they read. Then these bizarre claims get reposted over and over until the general public actually starts believing that they are true.

It really is a shame that DSHEA doesn’t apply to blogs. If it did, they wouldn’t be nearly as sensational, but they would be much more accurate. They would have to report on the whole body of scientific literature, rather than cherry picking just the studies that support their point of view.

In conclusion, there are some honest nutritional supplement companies, but be sure the company you choose to believe is citing studies on their actual products and not just ingredients in their products.  Also, watch out for “cherry picking.”

The Bottom Line

• The FDA recently sent a warning letter to a noni juice company for making unsupported health claims for their product. The company was claiming their product could cure things like cancer, gout and arthritis. Whenever a company makes claims like that, they can expect to draw the attention of the FDA.

• An outside attorney specializing in FDA compliance pointed out that the company also had no good evidence to support their product claims. The company had done no clinical studies on the products. Instead they had “borrowed” the results of third party studies done with ingredients found in their product. Even worse, they had cherry picked only the studies that supported their product claims and ignored the studies that did not.

• Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are often worthless in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. I discuss the reasons for that in the article above.

• Cherry picking only the studies that support a company’s product claims runs afoul of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) requirement that companies provide a balanced view of the scientific literature relating to their products. It is also misleading and dishonest.

• Unfortunately, the practice of using “borrowed science” from third party studies and cherry picking only the studies that support their product claims is common in the nutraceutical industry. Supplement companies that rely on this kind of evidence to support their product claims are dishonest and should be avoided.

• For products you can trust, choose companies that support clinical studies on their key products and published those studies in peer-reviewed journals. You should also look at the number and quality of studies, but that is a topic for another day.

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

How To Treat Sciatic Nerve Pain Naturally

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Stretches for sciatica pain work,

but only when muscle spasms are released first!

Most people have been told to stretch tight muscles but they haven’t been told that muscle spasms (trigger points) shorten the fibers and tie the muscles in tiny micro knots.

This analogy helps explain how muscle spasms cause pain.

Consider what happens if you have two trees, a big strong one and one that easily moves. Tie a rope straight across from tree to tree. If you pull on the rope it’s easy to see that the flexible tree bends.

However, if you tie several knots in the rope the flexible tree leans over toward the strong tree. Now if you try to stretch the rope to make the flexible tree stand up straight the knots put a strain on the points where the rope is tied.

Trying to stretch the rope causes the knots to tighten and overstretches the rope on either side of the knot.

This is what happens with your muscles.

In the case of sciatica, the muscle that crosses over your sciatic nerve is the piriformis. When the piriformis is shortened by a muscle spasm it places a downward pressure on the sciatic nerve, impinging the nerve. This gets complicated because other muscles cause your pelvis to rotate and press the bone up into your sciatic nerve.

If you try to stretch the piriformis muscle it causes the tight muscle to press down onto the sciatic nerve, and can potentially tear the muscle.

Release the Muscle Knots Before Stretches for Sciatica Pain

Before stretching, it’s easy and essential to release the muscle that causes sciatica pain.

Lie on the floor, place the Trigger Point Therapy Ball, or a new tennis ball, onto the piriformis muscles (pictured left).

Ease onto the ball until it doesn’t hurt. Then move the ball just a bit to search for other tender points. Hold 30-60 seconds on each tender point to release the muscle knots

Now You Are Ready To Do The Stretches for Sciatica Pain Relief!

This seated spinal twist is a great stretch for sciatica pain relief.

Make sure you are seated tall and exhale as you twist. Hold for a minute and switch sides.

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.

About The Author

Julie Donnelly is a Deep Muscle Massage Therapist with 20 years of experience specializing in the treatment of chronic joint pain and sports injuries. She has worked extensively with elite athletes and patients who have been unsuccessful at finding relief through the more conventional therapies.

She has been widely published, both on – and off – line, in magazines, newsletters, and newspapers around the country. She is also often chosen to speak at national conventions, medical schools, and health facilities nationwide.

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High blood pressure has been called a silent killer. This is because it is possible to go for years with high blood pressure and not even know it. Even worse, the consequences of untreated high blood pressure can be catastrophic – stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure, kidney failure – the list goes on and on.  But, what about when high blood pressure is treated?  Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss?

Because of that, the standard medical recommendation for years has been to:

• Have your blood pressure tested frequently (at least once a year if your blood pressure is in the normal range and more frequently if it is elevated).

• If your blood pressure is elevated, get on a blood pressure medication and try to keep your blood pressure as close to normal as possible.

But, is this always the best advice? Maybe not, particularly when we consider the confusing effects of blood pressure on cognitive function.

We have known for years that untreated high blood pressure in middle aged individuals significantly increases the probability that they will suffer cognitive decline in their later years (for example, R. F. Gottesman et al, JAMA Neurology, 71: 1218-1227, 2014).

Conversely, when we look at the elderly as a group we find that those with the lowest blood pressure actually have a higher risk of cognitive decline than those with the highest blood pressure (for example, B. Sabayan et al, Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 60: 2014-2019, 2012).

How can we reconcile such conflicting data on the correlation between blood pressure and cognitive decline in the elderly? Could it possibly be that it was the blood pressure drugs rather than blood pressure itself that was causing cognitive decline in the elderly?

Do Blood Pressure Medications Cause Memory Loss?

A group of scientists in Italy set up a clinical study to determine whether blood pressure or use of blood pressure drugs better correlated with cognitive decline in elderly patients who already have some degree of cognitive impairment (E. Mossello et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.8164).

They enrolled 172 patients from 2 outpatient memory clinics in the study. The average age of the participants was 79 and all of them had some degree of cognitive impairment (68% with dementia and 32% with mild cognitive impairment). 70% of the study participants were on blood pressure drugs. Their blood pressure was measured on a daily basis, and they were tested for cognitive function at the beginning of the study and 9 months later.

The results of the study concerning:

• Those with the lowest blood pressure had the highest rate of cognitive decline over the 9 month period. These results were similar to several previous clinical trials with the elderly.

• The association between low blood pressure and cognitive decline was only seen in those subjects on blood pressure medications. Low blood pressure did not increase the risk of cognitive decline in unmedicated subjects.

There are, of course, some significant limitations to this study:

• It is a small study of short duration.

• It is the first study of its kind. It needs to be repeated.

• It was done in an elderly population who already suffered from cognitive decline. We don’t yet know to what extent these conclusions will apply to younger people and to people without cognitive impairment.

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

However, this study does raise a huge red flag that needs to be evaluated very carefully. It raises the issue of whether aggressive drug treatment to bring blood pressure under control may, under some conditions, cause more problems than it cures. It is not unlike the study a few years ago showing that aggressive treatment to lower blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics actually increased the death rate (C. J. Currie et al, The Lancet, 375: 481-489, 2010).

It turns out that increased risk of cognitive decline is just one of several risks associated with aggressive drug treatment to lower blood pressure. Because of that realization an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss?  It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

Is There Another Option?

The answer is a resounding yes, and we have known about it for years. It is called the DASH (Dietary Approaches To Stop Hypertension) diet. It is recommended by the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute, the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the US Guidelines for Treatment of High Blood Pressure). Coupled with a few simple lifestyle changes it has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure, without the side effects of the drugs.

You can find the details of the DASH diet here (http://dashdiet.org/), but in simple terms, it is low in fat, high in fresh fruits and vegetable, fiber and low fat dairy products. The recommended lifestyle changes are weight control, restricted sodium intake and exercise.

Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

The Bottom Line

• High blood pressure is a silent killer because people often don’t know they have it. If left untreated it can cause stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure and kidney failure.

• However, a recent study suggested that aggressive drug treatment to treat high blood pressure in the elderly can increase the rate of cognitive decline.

• Because of this and other risks associated with aggressive drug treatment for high blood pressure, especially in the elderly, an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

• It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

• Fortunately, there is another option, namely the DASH diet. The DASH diet, along with a few simple lifestyle modifications, has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure without the side effects of high blood pressure medications. Both the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute recommend that the DASH diet and lifestyle changes be tried first, before considering use of blood pressure medications.

• Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

• Finally, high blood pressure is dangerous. Don’t ignore it. Get your blood pressure tested regularly. If it is elevated, talk with your doctor about the best combination of diet, and lifestyle change and whether medications are absolutely necessary to keep your blood pressure under control.

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

Can BIG FOOD Inc. Be Trusted?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Healthy Eating Is In. We are told we need more fiber, whole grains, fruits & vegetables, nuts and omega-3s in our diet. As a consequence more and more Americans are reading food labels to be sure that the foods they are buying are healthy.

But are those food labels deceptive? Is it possible that BIG FOOD Inc. could actually be lying to us? Could it be that the food manufacturers care more about their profits than about our health?

Normally I base my health tips on clinical studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, this week I am reporting on an article called “Hijacked. How the Food Industry Turns Diet Advice into Profits” from the October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Health letter because they do an excellent job of exposing the lies of the food industry.

The Food Label:  The Lies of the Food Industry

False Fiber

For example, Nutrition Action describes how the food industry tries to fool us into thinking that their processed foods are healthy by making fiber claims on their labels that are deceptive, if not downright false.

Everyone knows that eating fiber rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes is good for us. But wouldn’t it be more fun if you could get the same amount of fiber in your breakfast bars, cakes, cookies and even yoghurt?

The food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. DuPont, for example, manufacturers and artificial fiber called Litesse by chemically linking glucose (dextrose) molecules into a non-digestible polydextrose polymer. They tell the food manufacturers that they can use Litesse to “tap into this market opportunity and project a healthier image for your product”. I’d be much more impressed if they were talking about a healthier product rather than a “healthier image for your product” It’s all about image, isn’t it.

Similarly, Archer Daniels Midland manufactures a digestion-resistant form of maltodextrin they call Fibersol-2. They tell food manufacturers “who knew fiber could be clean and clear?” (Translation: Adding bran to your products might make them denser and chewier. You can add Fibersol-2 to your doughnuts or cookies and it won’t change their taste or texture).

The problem is that there are few clinical studies showing that these artificial fibers have the same benefits as the fibers we find in fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In addition, these fibers don’t fill you up the way that unprocessed fibers found in foods do (something we scientists refer to as satiety). For example, if you eat a bowl of oatmeal you’re not going to be hungry for a long time. However, recent studies show that adding an equivalent amount of one of these artificial fibers to a muffin or breakfast bar has no effect on how hungry you feel after eating it.

Nutrition Action also raised concerns about highly processed natural fibers such as inulin, maltodextrin, soluble corn fiber or resistant wheat starch. In this situation, they may be oversimplifying their messaging a bit. I agree with their statement that adding these purified fibers to solid foods like cookies or muffins has relatively little effect on either satiety or regularity, but these fibers do have some benefits when used in the right kinds of foods.

For example, inulin is an excellent prebiotic. Its addition to processed foods as a prebiotic, rather than a source of fiber, is appropriate. Maltodextrin needs to be digested before its component sugars are absorbed into the bloodstream, so it enters the bloodstream a bit more slowly than simple sugars. When used in sports drinks it helps stabilize blood sugar and provide more sustained energy. Similarly, the addition of soluble corn starch to a protein shake slows gastric emptying, which also stabilizes blood sugar and provides sustained energy. Wheat bran in a protein shake, on the other hand, would be an inappropriate choice. It would just settle to the bottom of the glass.

The Bottom Line: The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

Vegetable & Fruit Follies

Everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are good for us. They are chock-full of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients as well as fiber. But who wants to spend the time peeling an orange or washing the pesticides off that broccoli? It’s much more fun to get our fruits and vegetables from chips, pasta, and breakfast cereals.

Once again, the food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. The chemical companies make a variety of fruit and vegetable powders that food manufacturers can add to their products. For example, PowderPure tells food manufacturers “Whether you want to add nutrition to your label, infuse full color or formulate a specific flavor profile for your discerning consumers, PowderPure has the right powder to enhance your presence in the marketplace”. You will notice they are talking about adding nutrition to the label, not to the food. They are talking about “enhancing your presence in the marketplace”, not making your food healthier.

The problem is that sprinkling a little fruit and vegetable powder into a processed food will never provide the full range of nutrients that those fruits and vegetables would have provided.

Most manufacturers can’t (or won’t) specify the amounts of nutrients and phytonutrients you get from the fruit & vegetable powders they add to their processed foods, but that doesn’t stop them from making label claims like “We pop a flavorful blend of nine veggies…[in our chips]” or there is “half serving of vegetables in a 2 oz serving…[of our pasta]”.

The Bottom Line: Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

The Fruits & Vegetables in a Capsule Con

One of my pet peeves is the food supplement manufacturers who try to tell you that they have concentrated a cornucopia of fresh fruits and vegetables in a capsule. For example, one company claims that their capsules contain apple, barley, broccoli, beet, cabbage, carrot, cranberry, date, garlic, kale, oats, orange, parsley, peach, pineapple, prunes, spinach, plant enzymes, fiber, and acidophilus. All this in one capsule!

While this list sounds impressive, you need to ask whether they are providing meaningful amounts of those fruits and vegetables. For example, the product claims to have oats. A serving of oats is equal to 1/3 cup dry oats and weighs about 28 grams. A capsule typically weighs about 0. 5 grams. Therefore, to get the equivalent of one serving of oats from a capsule, you would have to consume 56 capsules! And that’s assuming that the entire capsule was filled with oats.

Broccoli is another claimed ingredient. A serving of fresh broccoli weighs 88 grams, but roughly 80 grams of that is water. So if you dehydrated the broccoli you would be left with about 8 grams of material. Therefore, to get a single serving of dehydrated broccoli you would have to consume 16 capsules. Again, that’s assuming that the capsules were completely filled with just broccoli.

You can do this kind of calculation with each ingredient they claim is in their capsules. But when you add up the number of capsules needed to get a reasonable amount of each of these ingredients, the capsule total is staggering.

As for essential nutrients, when you read the label you usually discover that their capsules only contain small amounts of a few essential nutrients. They simply do not provide significant amounts of the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you would have been getting if you ate the real foods.

The Bottom Line: Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label. They do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you had eaten the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

Omega Oops

Omega-3 fatty acids are in fashion, so omega-3 claims are springing up everywhere. You can find omega-3 enriched eggs, milk, juices, bars, and even pasta. I won’t address the controversies about omega-3 benefits in this article because I have written about them previously (“Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?” , “Can Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?” , or “Do Omega-3s Slow Cognitive Decline?”.

The other point that Nutrition Action made was that the amount of omega-3s provided by these omega-3 enriched foods was seldom enough to provide any significant health benefit. It is the long chain omega-3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA that are thought to provide the health benefits. The American Heart Association recommends 500 mg/day of these long chain fatty acids for people who have no history of heart disease, and over 1,000 mg/day for people with prior history of heart disease. In that context the few mg of long chain omega-3s provided by most omega-3 enriched foods is a drop in the bucket.

The story is even more tenuous for those manufacturers who add the short chain omega-3 fatty acid ALA, which is found in most vegetable oils and plant seed oils, to their products. That’s because the efficiency of conversion of short chain to long chain fatty acids in the body is only 10-15% for most people. One tablespoon of canola or soy oil provides about 1,000 mg of ALA. Once again, those products providing only a few mg of short chain omega-3s provide little benefit.

When asked why they added omega-3s to their pasta, one manufacturer said “We have to because of the competition”, not “We wanted to make our product healthier”.

The Bottom Line: Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

The Bottom Line

The October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter exposed many of the deceptive labeling practices that food manufacturers use to make their products seem healthier than they are. In particular:

• The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber, read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

• Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

• Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label and do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you ate the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

• Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

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.

Looking To The Future: The Next 100 Issues

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In the roughly year and a half that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor” in its current form, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life. The 100^th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing what has been covered in the last year and a half and reflecting on the future direction of this publication. Let’s start by looking at some of the major issues that have been covered.

Environmental Toxins and Our Health

We live in an increasingly toxic world. Some of those toxins come from industrial pollution. Some come from agricultural pollution (pesticides and herbicides). Some come from household pollution (cleaning products and outgassing from carpet, drapery, etc.). And some come from the additives that BIG FOOD adds to the processed foods we eat.

I’ve covered the effects of a few of those toxins on our health in articles like “Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?” , “Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?” , and “Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?”. Look for more information along those lines in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exercise and Our Health

Many of you exercise on a daily basis and would like more guidance on the best exercises and how you can best support your exercise nutritionally.

I have covered the benefits of exercise in articles like “Run Long and Prosper”. I have covered nutritional approaches that support exercise gains in articles like “Does Leucine Stimulate Muscle Growth?” and “Do Protein Needs Increase As We Age? “.  Finally, I have covered the dangers of many of the sports supplements on the market in articles like “Are Fat Burning Supplements Safe?”, “Are Sports Supplements Safe?”, and “Sports Supplements To Avoid”.

I plan to expand these topics in the coming year and perhaps bring in an expert who can advise you the best exercises for a long and healthy life.

Healthy Eating

Most of you have told me that you are very interested in healthy eating.

I have covered healthy eating in general with articles like “Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?” , “The Seventh Generation Revisited” and “Are Organic Foods Healthier?”.

I have talked about foods and eating patterns to avoid with articles like “Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?”, “Do Sodas Cause Arthritis?” and “Do Grilled Meats Cause Prostate Cancer?”.

I have covered controversial areas with articles like “Are Saturated Fats Good For You?” and “When Is GMO not GMO?” and a webinar on “The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods”.

Look for more healthy eating articles like these in upcoming issues.

Obesity

I don’t need to tell you that in today’s world obesity is a huge problem (pun intended).

I have covered some of the less known causes of obesity in articles like “Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?”, and “Can Gut Bacteria Make You Fat?”.

I’ve covered the risks of obesity in articles like “Belly Fat Could Be Killing You?” and “Does Belly Fat Make You Dumb?”.

Finally, I’ve given you some useful tips on how to lose weight in articles like “What Is The Best Diet For Weight Loss?”, “Are High Protein Diets Your Secret to Weight Loss?”, “7 Easy Ways To Spot Fad Diets”, and “Do Diets Really Work?”.

Look for more informative articles like this in future issues.

Family Nutrition

I have had lots of requests for articles providing nutritional advice for young families.

I have written articles for women such as “Women’s Heart Health Begins At 20” () and “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Decrease The Risk Of Depression In Women?” . I have written articles for children such as “Can DHA Help Johnny Read?” and “Do Foods Make Them Fidget?” (coming next month). I have written articles for men such as “A Big, Fat Problem With Testosterone”. I have even written articles about gender differences such as “Is Omega-3 Uptake Gender Specific?”.

Look for more articles like these in future issues.

Debunking The Nutrition Myths

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, and some of that misinformation has been repeated so often that it has become generally accepted as true. It has become what I refer to as a “nutrition urban legend” or nutrition myth. I have done my best to shine the light of science on these myths and expose them as the untruths that they are.

For example, I have debunked the myths about soy in articles like “Does Soy Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer Recurrence?”, “Should Women With Breast Cancer Avoid Soy?” and my video “The Truth About Soy”. I have debunked myths about antioxidants in articles like “Do Antioxidant Supplements Cause Cancer?” and “Do Selenium & Vitamin E Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked myths about omega-3 fatty acids in articles like “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked the myths about calcium in articles like “Do Calcium Supplements Increase Heart Attack Risk?”.

However, debunking nutrition myths is a lot like the “Whack a Mole” game you see at state fairs. As soon as you debunk one myth, another one pops up somewhere else. For that reason I will continue to expose nutrition myths in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exposing The Lies

Unfortunately, there are a lot of charlatans in the food supplement industry, and some of their more sensational claims are popularized by doctors who should know better.

I have tried to expose the worst of these unsubstantiated claims in articles like “Can Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?”, “Water Is Water” and “Is Green Coffee Bean Extract Bogus?”.

Unfortunately, the charlatans truly believe that a “sucker is born every minute” so there will always be new products and new outrageous claims. I will do my best to protect you from products that drain your pocketbook but do not provide you with any substantiated benefits.

Telling The Truth About Supplementation

On one hand you have experts who tell you that supplements are a waste of money. They don’t do any good. On the other hand, you have people who tout supplements as cure for whatever ails you. Neither extreme is accurate. I have done my best to bring balance and scientific rigor to this discussion with articles like “The Two Biggest Misconceptions About Supplementation”.

The Naysayers base their advice on studies of supplementation in healthy populations, something we scientists refer to as primary prevention studies. Because 95% or more of the healthy test population will never develop the disease being tested for within the time period of the study it is almost impossible to demonstrate a beneficial effect of supplementation in that kind of studies. I have illustrated that point by highlighting the difficulty in proving that statins provide any discernable effect on heart disease risk in healthy populations of people who have not experienced a prior heart attack in my book “The Myths of the Naysayers” and my article “Can An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?”. If you can’t even show that statins prevent disease in healthy populations, why would you expect to be able to show that supplements prevent disease in those populations?

However when you look at the effects of supplementations in populations at high risk of developing disease (because of age, poor diet, increased need, genetics or pre-existing disease) supplementation does appear to be effective. I have highlighted these studies in articles like “Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?”, “Do B vitamins Slow Cognitive Decline?”, and “Do Vitamin D Genes Affect Mortality?”.

In future issues I will continue to highlight the benefits of supplementation. Unlike, the more sensational blogs, however, I will also be quite clear about which population groups are most likely to benefit.

Of course, I can’t cover all 100 issues in this one article. Suffice it to say that I have also provided you with information on nutritional breakthroughs that may dramatically decrease your risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and much more. You can find many of these articles just by going to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips and entering the appropriate term in the search box.

What Does the Future Hold?

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

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

Based on input that I have received from many of you I will increase my coverage of exercise and topics of interest to young families. I will also be bringing back Julie Donnelly as a guest expert for a series of articles on how to relieve back pain. Julie is an expert on deep muscle massage therapy and her articles on self-treatment for muscle pain have been among the most popular over the last year and a half. I know you will be happy to have her back.

If you have other topics that you would like me to cover, please click on this link to enter your suggestions in the comment box.

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.

What You Don’t Know About Heart Health Can Hurt You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are a young mom, heart disease is the furthest thing from your mind. You have your kids and your husband to look after. You have work. You don’t have time to look after yourself. Besides, you may think that heart disease in women doesn’t really apply to you. Perhaps it’s time to review some of your assumptions.

Heart Disease Is For Men – Wrong

The misconception that heart disease is primarily a man’s concern arises because estrogen helps protect women from heart disease prior to menopause. However, after menopause women’s heart attack rates exceed men’s. Overall, women account for over half of all heart attack deaths in this country, and if a woman has a heart attack before age 50, it is twice as likely to be fatal for her than for a man.

Women Should Be More Concerned About Breast Cancer Than About Heart Disease – Wrong

While I would never advise a woman not to take precautions to avoid breast cancer, you should know that your lifetime risk of developing heart disease is 6-fold greater than your lifetime risk of developing cancer. In fact, heart disease is the leading cause of death in women over 40 years old. For 25% of heart attack victims their first symptom is sudden death! And many other will never experience the same quality of life again.

Women Don’t Need To Worry About Heart Disease Until After Menopause – Wrong

It is true the likelihood of having a heart attack increases significantly after menopause. That is because menopause dramatically increases a number of risk factors associated with heart disease such as increases in LDL cholesterol, blood clot formation, blood pressure, and inflammation. However, within 10 years after the onset of perimenopause (usually around age 45) your risk of a heart attack will skyrocket past that of a man of the same age. That means in those 10 years all of the not-so-good things you have been doing to your heart since age 20 catch up with you!

What Can You Do?

Don’t wait until after menopause. Start your heart health program today. Here is what the experts recommend.

• Lose weight and/or maintain ideal body weight. Overweight and obesity dramatically increase all of the major risk factors for heart disease – LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, hypertension and inflammation.

• Exercise for more than 30 minutes – more than 3 times/week. Regular exercise reduces the risk of heart disease by 30-40%.

• Follow a diet low in saturated fat and trans-fat (substitute monounsaturated fats like olive oil and omega-3 fats); low in sugars and artificial sweeteners; and high in fiber, whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and fish.

• Work with your physician to control predisposing diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

• All these help to reduce heart disease in women
  

More Resources

For more information on heart health for women visit http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/women-heart-disease, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007188.htm, and https://www.goredforwomen.org/home/know-your-risk/factors-that-increase-your-risk/

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

How Can You Be Sure You Are Getting What You Paid For?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Two weeks ago the headlines claimed that most supplements containing grape seed extract were bogus. Just last week the New York Attorney General claimed that four of the largest retailers in the state were selling bogus herbal supplements.

We already knew that it is “buyer beware” in the food supplement industry. Is it really this bad? Are most herbal supplements a waste of money? How can we be sure that we are getting our money’s worth when we buy herbal supplements?

Do Herbal Supplements Work?

Supplements Containing Grape Seed Extract

The headlines about supplements containing grape seed extract were based on a recent study by botanical and medicinal chemistry experts at Rutgers University (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015). They obtained 21 commercially available supplements containing grape seed extract from vitamin supplement retailers, supermarkets and online vendors.

The scientists used HPLC/UV/MS to analyze the supplements for the polyphenols that should be found in authentic grape seed extracts. (HPLC/UV/MS is an analytic method that is the gold standard for identifying and quantifying the chemical composition of the final product. However, it is a very expensive procedure, and many manufacturers do not use it.)

The results of their analysis were quite alarming.

• Only 6 of the 21 products tested had the specific polyphenols found in authentic grape seed extract.

• 9 of the samples had less than 15% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

• 5 of the samples had less than 3% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

• One of the samples had no detectable grape seed extract

• 9 of the samples contained polyphenols that were characteristic of peanut skin extracts rather than grape seed extract. Peanut skin extract is a much cheaper source of polyphenols than grape seed extract. Substitution of peanut skin extract for grape seed extract is a concern because:
  • While polyphenols from peanut skin extract have health benefits, they have not been tested. There is currently no clinical evidence that they are beneficial.
  • There is no label information on the products indicating that peanuts were used in their manufacture. This could be a concern for people with peanut allergies.

• 3 of the samples contained polyphenols that were more characteristic of pine bark extract than grape seed extract. Again this is a concern because that particular blend of polyphenols has not been shown to provide the same health benefits as grape seed extract.

The authors concluded that “adulteration of grape seed extract in commercial preparations is a significant problem.” They suggested that substitution of much cheaper polyphenol sources such as peanut skin extract or pine bark extract offered significant “economic gain” to the manufacturers.

They went on to say “due to reliance of inferior…assays [or complete lack of quality control assays in some cases] across the value chain, adulteration can go undetected by others in the distribution chain, such as those involved in distribution, packaging, wholesale and retail sales.”

To put that in lay terms it means that suppliers and manufacturers often cheat by substituting cheaper polyphenol sources, primarily for financial gain. Furthermore, because most companies don’t use high cost quality control assays such as HPLC/UV/MS they actually have no idea whether their products actually contain grape seed extract or not.

Supplements Containing Ginko Biloba, St. John’s Wort, Ginseng & Echinacea

The recent headlines about ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal products arose from an announcement by the New York Attorney General the he had just ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to take a number of herbal supplements off their shelves because almost 80% of them didn’t contain the ingredients listed on the label or contained non-listed ingredients.

Specifically, the Attorney General claimed that:

• The ginko biloba and St. John’s wort supplements that they tested from those stores did not test positive for active ingredients.

• Ginseng and Echinacea supplements also failed their tests.

• In some cases the supplements contained no organic material. They contained sand instead of active ingredients.

The Attorney General claimed that these and other herbal supplements they tested were bogus. Even worse, they were deceptive and could endanger people’s health. For example, people generally use St. John’s wort to relieve depression. If the supplement is bogus, they are not just wasting money. Their mental health is also being compromised.

While the Attorney General’s announcement is alarming, it is also a bit misleading. It is based on an analytic method called “DNA barcoding”. In simple terms, DNA barcoding means that DNA is extracted from the sample and the genetic information in that DNA is compared with the genetic information characteristic of the herbal ingredient.

DNA barcoding is an important analytic test that every manufacturer should use to validate the identity of their herbal raw ingredients. However, DNA is often removed in the process of preparing an herbal extract, so DNA barcoding is an inappropriate assay to use for validating the quality of the finished product. Assays such as the HPLC/UV/MS are more appropriate or the final product.

In short, the Attorney General identified a potential problem with the herbal supplement industry, but further tests are required before we know how significant the problem actually is. The most troubling aspect of the whole incident is that some of the retailers had not run their own quality controls on the products, so they actually had no idea whether the products they were selling were bogus or not.

How Can you Make Sure the Supplements you Buy Aren’t Bogus?

Now that you know that many herbal supplements may be bogus, how do you protect yourself? How do you make sure that you are not wasting your money and jeopardizing your health?

The answer is actually pretty simply.

• Ignore the slick marketing.

• Don’t base your decision on price alone.

• Do your research. Only choose reputable companies that do quality controls on both the raw ingredients and the finished product.

The Bottom Line

Herbal supplements have been in the headlines lately, and the news isn’t good.

• One study (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015) reported that only 6 out of 21 supplements listing grape seed extract on their label actually contained pure grape seed extract. The rest were adulterated with less expensive polyphenol sources which may not provide the same health benefits, such as peanut skin extracts and pine bark extracts. That report was based on HPL/UV/MS, which is the gold standard of quality controls assays for herbal supplements.

• Two weeks later the New York Attorney General ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to stop selling herbal supplements containing ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal ingredients. He claimed that 80% of the supplements tested didn’t contain the ingredients on the label and some contained sand instead of any active ingredients. His claim was based on DNA barcoding, an assay that is appropriate for identifying the herbs used in manufacturing the supplements, but is not valid for determining whether the finished product contains extracts prepared from those herbs. In short the Attorney General’s report identified a potential problem with those supplements, but further tests will be required to determine how significant that problem is.

• Both reports serve to remind us that many supplement manufacturers fail to run adequate quality control tests on their products. Neither they nor you know whether their products actually contain any active ingredients. Your best bet is to choose food supplement companies that run appropriate quality controls on both their raw ingredients and on their final products.

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.