Uncategorized

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate?

by

What Should You Look For In A Prenatal Supplement?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

pregnant women taking omega-3You want to do the best for your unborn child. So, you try to find the best prenatal supplement. You may ask your doctor to recommend a prenatal supplement. You may ask your best friend what supplement she used when she was pregnant. Or perhaps you scan online reviews of prenatal supplements by random dietitians or nutrition gurus to select the “best” prenatal supplements.

Then you read the supplement label or the company’s website and see claims like:

  • “Supports optimal nutrition before, during, and after pregnancy”
  • “Packed with 16 nutrients to support fetal development, immunity, energy metabolism, and more”
  • “Concise prenatal formula supports both bone and brain development”

It sounds so good. You think you have found the perfect prenatal supplement. “Right?”

Perhaps not. A recent study (JB Adams et al, Maternal Health, Neonatology, and Perinatology, 8:4, 2022) did an in-depth review of prenatal supplement recommendations and how well prenatal supplements on the market met those recommendations.

The results were not encouraging. The authors concluded, “[Our] analysis found that prenatal supplements vary widely in content, often only contain a subset of essential vitamins, and the levels were often below…recommendations.”

In other words, their study found that most prenatal vitamins may not be adequate to support your needs and the needs of your child through pregnancy and breastfeeding.

I know this is likely to be a topic of great concern for many of you. So, I will examine the study in detail and give you some guidelines for selecting the perfect prenatal supplement.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study can be divided into two parts.

#1: What Should The Ideal Prenatal Supplement Contain:

The authors started off by reevaluating the optimal recommendations for prenatal supplements. They reviewed over 200 articles, focusing on articles that:

  • Provided insight into optimal dosage [of essential nutrients] such as treatment studies on the effects of different doses on outcomes and biomarkers.
  • Were larger, more rigorously designed, such as randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies.

The studies included in their review fell into three categories:

  1. The association of low levels of vitamins with health problems [during pregnancy and in the child after birth].

2) Studies on the changes in [blood] vitamin levels during pregnancy [when the mother is either] un-supplemented or supplemented (The blood level of many vitamins decreases dramatically during pregnancy without supplementation).

3) Clinical trials on the effect of vitamin supplementation on health problems [during pregnancy].

They used these data to create their recommendations for what an ideal prenatal supplement should contain. In some cases, their recommendations were higher than current RDA recommendations for pregnant women.

#2: How Do Currently Available Prenatal Supplements Compare With Their Recommendations For The Ideal Supplement?

For this part of the study, they created a comprehensive list of the nutrients provided by 188 prenatal supplements currently on the market using databases created by the National Institutes of Health. Where these databases were outdated, the nutrient list for that supplement was updated using information on the manufacturer’s websites or labels on retail websites such as Amazon.

Finally, they compared the nutrient content of all 188 prenatal supplements with their recommendations for the ideal prenatal supplement.

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate?

Questioning WomanThere are four points I wish to make before I review the results of this study.

  1. I suspect you are most interested in finding out how prenatal supplements on the market compare with their recommendations for an ideal supplement, so that is what I will discuss below.

2) As I mentioned above, some of their recommendations exceed the current Daily Value (DV) recommendations for pregnant and lactating women. I will point that out whenever it significantly affects the comparisons.

3) The authors of this article made the point that most women going on a prenatal supplement will probably discontinue taking their multivitamin supplement. Thus, their recommendations included nutrients commonly included in multivitamin supplements. This is a valid point, and something you should consider when choosing a prenatal supplement. However, in my discussion below I will focus on the nutrients that are universally recognized as important for pregnancy and lactation.

4) The authors focused on prenatal supplements that had less than the recommended amount of essential nutrients. They did not ask how many of those supplements had excessive amounts of certain nutrients. In my non-systematic review of prenatal supplements, I found several that had doses of some nutrients in thousands of percent of the DV recommendations. In my opinion, this is potentially unsafe for pregnancy and nursing. I will cover this topic in more detail in my discussion.

With that in mind, here are the results of their review.

Vitamins:

When you look at vitamins that have long been recognized as essential for pregnant women, the results are encouraging:

  • Vitamin D, folate, vitamin B12, and vitamin B6 are found in adequate amounts compared to the DV in most prenatal supplements.

However, when you look at nutrients that have more recently been recognized as essential for pregnant women, the story is very different:

  • For vitamin K only 31% of prenatal supplements contain vitamin K and only 16% meet or exceed their recommendation for vitamin K.
    • Their recommendation (90 mcg/day) is identical to the DV for vitamin K. So, there is no doubt that most prenatal supplements do not provide adequate amounts of vitamin K.
  • For choline only 40 % of prenatal supplements contain choline and only 2% meet or exceed their recommendation for choline.
    • Their recommendation (350 mg/day) for choline is less than the 450 mg/day recommended by the NIH and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
    • The average prenatal supplement only provides 25 mg of choline, which is wildly inadequate by any standard.
  • For DHA only 42% of prenatal supplements contain DHA and only 1% meet or exceed their recommendation for DHA.
    • Their recommendation (600 mg/day) for DHA is higher than the 200 – 300 mg/day recommended by the most health organizations.
    • However, the average prenatal supplement only provides 94 mg of DHA, so even at 200 – 300 mg/day a substantial percentage of prenatal supplements do not provide adequate amounts of DHA.

Minerals:

calcium supplementsThis study did not consider minerals, so I will draw on another source to estimate the adequacy of minerals in prenatal supplements.

Three key minerals for a healthy pregnancy are iron, calcium, and iodine (Yes, I realize that iodine is not a mineral, but it is usually listed with the minerals on supplement labels. And it is also essential for a healthy pregnancy). Fortunately, another recent study (LG Saldanha et al, Journal of the American Academy of Dietetics, 117: 1429-1436, 2017) looked at the adequacy of these nutrients in 214 prenatal supplements. This study found:

  • The iron DV for pregnant and lactating women is 27 mg/day and 95% of prenatal supplements contained iron at the recommended level.
  • The calcium DV for pregnant and lactating women is 1,300 mg/day. A high percentage (91%) of prenatal supplements contain calcium, but many prenatal supplements only provide 100-200 mg of calcium. That is far less than the DV.
  • The situation for iodine is even more alarming. Only 50% of prenatal supplements contain iodine. And for those that do contain iodine, the average iodine content is only 150 mcg (The DV for pregnant and lactating women is 290 mcg/day).

It is no wonder the authors of these two studies concluded that most prenatal supplements on the market do not provide adequate amounts of all the nutrients needed for a healthy pregnancy. The shortfalls are particularly acute for vitamin K, choline, DHA, iodine, and calcium.

What Should You Look For In A Prenatal Supplement?

Questioning WomanBy now you are probably wondering how you know a good prenatal supplement from a bad one. Here are six simple rules for choosing the ideal prenatal supplement.

  1. Don’t rely on health “gurus” to choose your prenatal supplement for you. I did a little “sleuthing” for you. I searched the internet for websites claiming to have identified the “best” prenatal supplements. I checked out the supplements they recommended, and here is what I found:
  • The supplements the gurus recommended checked all the boxes in that they had some of all the nutrients required for a healthy pregnancy.
  • However, the amount of those nutrients ranged from lows of 10-20% of the DV for pregnant and lactating women to thousands of percent of the DV for others.
  • In other words, they contained grossly inadequate levels of some nutrients and potentially toxic levels of others.

2) Don’t believe label claims or claims made on the manufacturer’s website. Remember the claim, “Concise prenatal formula supports both bone and brain development”, that I mentioned at the beginning of this article? The supplement associated with that claim had only 100 mg of calcium and no DHA. It is hard to imagine a supplement like that supporting either bone or brain health. The claim was bogus.

3) Don’t assume your doctor’s recommendation is the ideal prenatal supplement. A recent study (LG Saldanha et al, Journal of the American Academy of Dietetics, 117: 1429-1436, 2017) compared prescription (the kind your doctor is likely to prescribe) and non-prescription prenatal supplements. It found:

  • Compared with non-prescription supplements, prescription supplements contained significantly fewer vitamins (9 versus 11) and minerals (4 versus 8).
  • While prescription supplements contained more folic acid than non-prescription supplements, they contained significantly less vitamin A, vitamin D, iodine, and calcium.

4) Look for a prenatal supplement containing all the essential nutrients, not just those important for a healthy pregnancy. The authors of the first study made the point that most women will stop taking their regular multivitamin when they start their prenatal supplement. If that is you, your prenatal supplement should contain the nutrients you were getting from your multivitamin.

5) Look for a prenatal supplement that provide 100% of DV for all nutrients except the bulky ones. The ideal prenatal supplement should contain 100% of the DV for pregnant and lactating women for all essential nutrients. Avoid supplements with very low amounts of some nutrients and large excesses of others.

  • Bulky nutrients like calcium, magnesium, and choline are exceptions. It would be hard to get 100% DV for those nutrients in any supplement you could swallow.

6) Look for a prenatal supplement that “fills the gap” for bulky nutrients.

  • Fortunately, the NIH has estimated how much of these nutrients the average American woman gets in her diet. That allows us to estimate how much the average woman needs to get from her prenatal supplement to bring her total intake up to the DV for pregnant and lactating women. That amounts to 458 mg for calcium, 166 mg for magnesium, and 272 mg for choline.
    • That gives you a reasonable benchmark for assessing whether a prenatal supplement is providing enough of those important nutrients. When you read their labels, you will find most prenatal supplements are woefully inadequate for these nutrients.
    • You also need to ask whether your diet is “average”. For example, the average American gets 72% of their calcium from dairy foods. If you do not consume dairy, you may need to get more calcium from your supplement.

7) Avoid the excesses. Your unborn baby is precious. You don’t want to expose it to potentially toxic doses of vitamins or minerals. Avoid any prenatal supplement containing thousands of percent of the DV for some nutrients. And I would recommend caution with supplements containing over 200% of the DV for some nutrients if you are taking other supplements that may provide the same nutrient(s).

The Bottom Line 

Two recent studies have surveyed hundreds of prenatal vitamins and asked whether they provided adequate amounts of the nutrients that are essential for a healthy pregnancy. The results were shocking.

  • While most prenatal supplements provided adequate amounts of folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, vitamin D, and iron…
  • They were woefully inadequate for vitamin K, calcium, choline, iodine, and DHA – all nutrients that are essential for a healthy pregnancy.
  • Furthermore, prescription prenatal supplements (the kind your doctor is likely to prescribe) were no better than non-prescription supplements.

The authors of the first study concluded, “[Our] analysis found that prenatal supplements vary widely in content, often only contain a subset of essential vitamins, and the levels were often below…recommendations.”

In other words, their study found that most prenatal vitamins on the market may not be adequate to support your needs and the needs of your child through pregnancy and breastfeeding.

For more details on this study and my discussion of how you can select the ideal prenatal supplement for you and your unborn child, read the article above.

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

 

Does Magnesium Protect Your Heart?

by

Do You Need A Magnesium Supplement?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Getting an adequate amount magnesium from our diet should not be a problem. Magnesium is found in a wide variety of foods with the best sources being legumes (beans), nuts, seeds, whole grains, green leafy vegetables, and dairy foods.

The problem is:

  • None of these foods contain enough magnesium by themselves to provide the RDA (420 mg/day for men and 320 mg/day for women) for magnesium. We need to consume a variety of these foods every day – something most Americans aren’t doing.
  • These foods are decent sources of magnesium only in their unprocessed form. And most Americans consume more highly processed foods than whole, unprocessed foods.
  • Two to three servings of dairy provide a decent amount of magnesium, but many Americans are cutting back on dairy. And plant-based dairy substitutes often provide much less magnesium than the dairy food they replace.
  • Finally, green leafy vegetables (iceberg lettuce doesn’t count) don’t make it into the American menu as often as they should.

As a result, recent studies find that at least 50% of Americans are not getting enough magnesium in their diet. In fact, the average magnesium intake in this country is 268 mg/day for men and 234 mg/day for women. And the figures are not very different in other developed countries.

Does it matter? Recent studies have shown that an adequate intake of dietary magnesium is associated with lower risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality. This may be because of the of role of magnesium in supporting heart muscle contraction, normal heart rhythm, and blood pressure regulation. Adequate magnesium intake is also associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

But what if you have already had a heart attack? Is it too late for magnesium to make a difference? A recent study (I Evers et al, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, August 12, 2022) was designed to answer this question.

The authors examined the effect of magnesium intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, all-cause mortality, and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in patients who had experienced a recent heart attack.

[Note: CHD is defined as heart disease due to clogged coronary arteries, such as a heart attack. CVD includes CHD plus diseases caused by other clogged blood vessels, such as strokes and peripheral artery disease].

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors used data from a previous study that had enrolled 4,365 Dutch patients aged 60-80 (average age = 69) who had experienced a heart attack within approximately 4 years prior to enrollment and followed them for an average of 12.4 years. All patients were receiving standard post-heart attack drug therapy.

The characteristics of the patients enrolled in the study were as follows:

  • Male 79%, female 21%
  • Average magnesium intake = 302 mg/day
  • Percent magnesium deficient: 72% of men and 67% of women
  • Percent taking magnesium supplements = 5.4%
  • Percent on drugs to lower blood pressure = 90%
  • Percent on statins = 86%
  • Percent on diuretics = 24%

Upon entry into the study the patients were asked to fill out a 203-item food frequency questionnaire reflecting their dietary intake over the past month. Trained dietitians reviewed the questionnaires and phoned the participants to clarify any unclear or missing items. The questionnaires were linked to the 2006 Dutch Food Composition Database to calculate magnesium intake and other aspects of their diets.

The patients were divided into 3 groups based on their energy adjusted magnesium intakes and those in the highest third (>322 mg/day) were compared to those in the lowest third (<238 mg/day) with respect to cardiovascular disease (CVD), all-cause mortality, and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality.

The comparisons were statically adjusted for fiber intake (most magnesium-rich foods are also high fiber foods), diuretic use (diuretics reduce magnesium levels in the blood), age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, obesity, education level, caloric intake, calcium, vitamin D, sodium from foods, potassium, heme iron, vitamin C, beta-carotenoids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, overall diet quality based on the Dutch Dietary Guidelines, systolic blood pressure, kidney function, and diabetes. In other words, the data were adjusted for every conceivable variable that could have influenced the outcome.

Does Magnesium Protect Your Heart?

When those with the highest magnesium intake (>322 mg/day) were compared to those with the lowest intake (<283 mg/day):

  • Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality was reduced by 28%.
  • All-cause mortality was reduced by 22%.
  • Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was reduced by 16%, but that reduction was not statistically significant.

They then looked at the effect of some variables that might affect CVD risk on the results.

  • Diabetes, kidney function, iron intake, smoking, alcohol use, blood pressure, most dietary components and overall diet quality had no effect on the results.
  • The results were also not affected when patients using a magnesium supplement were excluded from the analysis. This suggests the effect of magnesium from diet and supplementation is similar.
  • However, diuretic use had a significant effect on the results.
    • For patients using diuretics, high magnesium intake versus low magnesium intake reduced CVD mortality by 45%.

How Much Magnesium Do You Need?

Question MarkYou may have noticed that the difference between the highest magnesium intake group and the lowest intake group was, on average, only 39 mg/day. So, the authors also used a statistical approach that utilized data from each individual patient to produce a graph of magnesium intake versus risk of CVD, total, and CHD mortality. For all 3 end points the graphs showed an inverse, linear relationship between magnesium and mortality.

From this, the authors were able to calculate the effect of each 100mg/day increase in magnesium intake on mortality risk. Each 100mg/day of added magnesium reduced the risk of:

  • CVD mortality by 38%.
  • All-cause mortality by 30%.
  • CHD mortality by 33%, and these results were borderline significant.

The inverse relationship between magnesium intake was observed at intakes ranging from around 200 mg/day to around 450 mg/day, which represented the range of dietary magnesium intake in this Dutch population group.

This study did not define an upper limit to the beneficial effect of magnesium intake because the graphs had not plateaued at 450 mg/day, suggesting that higher magnesium intakes might give even better results.

The authors concluded, “We observed a strong, linear inverse association of dietary magnesium with CVD and all-cause mortality after a heart attack, which was most pronounced in patients who used diuretics. Our findings emphasize the importance of an adequate magnesium intake in CVD patients, on top of cardiovascular drug treatment.”

I might add that this is the first study to look at the effect of magnesium on long-term survival after a heart attack.

Do You Need A Magnesium Supplement? 

magnesium supplements benefitsAs I said earlier, the best dietary sources of magnesium are beans, nuts, seeds, whole grains, green leafy vegetables, and dairy foods. And:

  • None of these foods contain enough magnesium by themselves to provide the RDA (420 mg/day for men and 320 mg/day for women) for magnesium.
  • These foods are decent sources of magnesium only in their unprocessed form.

When unprocessed, each of these foods provides 20 to 60 mg of magnesium per serving. If we use an average value of 40 mg/serving, you would need in the range of 8-10 servings/day of these foods in their unprocessed form to meet the RDA for magnesium.

You could get a more accurate estimate of the magnesium content of your diet using the “Magnesium Content of Selected Foods” table from the NIH Factsheet on Magnesium.

Now you are ready to ask yourself two questions:

  1. Does my current diet provide the RDA for magnesium?

2. If not, am I willing to make the dietary changes needed to increase my magnesium levels to RDA levels?

If your answer to both questions is no, you should probably consider a magnesium supplement. A supplement providing around 200 mg of magnesium should bring all but the worst diets up to the recommended magnesium intake.

The current study did not define an upper limit for the beneficial effect of magnesium on survival after a heart attack but suggested that intakes above 450 mg/day might be optimal.

I do not recommend megadoses of magnesium, but intakes from diet and supplementation that slightly exceed the RDA appear to be safe. In their Magnesium Factsheet, the NIH states, “Too much magnesium…does not pose a health risk in healthy individuals because the kidneys eliminate excess amounts in the urine.”

The only concern is that magnesium from supplements is absorbed much more rapidly than magnesium from foods, and this can cause gas, bloating, and diarrhea in some individuals. For this reason, I recommend a sustained release magnesium supplement, so the magnesium is absorbed more slowly.

Finally, we should not consider magnesium as a magic bullet. The current study statistically eliminated every known variable that might affect survival after a heart attack, so it could estimate the beneficial effects of magnesium alone.

However, survival after a heart attack will likely be much greater if diet, exercise, and body mass are also optimized.

The Bottom Line 

Recent studies have shown that an adequate intake of dietary magnesium is associated with lower risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality.

But what if you have already had a heart attack? Is it too late for magnesium to make a difference? A recent study of heart attack patients in Holland was designed to answer this question.

The authors examined the effect of magnesium intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, all-cause mortality, and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in patients who had experienced a recent heart attack.

When heart attack patients with the highest magnesium intake (>322 mg/day) were compared to those with the lowest intake (<283 mg/day):

  • Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality was reduced by 28%.
  • All-cause mortality was reduced by 22%.
  • Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality was reduced by 16%, but that reduction was not statistically significant.

The authors went on to look at the inverse linear relationship between magnesium intake and mortality risk. They found that each 100mg/day of added magnesium reduced the risk of:

  • CVD mortality by 38%.
  • All-cause mortality by 30%.
  • CHD mortality by 33%, and these results were borderline significant.

The authors concluded, “We observed a strong, linear inverse association of dietary magnesium with CVD and all-cause mortality after a heart attack…Our findings emphasize the importance of an adequate magnesium intake in CVD patients…”

I might add that this is the first study to look at the effect of magnesium on long-term survival of patients who have suffered a heart attack.

For more details on this study and my discussion of whether you might benefit from a magnesium supplement, 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.

Can Tomatoes Be Engineered To Produce Vitamin D3?

by

The Good And Bad Of Genetically Modified Foods

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

GM FruitsThe Floodgates have been opened. The USDA has just approved a genetically engineered purple tomato that contains the anthocyanins found in blueberries, blackberries, and eggplant. It could be appearing in your supermarkets as early as next spring.

And that is just the beginning. Several other genetically modified tomatoes are waiting in the wings. One example is a tomato that has been genetically engineered to produce vitamin D3 (J Li et al, Nature Plants, 8: 611-616, 2022).

“Why would you want that?”, you might ask. The rationale is simple:

  • And vitamin D insufficiency is not a trivial matter. In the words of the authors, in addition to bone health, vitamin D insufficiency “impacts immune function and inflammation and is associated with increased risk of…cancer, Parkinson’s disease, depression, neurocognitive decline, dementia, and the risk of coronavirus disease…”
  • Add to that the fact that tomatoes are grown and consumed in more than 170 countries worldwide. The authors felt that increasing the vitamin D content of tomatoes could be a simple and effective way to improve the vitamin D status of millions of people around the world.

In their own words, “We have developed a new dietary source of vitamin D in plants to meet the increasing demand for ways to address vitamin D insufficiency, which is of particular relevance to those adopting plant-rich, vegetarian or vegan diets.”

But is that true and is it safe? That is the topic of today’s health tip. But before I cover those topics, I should give you some background on vitamin D metabolism in humans and in plants.

Metabolism 101: Vitamin D Metabolism In Humans & Plants

7-dehydrocholesterol is the precursor to vitamin D3 in both humans and plants, but the amount of 7-dehydrocholesterol and the metabolic pathways producing it are very different.

Human Vitamin D3 Metabolism:

  • In humans, cholesterol is the precursor to 7-dehydrocholesterol. About 70% of cholesterol is synthesized by the liver, with the remaining 30% coming from our diet.
  • 7-dehydrocholesterol is synthesized from cholesterol in the epidermis (outer layer) of our skin. It is present in large amounts there but is present in only small amounts in the rest of the body.
  • UVB light is a component of sunlight, and UVB light drives the conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol into vitamin D3 in our skin.

Plant Vitamin D3 Metabolism:

  • In plants, the pathway is reversed. 7-dehydrocholesterol is synthesized from other plant sterols. And 7-dehydrocholesterol is converted to cholesterol.
  • Cholesterol, in turn, is used to synthesize glycoalkaloid compounds that protect the plants from pests.
    • The gylcoalkaloids differ from plant to plant. In tomatoes the major ones are α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B.
    • α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B protect tomatoes from fungal, microbial, insect, and herbivoral attack.
  • Normally, 7-dehydrocholesterol and cholesterol present in very low amounts in plants because they are used to synthesize protective glycoalkaloid compounds.
  • UVB light is still required to convert 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D3.

Can Tomatoes Be Engineered To Produce Vitamin D3?

Using modern genetic engineering techniques, the authors knocked out (deleted) the gene coding for the protein responsible for converting 7-dehydrocholesterol to cholesterol in tomatoes (shown as the red X in the figure above).

TomatoesIn the fruit:

  • 7-dehydrocholesterol levels are undetectable in ripe fruit of the wild-type tomato but were substantial in fruit of mutant tomatoes lacking the gene for converting 7-dehydrocholesterol to cholesterol.
  • As expected, levels of α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B were substantially lower in the fruit of mutant plants.
  • 7-dehydrocholesterol was evenly distributed in the skin and flesh of the fruit, which limited the ability of UVB light to convert all the 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D3.
  • Even so, a one-hour exposure of the fruit to UVB light produced about 2 μg of vitamin D3 in a medium sized tomato.
    • That is equivalent to the vitamin D3 found in two eggs or 6 ounces of tuna, which are both recommended sources of vitamin D3.
    • The only non-fortified foods that are better sources of vitamin D3 are salmon and trout, which provide about 15 μg of vitamin D3 in a 3-ounce serving
  • The authors further speculated that the vitamin D3 content could be increased even more by:
    • Cutting the fruit into slices and air drying them in sunlight.
    • Removing the gene that produces UV-protecting chalcones in the skin of the fruit, thus allowing UVB light to penetrate further into the fruit. This is typical thinking by some of my scientific colleagues. If one mutation is good, two or more would be even better.

The authors concluded, “We have developed a new dietary source of vitamin D in plants to meet the increasing demand for ways to address vitamin D insufficiency”

In the leaves:

  • Qualitatively, the results were similar to those seen with the fruit.
    • 7-dehydrocholesterol levels were very low in the wild-type tomato but were substantially increased in the mutant tomatoes.
    • Levels of α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B were substantially lower in the leaves of the mutant plants.
  • Quantitatively, however, the results were different.
    • The amounts of 7-dehydrocholesterol were 300 to 600-fold higher in the leaves than in the ripe fruit.
    • The amount of vitamin D3 produced by a one-hour exposure to UVB light was 1,000-fold higher in the leaves than in the ripe fruit.
  • While people don’t eat the leaves of tomato plants, the authors visualized a different use for this material.
    • They envisioned using what would otherwise be waste vegetative material from growing tomatoes to produce vitamin D3 for vitamin D supplements.
    • This would be particularly beneficial for vegans because most vegan sources of vitamin D are vitamin D2, which is less effective than vitamin D3.

In the words of the authors, “The leaves of the mutant plants are rich sources of 7-dehydrocholesterol…[and could be used] for the manufacture of vitamin D3 supplements from plants that would be suitable for vegans…”

The Good And Bad Of Genetically Modified Foods

good news bad newsLike much else in today’s world of social media and online blogs and podcasts, both the benefits and risks of genetic engineering have been greatly exaggerated. I have discussed this topic at length in a previous issue  of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

On the one hand, my genetic engineering colleagues tend to focus on the genetic alteration that is beneficial and ignore other changes in the genetically altered food that could pose some risk.

  • I would be the first to admit that most of the risks are very small and unlikely to occur, but I think each potential risk should be thoroughly investigated before we release the genetically altered plant into the world.
  • As an analogy, I will use the story of Pandora’s Box. Pandora was given the box by an angry Greek God, who told her never to open it. But her curiosity got the beat of her. Once Pandora opened the box, she released sickness, death, and other evils into the world. And once they had been released, there was no way to get them back into the box. We don’t want to run this kind of risk with genetically altered plants.

On the other hand, there are the “Chicken Little’s” of the world who assume every potential risk is real and warn us that, “The sky is falling”. Most of the risks are theoretical only. They may never happen. I am just saying they should be examined before we release genetically altered plants into the wild.

In this article, I will try to avoid both extremes. I will put on my “sceptic’s hat” (Every good scientist keeps one of those in his or her closet) and carefully evaluate the benefits and the risks associated with using both the fruit and the leaves of this genetically altered tomato plant.

Tomato Fruit Engineered To Produce Vitamin D3

The Benefit:

The benefit is obvious. As the authors said, tomatoes are a widely consumed worldwide. The availability of an inexpensive plant source of vitamin D3 could go a long way towards improving vitamin D status in third world countries where vitamin D3 supplementation may not be practical.

SkepticMy Concerns:

  1. Are there health risks?
  • Most genetically engineered foods contain a protein sequence that is not found in the non-modified food. This raises the possibility of food allergies to the novel protein. The good news is that a protein has been removed in this mutant plant. There is no novel protein, so the chance of these tomatoes triggering food allergies is extremely small.
  • However, these fruits do contain altered DNA. As I said in my previous article, one could imagine scenarios in which this could pose a health risk. I also pointed out that this is a theoretical concern, not one that has been proven to occur.
  • In addition, these fruits have been irradiated with high-intensity UVB light for an hour. This converts some of the 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D3. But what else does it do to the fruit? Are some of the changes harmful? The authors didn’t ask.
  • Finally, these fruits don’t just have higher levels of vitamin D3. They also have much higher levels of 7-dehydrocholesterol than normal tomatoes. In humans, 7-dehydrocholesterol is made in the skin epidermis and there is very little in other tissues.

Is dietary 7-dehydrocholesterol a problem? We don’t know. One recent study speculated that dietary 7-dehydrocholesterol may increase the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease more than dietary cholesterol. Perhaps more study is required before we assume that this genetic modification is only beneficial.

   2) Are there environmental risks?

  • The same genetic change that increases the 7-dehydrocholesterol content of the fruit decreases α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B levels. As I stated above, α-tomatine and esculeoside A and B protect tomatoes from fungal, microbial, insect, and herbivoral attack (In my yard, herbivoral attack would be deer).
  • The authors did not describe how these tomatoes were grown, but I would assume it was in a hothouse. That is customary for studies of newly genetically engineered foods.
  • This raises the question of how pest susceptible these tomatoes would be when cultivated outdoors. Would increased amounts of pesticides and fungicides be needed to raise them? If so, what would the environmental impact be? The authors gave no indication that they had thought about the environmental impact if, in fact, these modified tomatoes were widely grown to solve the vitamin D insufficiency, as they proposed.

3) Is there a risk of cross-pollination?

  • This is a major concern for any genetically modified crop. If the modified gene were easily spread to nearby fields by cross-pollination, it could decease crop diversity and create major problems for organic farmers. Again, the authors gave no indication that they had even thought about this issue.

4) Would these tomatoes be accepted in developed countries?

  • I ask this question because the genetically modified Flavr Savr tomato was introduced in the US in 1996 thumbs down symbolwith much fanfare, only to be withdrawn from the market in 1999 due to lack of consumer demand.
  • And this tomato is both genetically engineered and irradiated. I am guessing most consumers would simply prefer to take a vitamin D3

My overall evaluation. Despite what you may hear from genetic engineering gurus, I would give these genetically engineered tomato fruits a thumbs down. There are too many unresolved questions and concerns to consider them to be a beneficial addition to our food supply.

Tomato Leaves Engineered To Produce Vitamin D3

The Benefit:

Again, the benefit is obvious. As the authors said, most experts consider vitamin D3 superior to vitamin D2, and there are no plant sources of vitamin D3 that can be used to produce vitamin D3 supplements. Leaves from this genetically modified tomato plant could be an inexpensive vegan source of vitamin D3.

My Concerns:

1.  Are there health risks?

  • Despite what the “Chicken Little’s” of the world may have told you, there are no health risks when an individual food ingredient is purified from a genetically modified organism. For example, vitamin D3 purified from these genetically modified tomato leaves will contain no genetic material (DNA), no protein, no UV-damaged molecules, and no 7-dehydrocholesterol. It will be chemically and biologically indistinguishable from vitamin D3 obtained from any other source.

2)  Are there environmental risks?

  • The environmental risks are the same as for the fruit.

3)  Is there a risk of cross-pollination?

  • The risk of cross-pollination is the same as for the fruit.

thumbs up4)  Would this source of vitamin D3 be accepted in developed countries?

  • This should not be a concern. Nutrients from genetically modified microorganisms are widely used in natural supplements. And UVB irradiation is already used in the production of both vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 Any UV-damaged molecules are removed in the final purification steps.

My overall evaluation. I would give the tomato leaves a tentative thumbs up. If the environmental and cross-pollination concerns can be overcome, the leaves could be a valuable vegan source of vitamin D3.

The Bottom Line 

Vitamin D insufficiency is a major problem, both worldwide and in the United States. A group of scientists have attempted to solve this problem by producing a genetically modified tomato plant that produces 7-dehydrocholesterol, which can be converted to vitamin D3 by UVB irradiation.

Plant foods are not generally a good source of vitamin D3. Tomatoes are grown and consumed in over 170 countries. Therefore, the scientists proposed widespread cultivation of this genetically modified tomato plant as a solution to worldwide vitamin D insufficiency.

In addition, the leaves of these genetically modified tomato plants contain more 7-dehydrocholesterol than the fruit. Most experts consider vitamin D3 superior to vitamin D2, and there are no plant sources of vitamin D3. The authors of this study further proposed that the leaves from this genetically modified tomato plant could be an inexpensive vegan source of vitamin D3.

As I have discussed in a previous “Health Tips From The Professor” article, both the benefits and risks of genetically modified foods have been greatly overstated. In this article, I evaluated both the benefits and risks of using the fruit as a plant source of vitamin D3 and the leaves to produce vegan vitamin D3 supplements.

Based on a careful evaluation of benefits and risks I give the genetically modified fruit a thumbs-down. There are simply too many unanswered questions.

On the other hand, I give vegan vitamin D3 supplements produced from the leaves a tentative thumbs up depending on whether environmental and cross-pollination concerns can be overcome.

For more details on this study, read the article above.

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

Can Healthy Eating Help You Lose Weight?

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.
    • 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, “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 that question.

More importantly, it was an excellent study. It compared a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet with exactly 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%.
  • Continue with their habitual diet.

The study lasted 12 weeks. The participants met with a dietitian on a weekly basis. The dietitian gave them the foods 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.

Can Healthy Eating Help You Lose Weight?

Vegetarian DietTo 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 simple sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

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).
    • This is a direct measure of abdominal obesity.

When the investigators measured blood pressure, fasting total cholesterol levels, and triglyceride levels:Heart Healthy Diet

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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, healthy eating helped them lose weight and improved their health.

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

None 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 individual 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.

This study breaks new ground in that a high-nutrient quality diet results in significantly better:

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

…than a low-nutrient quality diet. 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.

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 simple sugars. While this study focused on fructose, their high-nutrient-quality diet was lower in all simple sugars.

ProfessorAll these changes make great sense if you are trying to lose weight. I would distill them into these 7 recommendations.

  • Follow a whole food diet. Avoid sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Eat a diet high in natural fibers. Including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and soy foods in your diet is the best way to achieve this goal.
  • 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.
  • 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 .
  • 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.

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.
  • 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. 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 simple sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

At the end of 12 weeks:

  • 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).

When the investigators measured cardiovascular risk factors at the end of 12 weeks:

  • 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.
  • 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 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, healthy eating helped them lose weight and improved their 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.

Relief From Shoulder Pain

by

A Simple Self-Treatment For The Infraspinatus Muscle

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

This summer has been HOT! HOT! HOT!

HotHigh temperature records were broken not just in the USA, but all over the world!  The funny thing is it was sometimes hotter up north than down here in Florida.  A snowbird client came in several weeks ago and told me they came back to Florida because they don’t have central air in their house up north (never needed it before).  That’s pretty incredible.

Now, I won’t say it’s cool outside, but September is not quite as hot as the summer months.  Which brings me to my treatment of the month – shoulder pain.

With it so hot I believe that a lot of people are getting relief be being in a pool, or a lake, or the ocean.  People are enjoying swimming, and if you are swimming a lot, you could easily get shoulder pain. There is a muscle called the Infraspinatus that is a key muscle for swimmers, so let’s chat about it.

A Swimmer’s Nemesis And Power – The Infraspinatus Muscle

This is what the back of your left shoulder looks like if you took off your skin – fascinating!

There are 16 muscles that all insert into your shoulder, each pulling your arm in a different direction.  Each is important and you use them all every day. But we won’t go into all of them this month, we’re just looking at the large muscle inside the red circle.  (I’m not an artist so saying “circle” is just using creative license – LOL)

This is the Infraspinatus, which originates on the surface of your shoulder blade (the scapula). It inserts into the tip of your arm bone (the humerus), and when it contracts it pulls your arm back.

Think of taking a tennis serve, or doing a backstroke in the pool, and you can visualize the movement this muscle makes.

How A Muscle Works To Move A Joint

Did you ever play “tug of war” with a stick and rope when you were young?  Basically, that’s how muscles work together to move our joints.  When the side that is on the right is pulling on the rope, the stick moves to the right. The only way the stick moves in the opposite direction, in this analogy it moves toward the left, is the right side needs to stop pulling and the left side starts to pull. When that happens, the stick moves toward the left.

This is exactly what happens in our body when we want to move a joint. Two muscles insert into a bone that is at the joint.  One muscle (let’s say the infraspinatus) pulls on the insertion point at the tip of the shoulder on your arm bone (humerus), and your arm moves back.  A muscle in the front of your shoulder/chest (pectoralis major) needs to release for your arm to move in that direction.

Then, when you want to bring your arm forward, the pectoralis major contracts and pulls on your humerus, and the infraspinatus must release tension so your arm can move.  It’s pretty simple, and it’s exactly what happens with every joint in your body.

In my books, Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living and The Pain-Free Athlete, I show you how to self-treat all the shoulder muscles. This month I’m going to share with you how to self-treat the infraspinatus muscle.

A Simple Self-Treatment For The Infraspinatus Muscle

As I mentioned, there are 16 muscles that move your shoulder in all the directions you do every day.  It is important to have each of the muscles free of spasms in order to have full range-of-motion. With that said, here is the self-treatment for the infraspinatus muscle.

You can use a slightly used tennis ball to treat the muscle, although it may be too soft to be effective. I’ve found a new tennis ball may be too hard. I strongly recommend that you never use a lacrosse ball as it is much too hard and could easily bruise the bone. A bone bruise can cause pain for up to a year, so it’s certainly something to avoid.

I prefer my Perfect Ball because it is solid in the center and has a layer of softness around the outside.  This softness enables you to work deeply into the muscle without potentially bruising the bone.

The pictures below show you where the muscle is located and where to place the ball.  You can either lean into the ball on a wall, or you can lie on the floor as shown below.

When you locate a “hot spot,” where it hurts as you press on the point, just stay there for 30 seconds.

Next, release the pressure for 5 seconds to allow blood to flow into the muscle, and then press into the muscle again.  Continue this until it no longer hurts, and then look for another point. Repeat this on each painful point to enable a full release of tension and relieve pain and stiffness.

Even without working on the other muscles of the shoulder, you’ll get considerable relief by treating the infraspinatus muscle.

Have You Listened To My TEDx Talk?

The title is “The Pain Question No One Is Asking.”  It points a finger at a HUGE missing piece in our health care, one that affects millions of people.  The topic is controversial, so much so that it almost wasn’t approved because it asks a question that certain people don’t want brought to light.

You can see it by going to YouTube and putting in “Julie Donnelly, Pain”.

Please “like” and “share” it with others so TED will see that this is a subject people want to know more about.  Thanks!

Looking Ahead To October

Next month we will be looking at the #2 most prevalent pain problem in the USA.  Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is debilitating, and incredibly painful.  I know because CTS shut down my therapy practice in 1997.  I’ll tell you the short version of that situation and how it was the catalyst for me developing the self-treatments that reversed it for me. I’m happy to say that the self-treatments I developed have also helped hundreds of people around the world eliminate this problem from their lives.

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.

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

by

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

low carb dietAtkins, South Beach, Whole30, Low Carb, high Fat, Low Carb Paleo, and Keto. Low carb diets come in many forms. But they have these general characteristics:

  • They restrict carbohydrate intake to <40% of calories.
  • They restrict grains, cereals, legumes, and other carbohydrate foods such as dairy, fruits, and some vegetables.
  • They replace these foods with foods higher in fat and protein such as meats, eggs, cheese, butter, cream, and oils.
  • When recommended for weight loss, they generally restrict calories.

What about the science? Dr. Strangelove and his friends tell you that low carb diets are better for weight loss, blood sugar control, and are more heart healthy than other diets. But these claims are controversial.

Why is that? I have discussed this in previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. Here is the short version.

  • Most studies on the benefits of low carb diets compare them with the typical American diet.
    • The typical American diet is high in fat, sugar and refined flour, and highly processed foods. Anything is better than the typical American diet.
  • Most low carb diets are whole food diets.
    • Any time you replace sodas and highly processed foods with whole foods you will lose weight and improve your health.
  • Most low carb diets are highly structured. There are rules for which foods to avoid, which foods to eat, and often additional rules to follow.
    • Any highly structured diet causes you to focus on what you eat. When you do that, you lose weight. When you lose weight, your health parameters improve.
    • As I have noted before, short term weight loss and improvement in health parameters are virtually identical for the very low carb keto diet and the very low-fat vegan diet.

With all this uncertainty you are probably wondering, “What is the truth about low carb diets?”

A recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration (CE Naude et al, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 28 January 2022) was designed to answer this question.

The Cochrane Collaboration is considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. To help you understand why this is, I will repeat a summary of how the Cochrane Collaboration approaches clinical studies that I shared two weeks ago.

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

ghost bustersWho you gonna call? It’s not Ghostbusters. It’s not Dr. Strangelove’s health blog. It’s a group called the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration consists of 30,000 volunteer scientific experts from across the globe whose sole mission is to analyze the scientific literature and publish reviews of health claims so that health professionals, patients, and policy makers can make evidence-based choices about health interventions.

In one sense, Cochrane reviews are what is called a “meta-analysis”, in which data from numerous studies are grouped together so that a statistically significant conclusion can be reached. However, Cochrane Collaboration reviews differ from most meta-analyses found in the scientific literature in a very significant way.

Many published meta-analyses simply report “statistically significant” conclusions. However, statistics can be misleading. As Mark Twain said: “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics”.

The Cochrane Collaboration also reports statistically significant conclusions from their meta-analyses. However, they carefully consider the quality of each individual study in their analysis. They look at possible sources of bias. They look at the design and size of the studies. Finally, they ask whether the conclusions are consistent from one study to the next. They clearly define the quality of evidence that backs up each of their conclusions as follows:

  • High-quality evidence. Further research is unlikely to change their conclusion. This is generally reserved for conclusions backed by multiple high-quality studies that have all come to the same conclusion. These are the recommendations that are most often adopted into medical practice.
  • Moderate-quality evidence. This conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.
  • Low-quality evidence. Further research is needed and could alter the conclusion. They are not judging whether the conclusion is true or false. They are simply saying more research is needed to reach a definite conclusion.

This is why their reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. If you are of a certain age, you may remember that TV commercial “When EF Hutton talks, people listen.” It is the same with the Cochrane Collaboration. When they talk, health professionals listen.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe authors of this Cochrane Collaboration Report included 61 published clinical trials that randomized participants into two groups.

  • The first group was put on a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories).
  • The second group was put on a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories, as recommended by the USDA and most health authorities).
    • The normal carbohydrate diet was matched with the low carbohydrate diet in terms of caloric restriction.
    • Both diets were designed by dietitians and were generally whole food diets.

The participants in these studies:

  • Were middle-aged.
  • Were overweight or obese.
  • Did not have diagnosed heart disease or cancer.
  • May have diagnosed type-2 diabetes. Some studies selected participants that had diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Other studies excluded those patients.

The studies were of 3 types:

  • Short-term: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for 3 to <12 months.
  • Long-term: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for >12 to 24 months.
  • Short-term with maintenance: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for 3 months followed by a 9-month maintenance phase.

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

The TruthAll the studies included in the Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis randomly assigned overweight participants to a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories) or to a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories) with the same degree of caloric restriction.

If low carb diets have any benefit in terms of weight loss, improving blood sugar control, or reducing heart disease risk, these are the kind of studies that are required to validate that claim.

This is what the Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis showed.

When they analyzed studies done with overweight participants without type 2 diabetes:

  • Weight loss was not significantly different between low carb and normal carb diets in short-term studies (3 to <12 months), long-term studies (>12 to 24 months), and short-term studies followed by a 9-month maintenance period.
  • There was also no significant difference in the effect of low carb and normal carb diets on the reduction in diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Since diabetics have trouble controlling blood sugar, you might expect that type 2 diabetics would respond better to low carb diets. However, when they analyzed studies done with overweight participants who had type 2 diabetes:

  • Weight loss was also not significantly different on low carb and normal carb diets.
  • There was no significant difference in the effect of low carb and normal carb diets on the reduction in diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c, a measure of blood sugar control.

Of course, the reason Cochrane Collaboration analyses are so valuable is they also analyze the strength of the studies that were included in their analysis.

You may remember in my article two weeks ago, I reported on the Cochrane Collaboration’s report supporting the claim that omega-3 supplementation reduces pre-term births. In that report they said that the studies included in their analysis were high quality. Therefore, they said their report was definitive and no more studies were needed.

This analysis was different. The authors of this Cochrane Collaboration report said that the published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

confusionIf you are a bit confused by the preceding section, I understand. That was a lot of information to take in. Let me give you the Cliff Notes version.

In short, this Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

  • Low carb diets (<40% of calories from carbohydrates) are no better than diets with normal carbohydrate content (45-65% of calories from carbohydrates) with respect to weight loss, reduction in heart disease risk factors, and blood sugar control. Dr. Strangelove has been misleading you again.
  • This finding is equally true for people with and without type 2 diabetes. This calls into question the claim that people with type 2 diabetes will do better on a low carb diet.
  • The published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

If you are thinking this study can’t be true because low carb diets work for you, that is because you are comparing low carb diets to your customary diet, probably the typical American diet.

  • Remember that any whole food diet that eliminates sodas and processed foods and restricts the foods you eat will cause you to lose weight. Whole food keto and vegan diets work equally well short-term compared to the typical American diet.
  • And any diet that allows you to lose weight improves heart health parameters and blood sugar control.

If you are thinking about the blogs, books, and videos you have seen extolling the virtues of low carb diets, remember that the Dr. Strangeloves of the world only select studies comparing low carb diets to the typical American diet to support their claims.

  • The studies included in this Cochrane Collaboration report randomly assigned participants to the low carb and normal carb diets and followed them for 3 to 24 months.
    • Both diets were whole food diets designed by dietitians.
    • Both diets reduced caloric intake to the same extent.

What about the claims that low carb diets are better for your long-term health? There are very few studies on that topic. Here are two:

  • At the 6.4-year mark a recent study reported that the group with the lowest carbohydrate intake had an increased risk of premature death – 32% for overall mortality, 50% for cardiovascular mortality, 51% for cerebrovascular mortality, and 36% for cancer mortality. I will analyze this study in a future issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.
  • At the 20-year mark a series of studies reported that:
    • Women consuming a meat-based low carb diet for 20 years gained just as much weight and had just as high risk of heart disease and diabetes as women consuming a high carbohydrate, low fat diet.
    • However, women consuming a plant-based low carb diet for 20 years gained less weight and had reduced risk of developing heart disease and diabetes as women consuming a high carbohydrate, low fat diet.

My recommendation is to avoid low-carb diets. They have no short-term benefits when compared to a healthy diet that does not eliminate food groups. And they may be bad for you in the long run. Your best bet is a whole food diet that includes all food groups but eliminates sodas, sweets, and processed foods.

However, if you are committed to a low carb diet, my recommendation is to choose the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet. It is likely to be healthy long term.

The Bottom Line 

The Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, recently issued a report that evaluated the claims made for low carb diets.

All the studies analyzed in the Cochrane Collaboration’s report randomly assigned overweight participants to a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories) or to a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories) with the same degree of caloric restriction.

If low carb diets have any benefit in terms of weight loss, improving blood sugar control, or reducing heart disease risk, these are the kind of studies that are required to validate that claim.

The Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

  • Low carb diets (<40% of calories from carbohydrates) are no better than diets with normal carbohydrate content (45-65% of calories from carbohydrates) with respect to weight loss, reduction in heart disease risk factors, and blood sugar control.
  • This is equally true for people with and without type 2 diabetes.
  • The published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

My recommendation is to avoid low carb diets. They have no short-term benefits when compared to a healthy diet that does not eliminate food groups. And they may be bad for you in the long run. Your best bet is a whole food diet that includes all food groups but eliminates sodas, sweets, and processed foods.

However, if you are committed to a low carb diet, my recommendation is to choose the low carb version of the Mediterranean diet. It is likely to be healthy long term.

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

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

Does Processed Food Give You Gas?

by

Why Does Processed Food Give You Gas?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Does it feel like a war is going on in your belly every time you eat? It could be IBD (inflammatory bowel disease). IBD can take several forms, but the two most common are Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

What do we know about IBD?

  • The symptoms of IBD can make you miserable. They include:
    • Abdominal pain and cramping.
    • Diarrhea with occasional bouts of constipation.
    • Gas and bloating.
    • Loss of appetite and/or unexpected weight loss.
  • There are about 1.6 million Americans with IBD and 70,000 new cases/year.
    • The prevalence of IBD in the United States has increased by 34% between 2006 and 2016.
  • As you might suspect from its name, IBD is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract.
    • It is thought to be caused by “dysbiosis of the gastrointestinal track” (In layman’s terms that means damage to your intestine caused by too many bad bacteria and not enough good bacteria).
    • There is also a genetic component to the disease. Some people are much more susceptible to IBD than others.

If you watch TV, you know that there are drugs for treating IBD. The ads make them sound like miracle drugs. But if you listen carefully, you also know that these drugs have a long list of side effects. And some of the side effects are pretty scary.

Are There Natural Approaches For Controlling IBD?

BacteriaSo, if your belly is a bit rumbly, you might be wondering if there is a more natural approach you could take. We know that diet affects the balance between bad and good bacteria in our intestine. Could something as simple as changing your diet, quell the fire in your belly?

While the answer seems obvious, it has been hard to prove. The results of previous studies have been inconclusive. That is because previous studies:

  • Included too few people. 1.6 million people in the US with IBD may sound like a lot, but that represents only 0.4% of the population. Unless you have a really big study, there won’t be enough people who develop IBD to give you statistically significant results.
  • Were too short. IBD doesn’t develop overnight.
  • Did not include a diverse enough population. Previous studies were confined to individual countries or specific regions within a country.

This study (N Narula et al, British Medical Journal, 2021;374:n1554) was designed to overcome the limitations of previous studies. It also looked at the effect of diet on IBD from a different perspective than most previous studies.

  • It did not focus on the effect of individual foods on IBD. Since consumption of processed foods is known to affect the population of intestinal bacteria, the authors of this study asked whether processed food consumption might influence the likelihood of developing IBD.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe authors of this study used data collected from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016. The PURE study collected data from a very diverse population. Specifically, it collected data from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries across 7 geographical regions (Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China).

  • This study followed 116,087 adults aged 35-70 years (average age 50, percent women = 60%) in the PURE study for an average of 9.7 years. During that time, 467 participants (0.4%) developed IBD.
  • All participants filled out a baseline food-frequency questionnaire that had been designed and validated for foods specific to their country.
  • Participants were asked if they had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis as part of an annual follow-up questionnaire. To assure the accuracy of these answers they were validated with medical records whenever possible.

Does Processed Food Give You Gas?

Does processed food give you gas? Does it give you abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloating? In short, does it give you IBD? That is the question this study was designed to answer. Here are the results of the study:

  • When comparing those eating the most processed food (≥5 servings/day) to those consuming the least (≤1 serving/day), processed food consumption increased the risk of developing IBD by 1.82-fold. This finding was equally true for:
    • Both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
    • Adults <50 and adults >50.
    • Every region of the world included in the PURE study.
  • When the investigators looked at different categories of processed foods:
    • Processed meat intake increased the risk of IBD by 2.07-fold.
    • Soft drink intake increased the risk of IBD by 1.94-fold.
    • Refined sweetened food intake increased the risk of IBD by 2.58-fold.
    • Salty food and snack intake increased the risk of IBD by 2.06-fold.
  • When the investigators looked at different categories of unprocessed foods:
    • White meat, red meat, dairy, starchy foods, fruits, vegetables, and legumes had no effect on the risk of developing IBD.
    • Sodium intake (as measured by urinary excretion of sodium) also had no effect on the risk of developing IBD.

Why Does Processed Food Give You Gas?

Question MarkYou may be wondering why does processed food give you gas – and other symptoms of IBD.

The simplest explanation is that whole grains, unprocessed fruits & vegetables, and legumes provide the fiber that supports the growth of friendly gut bacteria. Processed foods displace these foods from our diet.

But these investigators think something else about processed foods may be contributing to the increased risk of IBD. That is because in their study:

  • Processed meat increased the risk of IBD, but unprocessed white and red meat had no effect on IBD.
  • Processed sweetened foods increased the risk of IBD, but unprocessed starchy foods and naturally sweet fruits had no effect on IBD.
  • Processed salty foods and snacks increased the risk of IBD, but sodium intake had no effect on IBD.

The investigators also noted that in mouse studies:

  • Some food additives found in processed foods cause bacteria to stick to the epithelial lining of the intestine and/or cause leaky gut syndrome, both of which can lead to chronic inflammation of the intestine.

The investigators concluded, “In this study, higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with a higher risk of IBD.”

They went on to say, “As white meat, unprocessed red meat, dairy, starchy foods, fruits, vegetables, and legumes were not found to be associated with development of IBD, this study suggests that it may not be the food itself that confers this risk but rather the way the food is processed or ultra-processed…Further studies are needed to identify specific potential contributing factors among processed foods that might be responsible for the observed associations in our study.”

[Note: This is a fancy way of saying that the detrimental effects of processed foods may be due to more than the fact that they displace healthier foods from the diet. It may also be due to the effect of food additives on the risk of developing IBD.]

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanIBD is a rare disease (0.4% of the population). If you don’t have digestive issues, it would be easy to ignore this study and continue with a diet of highly processed foods.

However, I would remind you that in recent issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, I have shared recent studies showing that highly processed foods increase your risk of:

And these studies are just the tip of the iceberg. We know that diets rich in whole grains and unprocessed fruits and vegetables decrease the risk of heart attack, stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease. And a diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables is the antithesis of a processed food diet.

The evidence is overwhelming. Highly processed foods may be convenient and tasty. But if you value your health, they are not your friends.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study looked at the effect of consuming processed foods on the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The study found:

  • When comparing those eating the most processed food (≥5 servings/day) to those consuming the least (≤1 serving/day), processed food consumption increased the risk of developing IBD by 1.82-fold. This finding was equally true for:
    • Both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
    • Adults <50 and adults >50.
    • Every region of the world included in the study.

The investigators concluded, “In this study, higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with a higher risk of IBD.”

They went on to say, “…This study suggests that it may not be the food itself that confers this risk but rather the way the food is processed or ultra-processed…Further studies are needed to identify specific potential contributing factors among processed foods that might be responsible for the observed associations in our study.”

[Note: This is a fancy way of saying that the detrimental effect of processed foods may be due to more than the fact that they displace healthier foods from the diet. It may also be due to the effect of food additives commonly found in processed foods on the risk of developing IBD.]

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

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

Dealing With A Bone Bruise

by

My Bone Bruise Experience

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

sunAugust is here and it’s hot in Florida, but that’s why we have air conditioning in our homes, offices, and cars…so that’s okay.  Meanwhile, we can enjoy outdoor sports in the morning, or later in the afternoon after the sun starts to go down.  Or, if you like sunning yourself at the beach, just avoid the strongest sun in the early afternoon.

In late May and June, I spent a good bit of time up north. In May I was in New York for my granddaughter’s college graduation, and in mid-June I was invited to Montreal to help a group of people who had tight muscles and long-standing pain.

As you probably know, I love sharing my work.  I think one of the most important things I do is teaching people how to do self-treatments, so they know how to stop pain FAST!  I was able to do that in Montreal and it was fulfilling for me, and certainly beneficial for the people I worked with.  I’d love to teach all over the USA, and the world!  Hopefully this trip was just the first of many!

In July I had several conversations with people about bone bruises.  It’s always interesting how a topic I had already planned on discussing ends up being a part of conversations with clients.  I guess it’s just confirmation that this is an important topic.

My Bone Bruise Experience

Foot PainSeveral years ago, I was in Hawaii visiting friends.  I used to live in Honolulu, so I had a lot of friends I wanted to see. I set out walking to visit one and by the end of the day I had walked at least seven miles all over town vising different friends.  That was fun, but the problem was, I was in flip-flops.

It ended up being a two-fold problem since every step I took my toes would curl down to hold on my flip-flops.  This overstrained the muscles that are underneath and next to the Achilles tendon.  But that’s another story for another time.

As I stepped off a curb my left heel hit the curb and my heel crashed down onto the road.  I hit it so hard I thought I had to have broken it.  At the minimum I thought I had cracked the bone.  Limping I headed back to my friend’s house and put ice on my foot.

The pain never lessened so I went for an x-ray.  The x-ray showed it wasn’t cracked or broken and I was told it would just heal.  Nice thought.  Months passed, I couldn’t put any weight on my heel, and nothing helped it.

It didn’t matter if I used ice or heat, lifted my leg up onto a chair or had my foot on the floor. Cushions in my shoe didn’t help, neither did rubbing it.  The ache went all the way up my leg and into my hip, so I was limping because of my foot, and I was limping because of hip pain.  Yikes!

That’s when I learned about bone bruises.

Dealing With A Bone Bruise

Inflammed HeelGoogle, who knows everything, wasn’t much help.  It told me that “a bone bruise is a traumatic injury” – you think!!

Then it said:

“A bone bruise causes blood and fluid to build up in and around your injured bone: You may have symptoms such as pain, swelling, and a change in color of the injured area.

Most bone bruises eventually heal without any problems. If your bone bruise is very large, your body may have trouble getting blood flow back to the area.”

In any case, I had 3 different x-rays because I couldn’t believe you could have this much pain without having a broken bone.  All of them showed that the bone was definitely not broken.

It took a full year for the pain to stop!

So, I learned two lessons…

1 – Don’t do anything that can bruise a bone.

2 – If I do get a bone bruise, just realize it will really hurt for a long time, nothing works to ease the pain, and eventually it will just go away.

It’s pretty hard to live life and never do anything that could bruise a bone, so just do your best.  It’s one of the reasons I looked for the Perfect Ball that I use when I teach clients how to relieve muscle spasms. I give a Perfect Ball to every client who comes to my office or buys one of my books since I want them to have a great ball that won’t bruise the bone.

One important suggestion is to never use a baseball, golf ball (on your arch), or lacrosse ball, as these can easily cause a bone bruise.

Here’s hoping you never have a bad bone bruise, but if you do, chin up and know it will eventually heal.

Coming Next Month

The summer is a great time for swimming!  It’s hot out and swimming refreshes the body, plus it’s a wonderful form of exercise.

The muscles of the shoulder get strained if you are swimming for extended lengths of time, so that will be our topic of the month.

Treat Yourself To Pain-Free Living

Not only is this the name of my self-treatment book, it’s also a wonderful way to live…..pain-free!

pain free living book

 

The book has:

 

*Lots of information about “why” and “how” muscles cause pain

 

*Over 200 pictures showing you how to release tight muscles

 

*Simple instructions for treating each muscle

For only $47 (plus S&H) you can have direction to find and self-treat aches and pains from your head to your feet!  It’s easy-to-read and easy-to-do.  You don’t need to stay in pain when you can Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living.

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.

Omega-3s Reduce Preterm Births

by

Do Omega-3s Make For A Healthy Pregnancy?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

omega-3s during pregnancy is healthyThe role of omega-3s on a healthy pregnancy has been in the news for some time. Claims have been made that omega-3s reduce preterm births, postnatal depression, and improve cognition, IQ, vision, mental focus, language, and behavior in the newborn as they grow.

The problem is that almost all these claims have been called into question by other studies. If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, you don’t know what to believe.

  • Should you eat more fish?
  • Should you take omega-3 supplements?
  • Or should you just ignore the claims about omega-3s and a healthy pregnancy?

These are not trivial questions. Let’s consider preterm births as an example. The medical profession has made enormous advances in keeping premature babies alive. However, premature babies are still at higher risk of several health conditions including:

  • Visual impairment.
  • Developmental Delay.
  • Learning difficulties.

Plus, it is expensive to keep premature babies alive. One recent study estimated that increasing omega-3 intake during pregnancy could reduce health care costs by around $6 billion in the United Stated alone.

Unfortunately, it’s not just omega-3s and pregnancy. The same is true for almost all nutritional health claims. One day a study comes out claiming that nutrient “X” cures some disease or has some miraculous benefit. The bloggers and news media hype that study. Suddenly you see that health claim everywhere. It becomes so omnipresent that you are tempted to believe it must be true.

But wait. A few months later another study comes to opposite conclusion. Now the media is telling you that health claim is false. The months come and go, and new studies keep coming out. Some support the health claim. Others refute it.

Pretty soon the nutrition headlines just become “noise”. You don’t know what to believe. If you want the truth, “Who ya gonna call?”

Who Ya Gonna Call?

ghost bustersIt’s not Ghostbusters. It not Dr. Strangelove’s health blog. It’s a group called the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration consists of 30,000 volunteer scientific experts from across the globe whose sole mission is to analyze the scientific literature and publish reviews of health claims so that health professionals, patients, and policy makers can make evidence-based choices about health interventions.

The Cochrane Collaboration reviews all the relevant studies on a topic, exclude those that are biased or weak, and make their recommendations based on only the strongest studies. Their reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.

If you are of a certain age, you may remember that TV commercial “When EF Hutton talks, people listen.” It is the same with the Cochrane Collaboration. When they talk, health professionals listen.

This week we will examine the Cochrane Collaboration’s review titled “Omega-3 Fatty Acid Addition During Pregnancy”.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyFor this analysis the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 70 randomized controlled trials which compared the effect of added omega-3s on pregnancy outcomes with either a placebo or a diet no added omega-3s. These trials included almost 19,927 pregnant women.

In one sense, Cochrane reviews are what is called a “meta-analysis”, in which data from numerous studies are grouped together so that a statistically significant conclusion can be reached. However, Cochrane Collaboration reviews differ from most meta-analyses found in the scientific literature in a very significant way.

Many published meta-analyses simply report “statistically significant” conclusions. However, statistics can be misleading. As Mark Twain said: “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics”.

The problem is that the authors of most meta-analyses group studies together without considering the quality of studies included in their analysis. This creates a “Garbage In – Garbage Out” effect. If the quality of individual studies is low, the quality of the meta-analysis will also be low. Simply put, the conclusions from some published meta-analyses are not worth the paper they are written on.

The Cochrane Collaboration also reports statistically significant conclusions from their meta-analyses. However, they also carefully consider the quality of each individual study in their analysis. They look at possible sources of bias. They look at the design and size of the studies. Finally, they ask whether the conclusions are consistent from one study to the next. They clearly define the quality of evidence that backs up each of their conclusions as follows:

  • High-quality evidence. Further research is unlikely to change their conclusion. This is generally reserved for conclusions backed by multiple high-quality studies that have all come to the same conclusion. These are the recommendations that are most often adopted into medical practice.
  • Moderate-quality evidence. This conclusion is likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.
  • Low-quality evidence. Further research is needed and could alter the conclusion. They are not judging whether the conclusion is true or false. They are simply saying more research is needed to reach a definite conclusion.

Omega-3s Reduce Preterm Births

clinically provenHere are the conclusions that the Cochrane Collaboration said were supported by high-quality evidence:

  • Omega-3s reduce the risk of preterm births.
  • Omega-3s reduce the risk of low-birth-weight infants.

The authors concluded: “Omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the risk of preterm birth…More studies comparing omega-3s and placebo are not needed at this point.”

In other words, they are saying this conclusion is definite. Omega-3 supplementation should become part of the standard of medical care for pregnant women.

However, they did say that further studies were needed “…to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3s, timing [stage of pregnancy], doses [of omega-3s], or by characteristics of women.”

That’s because these variables were not analyzed in the Cochrane study. Their review and meta-analysis included clinical trials:

  • Of women at low, moderate, and high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes.
  • With DHA alone, with EPA alone, and with a mixture of both.
  • Omega-3 doses that were low (˂ 500 mg/day), moderate (500-1,000 mg/day), and high (> 1,000 mg/day).

Do Omega-3s Make For A Healthy Pregnancy?

What about the effect of omega-3s on other pregnancy outcomes?

The conclusions the Cochrane Collaboration said were supported by moderate quality evidence included reductions in:

  • Perinatal death.
  • Admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit.

There was not enough high or moderate quality data to determine the effect of omega-3s on other pregnancy outcomes such as postnatal depression. More research is still needed in those areas. However, if you do receive any of these benefits from omega-3 supplementation, you can just consider them as side benefits.

What Does This Report Mean For You?

pregnant women taking omega-31) The proven effect of omega-3 supplementation on preterm births is significant because preterm births increase the risk of:

  • Visual impairment.
  • Developmental Delay.
  • Learning difficulties.

2) The likely effect of omega-3s on admission to neonatal intensive care units is significant because those units are very expensive.

3) The Cochrane study did not determine whether omega-3 supplementation was equally important for women at low, moderate, and high likelihood of poor pregnancy outcomes.

  • Therefore, omega-3 supplementation should be considered for all pregnant women.

4) The Cochrane study did not determine whether omega-3 supplementation was equally important during the first, second, or third trimester.

  • Therefore, omega-3 supplementation should be considered by all women of childbearing age who might become pregnant and throughout pregnancy.

5) The Cochrane study did not determine whether DHA, EPA, or a mixture of the two was most effective.

  • Therefore, your omega-3 supplement should probably contain both DHA and EPA. A group of experts recently recommended  that adults consume at least 650 mg/day of omega-3s with ≥ 220 mg of that coming from DHA and ≥ 220 mg/day coming from EPA.
  • Since most pregnant women in this country consume around 89 mg/day of DHA + EPA, omega-3 supplementation is warranted.

The Bottom Line 

The effect of omega-3s on pregnancy outcomes have been confusing. Some studies conclude that omega-3s are important for a healthy pregnancy. Other studies suggest they are ineffective. What are you to believe?

Fortunately, a group called the Cochrane Collaboration recently conducted a comprehensive review of this topic. This is significant because Cochrane Reviews are internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care. They influence the treatment protocols recommended by the medical community.

This Cochrane Review concluded that omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy:

  • Reduces preterm births and low birth weight infants.
  • Likely reduces perinatal death and admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit.

The authors of the review said: “Omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the risk of preterm birth…More studies comparing omega-3s and placebo are not needed at this point.”

In other words, they are saying this conclusion is definite. Omega-3 supplementation should become part of the standard of medical care for pregnant women.

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

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

Vitamin D And ADHD

by

Can ADHD Be Prevented?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

vitamin dIf you are pregnant, or of childbearing age, should you be supplementing with vitamin D? Increasingly, the answer appears to be yes.

  1. Based on blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels (considered the most accurate marker of vitamin D status):
    • 8-11% of pregnant women in the US are deficient in vitamin D (<30 nmol/L).
    • 25% of pregnant women have insufficient vitamin D status (30-49 nmol/L).

In short, that means around 1/3 of pregnant women in the US have insufficient or deficient levels of vitamin D. The effect of inadequate vitamin D during pregnancy is not just an academic question.

2) The Cochrane Collaboration (considered the gold standard for evidence-based medicine) has recently concluded that supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of significant complications during pregnancy.

3) Another recent study found that inadequate vitamin D status during pregnancy delayed several neurodevelopmental milestones in early childhood, including gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and social development.

If neurodevelopmental milestones are affected, what about ADHD? Here the evidence is not as clear. Some studies have concluded that vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD in the offspring. Other studies have concluded there is no effect of vitamin D deficiency on ADHD.

Why the discrepancy between studies?

  • Most of the previous studies have been small. Simply put, there were too few children in the study to make statistically reliable conclusions.
  • Most of the studies measured maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the third trimester or in chord blood at birth. However, it is during early pregnancy that critical steps in the development of the nervous system take place.

Thus, there is a critical need for larger studies that measure maternal vitamin D status in the first trimester of pregnancy. This study (M Sucksdorff et al, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60: 142-151, 2021) was designed to fill that need.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study compared 1,067 Finnish children born between 1998 and 1999 who were subsequently diagnosed with ADHD and 1,067 matched controls without ADHD. There were several reasons for choosing this experimental group.

  • Finland is among the northernmost European countries, so sun exposure during the winter is significantly less than for the United States and most other European countries. This time period also preceded the universal supplementation with vitamin D for pregnant women that was instituted in 2004.

Consequently, maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were significantly lower than in most other countries. This means that a significant percentage of pregnant women were deficient in vitamin D, something not seen in most other studies. For example:

  • 49% of pregnant women in Finland were deficient in vitamin D (25-hydoxyvitamin D <30 nmol/L) compared to 8-11% in the United States.
  • 33% of pregnant women in Finland had insufficient vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D 30-49.9 nmol/L) compared to 25% in the United States.
  • Finland, like many European countries, keeps detailed health records on its citizens. For example:
    • The Finnish Prenatal Study collected data, including maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels during the first trimester), for all live births between 1991 and 2005.
    • The Care Register for Health Care recorded, among other things, all diagnoses of ADHD through 2011.

Thus, this study avoided the limitations of earlier studies. It was ideally positioned to compare maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels during the first trimester of pregnancy with a subsequent diagnosis of ADHD in the offspring. The long-term follow-up was important to this study because the average age of ADHD diagnosis was 7 years (range = 2-14 years).

Vitamin D And ADHD 

Child With ADHDDoes maternal vitamin D affect ADHD in the offspring? The answer to this question appears to be a clear, yes.

If you divide maternal vitamin D levels into quintiles:

  • Offspring of mothers in the lowest vitamin D quintile (25-hydroxyvitamin D of 7.5-21.9 nmol/L) were 53% more likely to develop ADHD than offspring of mothers in the highest vitamin D quintile (49.5-132.5 nmol/L).

When you divide maternal vitamin D levels by the standard designations of deficient (<30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49.9 nmol/L), and sufficient (≥50 nmol/L):

  • Offspring of mothers who were deficient in vitamin D were 34% more likely to develop ADHD than children of mothers with sufficient vitamin D status.

The authors concluded: “This is the first population-based study to demonstrate an association between low maternal vitamin D during the first trimester of pregnancy and an elevated risk for ADHD diagnosis in offspring. If these findings are replicated, they may have public health implications for vitamin D supplementation and perhaps changing lifestyle behaviors during pregnancy to ensure optimal maternal vitamin D levels.”

Can ADHD Be Prevented? 

Child Raising HandI realize that this is an emotionally charged title. If you have a child with ADHD, the last thing I want is for you to feel guilty about something you may not have done. So, let me start by acknowledging that there are genetic and environmental risk factors for ADHD that you cannot control. That means you could have done everything right during pregnancy and still have a child who develops ADHD.

Having said that, let’s examine things that can be done to reduce the risk of giving birth to a child who will develop ADHD, starting with vitamin D. There are two aspects of this study that are important to keep in mind.

#1: The increased risk of giving birth to a child who develops ADHD was only seen for women who were vitamin D deficient. While vitamin D deficiency is only found in 8-11% of pregnant mothers in the United States, that is an average number. It is more useful to ask who is most likely to be vitamin D deficient in this country. For example:

  • Fatty fish and vitamin D-fortified dairy products are the most important food sources of vitamin D. Fatty fish are not everyone’s favorite and may be too expensive for those on a tight budget. Many people are lactose intolerant or avoid milk for other reasons. If you are not eating these foods, you may not be getting enough vitamin D from your diet. This is particularly true for vegans.
  • If you have darker colored skin, you may have trouble making enough vitamin D from sunlight. If you are also lactose intolerant, you are in double trouble with respect to vitamin D sufficiency.
  • Obesity affects the distribution of vitamin D in the body. So, if you are overweight, you may have low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in your blood.
  • The vitamin D RDA for pregnant and lactating women is 600 IU, but many multivitamin and prenatal supplements only provide 400 IU. If you are pregnant or of childbearing age, it is a good idea to look for a multivitamin or prenatal supplement that provides at least 600 IU, especially if you are in one of the high risk groups listed above.
  • Some experts recommend 2,000 to 4,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D. I would not recommend exceeding that amount without discussing it with your health care provider first.
  • Finally, for reasons we do not understand, some people have a difficult time converting vitamin D to the active 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in their bodies. If you are pregnant or of childbearing age, it is a good idea to have your blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels determined and discuss with your health care provider how much vitamin D you should be taking. Many people need more than 600 IU to reach vitamin D sufficiency status.

#2: Maternal vitamin D deficiency has a relatively small effect (34%) on the risk of the offspring developing ADHD. That means assuring adequate vitamin D status during pregnancy should be part of a holistic approach for reducing ADHD risk. Other factors to consider are:No Fast Food

  • Low maternal folate and omega-3 status.
  • Smoking, drug, and alcohol use.
  • Obesity.
  • Sodas and highly processed foods.

Alone, each of these factors has a small and uncertain influence on the risk of your child developing ADHD. Together, they may play a significant role in determining your child’s risk of developing ADHD.

In closing, there are three take-home lessons I want to leave you with:

  1. The first is that there is no “magic bullet”. There is no single action you can take during pregnancy that will dramatically reduce your risk of giving birth to a child who will develop ADHD. Improving your vitamin D, folate, and omega-3 status; avoiding cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol; achieving a healthy weight; and eating a healthy diet are all part of a holistic approach for reducing the risk of your child developing ADHD.

2) The second is that we should not think of these actions solely in terms of reducing ADHD risk. Each of these actions will lead to a healthier pregnancy and a healthier child in many other ways.

3) Finally, if you have a child with ADHD and would like to reduce the symptoms without drugs, I recommend this article.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study looked at the correlation between maternal vitamin D status during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of ADHD in the offspring. The study found:

  • Offspring of mothers who were deficient in vitamin D were 34% more likely to develop ADHD than children of mothers with sufficient vitamin D status.

The authors concluded: “This is the first population-based study to demonstrate an association between low maternal vitamin D during the first trimester of pregnancy and an elevated risk for ADHD diagnosis in offspring. If these findings are replicated, they may have public health implications for vitamin D supplementation and perhaps changing lifestyle behaviors during pregnancy to ensure optimal maternal vitamin D levels.”

In the article above I discuss what this study means for you and other factors that increase the risk of giving birth to a child who will develop ADHD.

For more details read the article above.

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

 

Health Tips From The Professor