Which Supplements Are Good For Your Heart?

February 7, 2023 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Should You Interpret This Study?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

The Good News is that between 2009 and 2019:

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

The Bad News is that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was This Study Done?

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

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

884 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies…

Of 27 types of micronutrients…

With a total of 883,627 patients…

Looking at the effectiveness of micronutrient supplementation lasting an average of 3 years on either…

- Cardiovascular risk factors like blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides…or…

- Cardiovascular outcomes such as coronary heart disease (CHD), heart attacks, strokes, and deaths due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all causes.

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

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

Which Supplements Are Good For Your Heart?

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

Omega-3 Fatty Acids:

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

Folic Acid:

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

Coenzyme Q10:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Should You Interpret This Study?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coenzyme Q10:

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

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

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

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

Omega-3s:

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

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

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

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

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

Folic acid:

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

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

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

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

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

Vitamins E and D:

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

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

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

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

β-carotene:

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Magnesium Protect Your Heart?

October 25, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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?

The 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?

You 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?

As 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:

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.

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.

Do Whole Grains Reduce Inflammation?

July 12, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Low Carb Diets Healthy Long Term?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Inflammation is a bit like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Acute inflammation plays a valuable role in our immune response. But chronic inflammation is a scourge. Chronic inflammation:

Is a key component of all the “itis” diseases.

Can lead to autoimmune diseases.

Is thought to play an important role in heart disease.

Is associated with many other diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBS).

While there are many causes of chronic inflammation, diet plays an important role. In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have described how an anti-inflammatory diet can quell the fires of chronic inflammation.

Fiber from unprocessed plant foods is a key component of an anti-inflammatory diet. But are all plant fibers equally effective at reducing inflammation? Here is what we know:

Fiber from whole grains, vegetables, and fruits have different chemical and physical characteristics and support the growth of different species of friendly bacteria in our intestines.

Previous studies have shown that higher intakes of dietary fiber are associated with lower risk of heart disease.

- Studies have suggested that fiber from whole grains may be more effective than fiber from fruits and vegetables at reducing heart disease risk.

Chronic inflammation is highly associated with the development of heart disease. This has led to the hypothesis that fiber from whole grains may be more effective than other plant fibers at reducing chronic inflammation.

- Some studies have supported this hypothesis, but they have all been done with middle-aged participants, not with elderly participants who characteristically have higher levels of inflammation.

The study (R Shivakoti et al, JAMA Network Open, 5(3): e225012, 2022) I will describe today was designed to:

Test the hypothesis that whole grain fiber is more effective than vegetable or fruit fiber at reducing inflammation.

Determine how important reducing inflammation is at reducing the risk of heart disease.

Extending these findings to an older population group.

How Was The Study Done?

The data for this study was obtained from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), a study designed to characterize factors influencing cardiovascular health in American adults aged 65 years or older. This study analyzed data from 4,125 participants (40% men, 95% white) who enrolled in the CHS study from 1989 to 1990.

These participants did not have heart disease at the time they were enrolled in the study. They had an average age of 72.6 at the beginning of the study and were followed for an average of 11.9 years. During that time 1,941 (47%) of them developed heart disease.

When the participants were enrolled in the study:

A food frequency questionnaire was administered to them by a trained dietitian to assess their long-term usual dietary intake. This information was used to assess:

- Their total fiber intake and…

- Their fiber intake from various dietary sources (whole grains, vegetables, and fruits).

Fasting blood samples were collected and used to analyze various markers of inflammation.

A follow-up via phone was conducted every 6 months to track an initial diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.

At the end of the study, the investigators analyzed:

The effect of total fiber and fiber from different food sources on the risk of developing heart disease.

The effect of total fiber and fiber from different food sources on inflammatory markers in the blood.

The extent to which decreased inflammation could explain the effect of whole grain fiber on reducing heart disease.

Do Whole Grains Reduce Inflammation?

With respect to inflammation:

Increased intake of total fiber was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory markers CRP, IL-1RA, and sCD163.

- Increased intake of fiber from whole grains was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory markers CRP, IL-6, and IL-1RA.

- Increased intake of vegetable fiber was not significantly associated with healthier levels of any inflammatory marker.

- Increased intake of fiber from fruits was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory marker sCD163.

With respect to cardiovascular disease:

Every 5g/day increase in total fiber decreased the risk of heart disease by 5%.

- Every 5g/day increase in fiber from whole grains decreased the risk of heart disease by 14%.

- Increased intake of fiber from vegetables and fruits did not have a statistically significant effect on the risk of heart disease.

Finally, when the investigators did a statistical analysis to determine to extent to which the effect of whole grain fiber on inflammation, could explain its effect on heart disease, they concluded:

The effect of whole grain fiber on inflammation could explain only about 16% of its effect on heart disease.

In the words of the authors, “In this prospective study of older adults, higher intakes of total fiber were associated with lower levels of various inflammatory markers, and this inverse association was primarily due to cereal fiber intake. Vegetable and fruit fiber intakes were not consistently associated with lower levels of inflammatory markers. These results suggest that specifically cereal fibers might be more effective in reducing systemic infection, which will need to be tested in interventional studies of specific populations.

In addition, cereal fiber was associated with a lower risk of CVD, although inflammation mediated less than 20% of the observed inverse association between cereal fiber and CVD. This suggests that the association of cereal fiber is primarily due to factors … other than systemic inflammation.”

Note: This conclusion underplays the role of fruit fiber in reducing inflammation. The statement is correct in saying only whole grain fiber reduces the inflammatory markers CRP, IL-6, and IL-1RA. However, both total fiber and fruit fiber increase the anti-inflammatory marker sCD163. That is why I chose to use the term “healthier levels” rather than lower or higher levels when describing the effects of whole grain and fruit fibers on markers of inflammation.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

#1: The biggest takeaway from this study is that whole grains are good for you.

This study shows that whole grain fiber decreases our risk of developing heart disease.

- This is fully consistent with multiple previous studies showing that whole grains decrease the risk of heart disease.

- Previous studies have also shown that whole grains reduce the risk of cancer and diabetes.

This study also suggests that whole grain fiber reduces chronic inflammation.

There are also some takeaways from this and previous studies that may not be so obvious.

#2: Fiber has many important benefits beyond its effect on inflammation. For example:

This study concluded that the reduction in inflammation only explained a small part of the beneficial effect of whole grain fiber on reducing heart disease risk.

That is because whole grain fiber also:

- Feeds friendly bacteria that improve gut function.

- Provides satiety that can result in reduced fat and calorie intake.

- Binds cholesterol, which improves blood cholesterol level.

- Slows the rate at which dietary sugar enters the bloodstream, which improves blood sugar control.

#3: Whole plant foods have many benefits beyond their fiber content.

This study concluded that whole grain fiber was more beneficial than fiber from fruits and vegetables at reducing inflammation and reducing the risk of heart disease.

However, we know that fresh fruits and vegetables are an essential part of an anti-inflammatory diet .

Previous studies have also shown that fruit and vegetables significantly decrease the risk of heart disease, stroke, and cancer.

That is because whole grains and unprocessed fruits and vegetables:

- Displace sugar, refined flour, and highly processed foods from the diet.

- Have a lower caloric density than processed foods, making it easier to achieve a healthy weight.

- Provide nutrients and phytonutrients not found in processed foods.

- Support a wide variety of healthy gut bacteria.

Are Low Carb Diets Healthy Long Term?

When you consider all the benefits of whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables, it brings us to the final take home message.

#4: Despite what Dr. Strangelove has told you, low-carb diets may not be healthy long term.

There are no long-term (10 or 20-year) studies of low-carb diets. We simply have no evidence to support the claim that they are healthy long term.

Most low-carb diets eliminate or severely limit fruits and whole grains. Considering the many health benefits they provide, it is unlikely that any diet that restricts them is healthy long term.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of plant fiber on inflammation and on heart disease.

With respect to inflammation the study found:

Increased intake of total fiber was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory markers CRP, IL-1RA, and sCD163.

- Increased intake of fiber from whole grains was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory markers CRP, IL-6, and IL-1RA.

- Increased intake of vegetable fiber was not significantly associated with healthier levels of any inflammatory marker.

- Increased intake of fiber from fruits was associated with healthier levels of the inflammatory marker sCD163.

With respect to cardiovascular disease:

Every 5g/day increase in total fiber decreased the risk of heart disease by 5%.

Every 5g/day increase in fiber from whole grains decreased the risk of heart disease by 14%.

1. The biggest takeaway from this study is that whole grains are good for you.

Other takeaways from this and previous studies are:

2) Fiber has many important benefits beyond its effect on inflammation.

3) Whole plant foods have many benefits beyond their fiber content.

4) Despite what Dr. Strangelove has told you, low-carb diets may not be healthy long term.

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

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

Do Calcium Supplements Increase Deaths From Heart Valve Disease?

June 14, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Did This Study Get Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

“Killer calcium” is back. Once again, we are seeing headlines saying that calcium supplementation increases our risk of dying from heart disease. If you have seen these headlines, you are probably confused.

After all, there have been three major clinical studies looking at the effect of calcium supplementation on heart disease risk. These studies followed close to 100,000 Americans for 10-20 years. And none of the studies found any increase in the risk of developing or dying from heart disease for people taking calcium supplements. For more information on this topic, see an article from “Health Tips From the Professor”.

You are probably wondering, “What is going on? I thought this issue was settled”.

In the first place, this study did not look at heart disease in general, but on a very specific form of heart valve disease called aortic stenosis. Aortic stenosis is a narrowing of the heart valve leading to the aorta. And it is often associated with calcification of the heart valve.

The cause of aortic stenosis is complex, but it is associated with:

Chronic inflammation.
High cholesterol levels.
Tobacco use.
Dysregulation of calcium metabolism caused by things like elevated parathyroid levels and end-stage kidney disease.
Elevated blood levels of calcium and/or vitamin D.

Because of the role of calcium and vitamin D in aortic stenosis, the current study (N Kassis et al, Heart, Epub ahead of print, 1-9, 2022) was designed to ask whether calcium and vitamin D supplementation influenced the risk of dying from aortic stenosis.

How Was This Study Done?

The Cleveland Clinic scanned their Echocardiography Database for patients aged 60 years or more who had been diagnosed with mild to moderate aortic stenosis. 2,657 patients met these criteria (average age = 74, 58% men) and were followed for an average of 59 months in their database.

In terms of calcium and vitamin D supplementation:

49% did not supplement.

12.5% supplemented with vitamin D (dose not defined).

38.5% supplemented with calcium (500 – 2,000 mg/day) ± vitamin D.

The study looked at the correlation between vitamin D supplementation and calcium supplementation with:

Aortic valve replacement surgery.

All-cause mortality* with and without aortic valve replacement surgery.

Cardiovascular mortality* with and without aortic valve replacement surgery.

*Note: Since all the patients had aortic stenosis at the beginning of the study, both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were primarily due to aortic stenosis.

Do Calcium Supplements Increase Deaths From Heart Valve Disease?

Before I describe the results of the study, there are two things you need to know:

Vitamin D supplementation did not have a significant effect on any outcome studied, so I will not mention vitamin D in the rest of this article.

In the calcium supplementing group, there were only a few people taking calcium supplements without vitamin D. However, their outcomes were the same as for people taking calcium + vitamin D supplements. Therefore, the authors discussed their results in terms of calcium supplementation, not calcium + vitamin D supplementation. I will do the same.

With those two things in mind, here is what the study found.

With respect to the need for aortic valve replacement surgery:

Calcium supplementation increased the need for surgery by 50%.

With respect to all-cause mortality:

Calcium supplementation increased the risk of death by 31%. When you divided the results into patients who did and did not have aortic valve replacement surgery within the 59-month follow-up of this study:

- Those who received aortic valve replacement surgery did not have a statistically significant increase in risk of death.

- Those who did not receive aortic valve replacement surgery had a 38% increased risk of death.

With respect to cardiovascular mortality:

Calcium supplementation doubled the risk of death. When you divided the results into patients who did and did not have aortic valve replacement surgery within the 59-month follow-up of this study:

- Those who received aortic valve replacement surgery did not have a statistically significant increase in risk of death.

- Those who did not receive aortic valve replacement surgery had a 205% increased risk of death.

The authors concluded, “Supplemental calcium … is associated with lower survival and greater AVR [aortic valve replacement surgery] in elderly patients with mild to moderate AV [aortic stenosis].”

What Did This Study Get Wrong?

Let me start by looking at the limitations of this study.

#1: This is a single study. It is a well-designed study, but it is only one study. And, as the authors acknowledge, previous studies have come down on both sides of this issue. Until we have more well-designed studies that come to the same conclusion, we cannot be confident this study is correct.

#2: The results of this study could have been significantly influenced by confounding variables.

For example:

End-stage kidney disease is associated with a dysregulation of calcium metabolism that can lead to aortic valve calcification. Patients in the calcium supplementation group had a 2-fold higher incidence of chronic kidney disease and a 10-fold higher incidence of kidney dialysis.

There were also significant differences in several diseases and drugs that influence the risk of developing aortic stenosis between the groups.

In the words of the authors, “Given the degree of clinical differences between the groups, there was a risk of residual confounding that may have impacted our findings; we attempted to mitigate this with our statistical model.”

However, as Mark Twain is quoted as saying, “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.”

That is a humorous way of saying we should not put too much faith in statistical manipulations of the data.

#3: They did not measure parathyroid levels. That is a serious omission because elevated parathyroid levels are a major driver of the type of dysfunctional calcium metabolism that could lead to calcification of the aortic valve.

#4: Serum calcium and vitamin D levels were slightly lower in the calcium supplementation group. This is unexpected because aortic stenosis is usually associated with higher serum calcium and vitamin D levels.

The authors speculated this might be due to transient increases in serum calcium levels following supplementation. This is possible for some calcium supplements, but not others.

Specifically, some calcium supplements are marketed on how quickly they get into the bloodstream. But those same supplements often do not provide all the nutrients needed for bone formation. There is always the possibility that excess calcium not used for bone formation might be deposited where we do not want it (such as in the aortic valve).

What Did This Study Get Right?

#1: It was a larger, longer lasting study than previous studies on the effect of calcium supplementation on aortic stenosis. Even though it has limitations, we shouldn’t discount it. It might just be correct.

#2: It doesn’t necessarily conflict with the earlier studies showing that calcium supplementation doesn’t increase cardiovascular disease risk. That’s because the design of these studies is very different.

The health of the people studied was very different.

- The earlier studies started with healthy adults and asked whether calcium supplementation increased their risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

- This study started with people who already had a form of cardiovascular disease associated with abnormal calcium metabolism and asked whether calcium supplementation increased their risk of dying from the disease.

The age of the people studied was very different.

- The earlier studies started with middle-aged adults and followed them for 10-20 years

- This study started with people in their mid-70’s and followed them for almost 6 years.

The type of cardiovascular disease studied was different.

- The earlier studies included all types of cardiovascular disease.

- This study focused on a very minor type of cardiovascular disease, aortic stenosis. Aortic stenosis accounts for about 10% of all cardiovascular disease 17% of cardiovascular deaths. There may not have been enough deaths from aortic stenosis in the previous studies to have had a statistically significant effect on the results.

Given all these differences, the results of this study may not be incompatible with the results of previous studies

What Does This Study Mean For You?

There are three important takeaways from this and previous studies:

1) For most Americans calcium supplementation does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. That has been shown in three major clinical studies.

2) However, if you have been diagnosed with aortic stenosis, calcium supplementation may increase your risk of needing heart valve replacement or of dying from the disease. This study is not definitive, but I would advise caution.

You may wish to discuss with your doctor how to best balance:

- The need for calcium supplementation to prevent osteoporosis…

- With the need to limit calcium supplementation to prevent adverse outcomes from your aortic stenosis.

3) Finally, the authors did not discuss a very significant observation from this study, namely that heart valve replacement reduced the risk of dying from aortic stenosis in people taking calcium supplements.

Aortic valve replacement is the only proven treatment for aortic stenosis. If your doctor recommends aortic valve replacement, you should consider it.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of calcium supplementation for people with aortic stenosis, a rare form of heart disease.

The study found:

Calcium supplementation increased the need for aortic valve replacement surgery by 50%.

Calcium supplementation increased the risk of all-cause mortality* by 31%. When you divided the results into patients who did and did not have aortic valve replacement surgery during the study:

- Those who received aortic valve replacement surgery did not have a statistically significant increase in risk of death.

Calcium supplementation doubled the risk of cardiovascular mortality*. When you divided the results into patients who did and did not have aortic valve replacement surgery within the 59-month follow-up of this study:

- Those who received aortic valve replacement surgery did not have a statistically significant increase in risk of death.

*Note: Since all the patients enrolled in this study had aortic stenosis at the beginning of the study, these deaths were primarily due to aortic stenosis.

There are three important takeaways from this and previous studies:

1) For most Americans calcium supplementation does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. That has been shown in three major clinical studies.

You may wish to discuss with your doctor how to best balance:

- The need for calcium supplementation to prevent osteoporosis…

- With the need to limit calcium supplementation to prevent adverse outcomes from your aortic stenosis.

Aortic valve replacement is the only proven treatment for aortic stenosis. If your doctor recommends aortic valve replacement, you should consider it.

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.

Does An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?

February 4, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Latest On Diet And Heart Health

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” I talked about how difficult it has been to prove that statins significantly reduce the risk of heart attack or cardiovascular deaths in a low risk population group. Now let’s look at the other side of the coin – lifestyle change –and ask how effective lifestyle change is at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.

You’ve all heard the saying “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”. It dates back to Victorian England. It was the public health message of the day – much simpler and more concise than our current food guide plate.

A prominent British doctor and his research team recently decided to see how accurate that saying really was. But they took their study one step further. They compared the effectiveness of an apple a day versus a statin a day at reducing the risk of cardiovascular deaths (Briggs et al, British Medical Journal, 3013;347:f7267 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7267).

The results of that comparison may surprise you.

Does An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?

They used the data from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialist meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of statin drugs at reducing cardiovascular deaths. They used the data from the PRIME comparative risk assessment model to estimate the effectiveness of apple a day at reducing cardiovascular deaths.

They asked what would happen if each of them were the primary intervention for the entire British population over 50 who were not currently taking statin drugs (17.6 million people).

They assumed a 70% compliance rate for both interventions. In simple terms that means they assumed that 70% of the population would actually do what their doctors told them. (Patients must be more compliant in England than in the US).

The results were interesting. They estimated that:

Giving a statin drug each day to 17.6 million people would reduce the number of cardiovascular deaths by 9,400.

Giving an apple each day to the same 17.6 million people would reduce the number of cardiovascular deaths by 8,500 (not significantly different).

But when they looked at side effects and cost the two interventions were significantly different.

Giving a statin drug each day to 17.6 million people would also cause some significant side effects. The authors estimated that it would lead to:

1,200 excess cases of severe muscle pain and weakness
200 excess cases of rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown, which can lead to irreversible kidney failure)
12,300 excess cases of diabetes

On the other hand, there are no known side effects to an apple a day.

The statin intervention would cost an estimated $295 million. In the case of apples, you would presumably be substituting a more healthy food for a less healthy food so there would be little or no net cost.

And the 70% compliance rate is probably wildly optimistic. Some experts have estimated that up to 50% of patients discontinue their statin medications within the first year because of side effects or cost.

Is There A Scientific Basis For Those Estimates?

Of course, we all know that the “apple a day…” saying was never meant to be taken literally. It was just a simple way of saying that a good diet will reduce the risk of disease.

It turns out that there was another major study on the effect of dietary fiber on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in the very same issue (Threapleton et al, British Medical Journal, 2013;347:f6879 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6879). It was a meta-analysis that combined the data from 22 previously published studies.

This study showed:

For every 7 g/day increase in dietary fiber the risk of both heart attacks and cardiovascular disease decreases by 9% (7 grams of dietary fiber could come from one serving of whole grains plus one serving of beans or lentils or from two servings of fruits or vegetables).

For every 4g/day of fruit fiber (equivalent to one apple) the risk of heart attacks decreases by 8% and the risk of cardiovascular disease decreases by 4%.

The numbers are similar for every 4 g/day of vegetable fiber.

Another recent study showed that consumption of 75 g/day of dried apple (equivalent to two apples a day) lowered total cholesterol by 13% and LDL-cholesterol by 24% in post-menopausal women (Chai et al, J. Acad Nutr Diet, 112: 1158-1168, 2012). That’s comparable to the cholesterol reduction achieved with statin drugs.

The Bottom Line

If you have not previously had a heart attack and are at relatively low risk, something as simple as adding an apple a day (in place of less healthy foods) may just as effective as statin drugs at reducing your risk of cardiovascular death without the side effects and cost of the drugs.

This is not really new information. For years both the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health have recommended that Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (weight loss, healthy diet and exercise) should be tried BEFORE drug treatment to reduce the risk of heart disease.

So if you want to avoid statins, tell your doctor that you are willing to make the needed lifestyle changes to reduce your risk of heart disease and stick with it. Lifestyle changes are hard, but clinical studies clearly show they can often be just as effective as drug therapy, without the cost and side effects.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not advocating avoiding statin drugs if they are absolutely necessary. If you have had a heart attack or are at high risk of heart disease, it is clear that statins can save lives. Even here I would recommend talking with your physician about incorporating therapeutic lifestyle change into your regimen. It may allow them to minimize the dose, and therefore the side effects, of the statin drugs.

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.