death

The Low Carb Myth

by

The “Goldilocks Effect”

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

low carb dietThe low carb wars rage on. Low carb enthusiasts claim that low-carb diets are healthy. And they claim the lower you go, the healthier you will be. Let me start with some definitions:

  • The typical American diet is high carb. It gets about 55% of its calories from carbohydrates. [Note: The Mediterranean and DASH diets also get about 55% of their calories from carbohydrates. I’ll talk more about that later.]
  • Moderate carb diets get 26-46% of their calories from carbohydrates. Examples include the low carb Mediterranean diet and the Paleo, South Beach, and Zone diets.
  • Low carb diets get <26% of their calories from carbohydrates. The Atkins diet is the classic example of a low carb diet.
  • Very low carb diets get <10% of their calories from carbohydrates. Examples are the Keto and Carnivore diets.

And I don’t need to tell you that the Keto and Carnivore diets are receiving a lot of favorable press lately.

But some health experts warn that low carb and very low carb diets may be dangerous. Several studies have reported that low carb diets increase the risk of mortality (shorten lifespan).

As a consumer you are probably confused by the conflicting claims. Are low carb diets healthy, or is this another myth? In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I am going to discuss two very large studies that came to opposite conclusions.

Both were what we call meta-analysis studies. Simply put, that means they combine the data from several smaller studies to obtain more statistically reliable data. But as Mark Twain said, “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.”

The first study, called the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, was published a few years ago. It included data from 135,335 participants from 18 countries across 5 continents. That’s a very large study, and normally we expect very large studies to be accurate.

It showed a linear relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality. Simply put, the more carbohydrate people consumed, the greater their risk of premature death. The results from the PURE study had low carb enthusiasts doing a victory lap and claiming it was time to rewrite nutritional guidelines to favor low carb diets.

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

And this study had two glaring weaknesses.

  • The percent carbohydrate intake ranged from 40% to 80%. It showed that a moderate carbohydrate intake might be healthier than a high carbohydrate intake, but it provided no information about low carb or very low carb diets.
  • The data was primarily from Asian countries. It was not clear whether it was relevant to the kind of diets consumed in North America and Europe.

A second study published a year later (SB Seidelmann et al, The Lancet, doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30135-X  eliminated these weaknesses and resolved the conflicting data.

How Was The Second Study Done?

low carb diet studyThis study was performed in two parts. This first part drew on data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. That study enrolled 15,428 men and women, aged 45-64, from four US communities between 1987 and 1989. This group was followed for an average of 25 years, during which time 6283 people died.

Carbohydrate intake was calculated based on food frequency questionnaires administered when participants enrolled in the study and again 6 years later. The study evaluated the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality.

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

The Low Carb Myth

GravestoneThe results from the ARIC study were:

  • The relationship between mortality and carbohydrate intake was a U-shaped curve.
    • The lowest risk of death was observed with a moderate carbohydrate intake (50-55%). This is the intake recommended by current nutrition guidelines.
    • The highest risk of death was observed with a low carbohydrate intake (<20%).
    • The risk of death also increased with very high carbohydrate intake (>70%).
  • When the investigators used the mortality data to estimate life expectancy, they predicted a 50-year-old participant would have a projected life expectancy of:
    • 33.1 years if they had a moderate intake of carbohydrates.
    • 4 years less if they had a very low carbohydrate intake.
    • 1 year less if they had a very high carbohydrate intake.
  • The risk associated with low carbohydrate intake was affected by what the carbohydrate was replaced with.
    • When carbohydrates were replaced with animal protein and animal fat there was an increased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet.

The animal-based low-carb diet contained more beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and fish. It was also higher in saturated fat.Beans and Nuts

    • When carbohydrates were replaced with plant protein and plant fats, there was a decreased risk of mortality on a low-carb diet. The plant-based low-carb diet contained more nuts, peanut butter, dark or whole grain breads, chocolate, and white bread. It was also higher in polyunsaturated fats.
  • The effect of carbohydrate intake on mortality was virtually the same for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.
  • There was no significant effect of carbohydrate intake on long-term weight gain (another myth busted).

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

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

The authors concluded: “Our findings suggest a negative long-term association between life-expectancy and both low carbohydrate and high carbohydrate diets…These data also provide further evidence that animal-based low carbohydrate diets should be discouraged.

Alternatively, when restricting carbohydrate intake, replacement of carbohydrates with predominantly plant-based fats and proteins could be considered as a long-term approach to healthy aging.”

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

The “Goldilocks Effect”

Goldilocks EffectThis study also resolved the discrepancies between previous studies. The authors pointed out that the PURE study relied heavily on data from Asian and developing countries, and the average carbohydrate intake is very different in Europe and the US than in Asian and developing countries.

  • In the US and Europe mean carbohydrate intake is about 50% of calories and it ranges from 25% to 70% of calories. With that range of carbohydrate intake, it is possible to observe the increase in mortality associated with both very low and very high carbohydrate intakes.
  • The US and European countries are affluent, which means that low carb enthusiasts can also afford diets high in animal protein.
  • In contrast, white rice is a staple in Asian countries, and protein is a garnish rather than a main course. Consequently, overall carbohydrate intake is greater in Asian countries and very few Asians eat a truly low carbohydrate diet.
  • High protein foods tend to be more expensive than high carbohydrate foods. Thus, very few people in developing countries can afford to follow a very low carbohydrate diet, and overall carbohydrate intake also tends to be higher in those countries.

Therefore, in Asian and developing countries the average carbohydrate intake is greater (~61%) than in the US and Europe (~50%), and the range of carbohydrate intake is from 45% to 80% of calories instead of 25% to 70%. With this range of intake, it is only possible to see the increase in mortality associated with very high carbohydrate intake.

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

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

Basically, low carb advocates are telling you that diets with carbohydrate intakes of 26% or less are healthy based on studies that did not include carbohydrate intakes below 40%. That is misleading. The studies they quote are incapable of detecting the risks of low carbohydrate diets.

In short, the ARIC study finally answered the question, “How much carbohydrate should we be eating if we desire a long and healthy life?” The answer is “Enough”.

I call this “The Goldilocks Effect”. You may remember “Goldilocks And The Three Bears”. One bed was too hard. One bed was too soft. But one bed was “just right”. One bowl of porridge was too hot. One was two cold. But one was “just right”.

According to this study, the same is true for carbohydrate intake. High carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. Low carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. But moderate carbohydrate intake is “just right”.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

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

1) All major studies agree that very high carbohydrate intake is unhealthy. In part, that reflects the fact that diets with high carbohydrate intake are likely to be high in sodas and sugary junk foods. It may also reflect the fact that diets which are high in carbohydrates are often low in plant protein or healthy fats or both.

2) All studies that cover the full range of carbohydrate intake agree that low and very low carbohydrate diets are also unhealthy. They shorten the life expectancy of a 50-year-old by about 4 years.

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

4) Not all high carb diets are created equally. As I noted above, the Mediterranean and DASH diets are just as high in carbohydrates as the typical American diet, but their carbohydrates come from whole fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, and seeds. And multiple studies show that both diets are much healthier than the typical American diet.

5) Not all low carb diets are created equally. Meat-based low-carb diets decrease life expectancy compared to the typical American diets while plant-based low carb diets increase life expectancy.

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Specifically, this study reported:

  1. Moderate carbohydrate intake (50-55%) is healthiest. This is the carbohydrate intake found in healthy diets like the Mediterranean and DASH diets, and is the intake recommended by current nutritional guidelines.

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

3) All studies that cover the full range of carbohydrate intake agree that low carbohydrate intake (<26%) is also unhealthy. It shortens the life expectancy of a 50-year-old by about 4 years.

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

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

The authors concluded: “Our findings suggest a negative long-term association between life-expectancy and both low carbohydrate and high carbohydrate diets…These data also provide further evidence that animal-based low carbohydrate diets should be discouraged.”

Simply put, the latest study means that the supposed benefits of low carb diets are a myth.

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.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

 

 

Walking Your Way To Health

by

How Much Should You Walk? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) How fast should I walk?

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

How Were These Studies Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walking Your Way To Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Much Should You Walk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

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

3) How fast should I walk?

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

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

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

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

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

 

Is Low Omega-3 Intake As Bad For You As Smoking?

by

What Is The Omega-3 Index And Why Is It Important? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

deadWe already know that smoking is one of the worst things we can do to our bodies. It dramatically increases our risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

It also leads to premature death. People who smoke regularly die 5 years earlier than those who don’t.

That is the bad news. The good news is that smoking is what is called a “modifiable risk factor”. Simply put, that means it is a risk factor we are in control of. The message has been clear for years.

  • If you don’t smoke, keep it that way.
  • If you do smoke, stop. If you are a smoker, quitting isn’t easy, but it is worth it. The damage caused by smoking can largely be reversed if you stay off cigarettes long enough.

Obesity and diabetes are also modifiable risk factors that have a huge effect on the risk of both heart disease and premature death. People with diabetes die 4 years earlier than those without diabetes. But obesity and diabetes are harder for most people to reverse than smoking.

Diet is another modifiable risk factor, but, in general, its effect on the risk of heart disease and premature death is not as great as smoking and diabetes. But what if there were one component of diet that had huge effect on both heart disease and premature death?

The long chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA & DHA) might just fill that bill. We already know they significantly reduce the risk of heart disease (see below), but could they also help us live longer? This study (MI McBurney et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, published online June 16, 2021) was designed to answer that question.

Metabolism 101: What Is The Omega-3 Index And Why Is It Important?

professor owlClinical studies on the benefits of omega-3s have been plagued by the question of how to best measure the omega-3 status of the participants.

  • You can ask the participants to fill out a dietary survey and calculate how many omega-3-rich foods they are eating, but:
    • Dietary recall is notoriously inaccurate. People don’t remember everything they ate and have a hard time estimating portion sizes.
  • You can measure omega-3 fatty acids in the blood, but:
    • Blood levels are transient. Omega-3 fatty acids enter the bloodstream from the intestine and then disappear from blood as they are taken up by the cells.
    • Different forms of omega-3s (esters versus acetate, for example) are absorbed from the intestine and taken up by cells at different rates.
  • You can measure the omega-3 content of cellular membranes. This is the best assay for omega-3 status because:
    • The long chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) that have the biggest effect on heart disease risk accumulate in our cell membranes.
    • Omega-3 fatty acids are essential (our bodies can’t make them). That means the omega-3 content of our cell membranes reflect the omega-3 content of our diet. This is one of the cases where the saying, “We are what we eat”, is literally true.
    • The omega-3 content of our cell membranes is relatively stable. It reflects the omega-3 content of our diet over the last few months.
  • In theory, you could measure the omega-3 content of cell membranes from any tissues in the body, but red blood cells can easily be obtained by a simple blood draw, so they are the tissue of choice.

A group lead by Dr. William H Harris standardized this measurement by creating something called the Omega-3 Index. Simply put, the Omega-3 Index is the percentage of EPA and DHA in red blood cell membranes.

It turns out that the Omega-3 Index is an excellent indicator of heart disease risk.

  • An Omega-3 Index of less than 4% is associated with a high risk of heart disease.
  • An Omega-3 Index of more than 8% is associated with a low risk of heart disease.

But could a low Omega-3 Index also be associated with an increased risk of premature death? This is what the current study was designed to find out.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study were obtained from the ongoing Framingham Offspring Heart Study.

To put this statement into perspective, the original Framingham Heart Study began in 1948 in Framingham Massachusetts with the goal of identifying the factors that contributed to heart disease. It was one of the first major studies to identify the role of saturated fats, elevated blood cholesterol, and elevated blood triglycerides on heart disease risk.

The study is continuing today with the second and third generation descendants of the original study participants. It has also been broadened to include other diseases and additional risk factors, such as the Omega-3 Index.

This study selected 2240 participants from the Framingham Offspring study who had no heart disease and also had Omega-3 Index measurements at the beginning of the study. The study then followed them for 11 years. The goal of the study was to compare the Omega-3 Index with the two most potent risk factors for heart disease (smoking and diabetes) in predicting the risk of premature death.

The characteristics of the participants at the beginning of the 11-year study were:

  • 43% male, 57% female.
  • Average age = 65.
  • 3% were smokers.
  • 8% were diabetic.
  • Average Omega-3-Index = 5.8%. This is slightly higher than the American average of ~5%.

Is Low Omega-3-Intake As Bad For You As Smoking?

omega-3 supplements and heart healthThe participants in the study were divided into 5 quintiles based on their Omega-3 Index.

  • The 20% of the group in the lowest quintile had an Omega-3 Index of <4.2%.
  • The 20% of the group in the highest quintile had an Omega-3 Index of >6.8%.

First, the scientists running the study did a direct comparison of the top three risk factors on the risk of premature death. Here is what they found.

  • The group with the lowest average Omega-3 Index died 4.74 years earlier than the group with the highest average Omega-3 Index.
  • Smokers died 4.73 years earlier than non-smokers.
  • People with diabetes died 3.90 years earlier than people without diabetes.

That means low omega-3 intake was just as bad for the participants in this study as smoking. Even the authors of the study were surprised by this result. They had expected omega-3 fatty acids to be beneficial, but they had not expected them to be as beneficial as not smoking.

Because omega-3 fatty acid intake and smoking were the two most potent risk factors for premature death, the authors looked at the interaction between the two. They found that the predicted 11-year survival was:

  • 85% for non-smokers with high omega-3 intake.
  • 71% for either…
    • Smokers with high omega-3 intake, or…
    • Non-smokers with low omega-3 intake.
  • Only 47% for smokers with low omega-3 intake.

Simply put, this study predicts if you were a 65-year-old smoker with low omega-3 intake, you could almost double your chances of surviving another 11 years by giving up smoking and increasing your omega-3 intake.

In the words of the authors, “Smoking and omega-3 intake seem to be the most easily modified risk factors [for premature death]…Dietary choices that change the Omega-3 index may prolong life.”

The Bottom Line

We know that smoking is deadly, but could low intake of omega-3 fatty acids be just as deadly?

A recent study compared omega-3 intake with the two most potent risk factors (smoking and diabetes) in predicting the risk of premature death. Here is what it found.

  • The group with the lowest average omega-3 intake died 4.74 years earlier than the group with the highest average omega-3 intake.
  • Smokers died 4.73 years earlier than non-smokers.
  • People with diabetes died 3.90 years earlier than people without diabetes.

That means high omega-3 intake was just as beneficial for the participants in this study as not smoking. Even the authors of the study were surprised by this result. They had expected omega-3 fatty acids to be beneficial, but they had not expected them to be as beneficial as not smoking.

Because omega-3 fatty acid intake and smoking were the two most potent risk factors for premature death, the authors looked at the interaction between the two. They found that the predicted 11-year survival was:

  • 85% for non-smokers with high omega-3 intake.
  • 71% for either…
    • Smokers with high omega-3 intake, or…
    • Non-smokers with low omega-3 intake.
  • Only 47% for smokers with low omega-3 intake.

Simply put, this study predicts if you were a 65-year-old smoker with low omega-3 intake, you could almost double your chances of surviving another 11 years by giving up smoking and increasing your omega-3 intake.

In the words of the authors, “Smoking and omega-3 intake seem to be the most easily modified risk factors [for premature death]…Dietary choices that change the Omega-3 index may prolong life.”

For more details about 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.

Do High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

by

How Much Protein Should We Eat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Animal Protein FoodsThe recent headlines suggesting that high protein diets may cause cancer, diabetes and premature death in middle aged Americans are downright scary. You are probably asking yourself:

  • “Is this new information?”
  • “Does this apply to me?”
  • “Should I radically change what I eat?”

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I will address each of these questions.

Do High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

The study in question (Levine et al., Cell Metabolism, 19: 407-417, 2014) suggested that high protein diets were associated with increased risk of cancer, diabetes and premature death in Americans in the 50-65 age range. I will touch on all three of these observations, but it is the increased risk of cancer that generated the most headlines – and the most concern (The consequences of diabetes take years to manifest, and death seem to be a more distant concern for most people. Cancer is immediate and personal).

The study looked at 6,381 adults aged 50 and older (average age 65) from the NHANES III data base. (NHANES is a comprehensive database collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that consists of surveys and physical examinations and is designed to be representative of the health and nutritional status of the US population.)

The data collected consisted of a single diet questionnaire conducted when the subjects were enrolled in the study. Based on the diet questionnaire the authors of the study divided the group into those with low protein intake (<10% of calories), those with moderate protein intake (10-19% of calories) and those with high protein intake (>20% of calories). Overall death and mortality from various diseases over the next 18 years was obtained by linking the NHANES data with the National Death Index.

Based on preliminary data suggesting that the age of the population might influence the results (I won’t go into details here) the authors of the study decided to subdivide the dataset into people aged 50-65 and people over 65. When they did that, they came to the following conclusions:

1)     In the 50-65 age group diets high in animal protein were associated with a:

  • 45% increase in overall mortality
  • 4-fold increase in cancer death risk
  • 4-fold increase in diabetes death risk.

Diets with moderate protein intake were associated with intermediate increases in risk. Surprisingly, there was no increase in cardiovascular disease risk.

Protein Shakes2)     When they looked at people in the 50-65 age group consuming diets high in vegetable protein:

  • the increased overall mortality and increased in cancer mortality disappeared
  • the increased diabetes mortality was still seen.

3)     In the 65+ age group high protein diets were associated with a:

  • 28% decrease in overall mortality
  • 60% decrease in cancer mortality.

The increased risk of diabetes related deaths was still observed. The authors did not distinguish between animal and vegetable protein in the over 65 age group.

All of that may seem to be a bit too complicated. At the risk of gross oversimplification I would summarize their message as follows:

  • Diets high in animal protein may be bad for you if you are in the 50-65 age range, but might actually be good for you if you are over 65.
  • Diets high in vegetable protein appear to be good for anyone over age 50 (The study didn’t look at younger age groups).

Is This New Information?

Let’s start by assuming that the conclusions of the authors are correct (more about that below).

When you boil their message down to its simplest components, the information isn’t particularly novel.

  • The idea that vegetable proteins may be better for you than animal proteins has been around for decades. There are a number of studies suggesting that diets high in animal protein increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and overall death – although it is still not clear whether it is the animal protein itself or some other characteristic of populations consuming mostly animal protein that is the culprit.
  • Evidence has been accumulating over the past decade or so that protein needs increase as we age, so it is not surprising that this study found high protein diets to be beneficial for those of us over age 65.

What Do Other Experts Say?

ScientistSince this study has been released it has been roundly criticized by other experts in the field. Let me sum up their four main criticisms and add one of my own.

1)     The protein intake data were based on a single dietary survey taken at the beginning of an 18 year study. The authors stated that a single dietary survey has been shown to be a pretty accurate indicator of what an individual is eating at the time of the survey. However, it is problematic to assume that everyone’s diet remained the same over an 18 year period.

2)     The choice of less than 10% of calories from protein is also problematic. According to the Institute of Medicine standards anything below 10% is defined as inadequate protein intake, which can have long term health consequences of its own.

More importantly, only 7% of the population being studied (437 individuals) fell into this group. This is the baseline group (or put another way, the denominator for all of the comparisons). The conclusions of this study were based on comparing the other two groups to this baseline, and there were too few individuals in this group to be confident that the baseline is accurate.

This does not necessarily invalidate the study, but it does decrease confidence in the size of the reported effect – so forget the reported numbers like 45% increase in mortality and 4-fold increase in cancer deaths. They probably aren’t accurate.

3)     The number of people in this study who died from diabetes was exceedingly small (68 total) and most of them already had diabetes when the study began. The experts concluded that the numbers were simply too low to draw any conclusions about protein intake and diabetes related deaths, and I agree with them.

4)     While the study controlled for fat intake and carbohydrate intake, it did not control for weight. That is a huge omission. Overweight is associated with increased risk of cancer, diabetes and death, and vegetarians tend to weigh less than non-vegetarians.

5)     I would add that there are many other differences between vegetarians and non- vegetarians that could account for most of the differences reported between diets high in animal and vegetable protein. For example:

  • Vegetarians tend to be more health conscious and thus they tend to exercise more, consume more fiber, consume more fruits and vegetables, consume less fried food, and consume less processed and convenience foods – all of which are associated with decreased risk of cancer, diabetes and death.

The Bottom Line:

This is not a particularly strong study. Nor is it particularly novel. In fact, when you strip away the scary headlines and focus on what the data really show, the conclusions aren’t that different from what nutrition experts have been saying for years.

1)     This study suggests that if you are in the 50-65 age range, diets high in animal protein may not be good for you (this study focused on increased risk of cancer death and overall mortality. Other studies have suggested that diets high in animal protein may increase the risk of cardiovascular death).

This is not a new idea. These data are consistent with a number of other studies. However, none of these studies adequately assess whether the increased risk is from the animal protein alone or from other characteristics of populations that consume a lot of animal protein.

2)     This study also suggests that diets high in vegetable protein do not increase either cancer risk or all cause mortality. That’s also not new information. We’ve known for years that people who consume primarily vegetable protein appear to be healthier. Once again, it is not clear whether it is the vegetable protein itself that is beneficial or whether the benefit is due to other characteristics of populations who consume a lot of vegetable protein.

3)     Does that mean that you need to become a vegetarian? It probably reflects my personal bias, but I am reminded of a Woody Allen Quote: “Vegetarians don’t live longer. It just seems that way”. I am also encouraged by studies suggesting that most of the health benefits of vegetarianism can be achieved by diets that consist of around 50% vegetable protein.

I would never discourage anyone from becoming a vegetarian, but if you aren’t ready for that, I would highly recommend that you aim for at least 50% vegetable protein in your diet.

4)     Finally, this study suggests that a high protein diet is beneficial for people over 65. This is also not a completely novel idea. It is consistent with a lot of recent research.

My advice to those of you who, like me, are over 65 is to pay attention to high protein foods and make sure that they are an important part of your diet. I’m not suggesting that you go for the double bacon cheeseburger just because you are over 65. I would still aim for a significant percentage of vegetable protein as a part of a healthy diet at any age.

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