500th Issue Celebration

Nutrition Breakthroughs Over The Last Two Years

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

celebrationIn the nearly ten years that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor”, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life.

The 500th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing some of the major stories I have covered in the past 100 issues. There are lots of topics I could have covered, but I have chosen to focus on three types of articles:

  • Articles that have debunked long-standing myths about nutrition and health.
  • Articles that have corrected some of the misinformation that seems to show up on the internet on an almost daily basis.
  • Articles about the issues that most directly affect your health.

Best Ways To Lose Weight

weight lossSince it is almost January, let’s start with a couple of articles about diet and weight loss (or weight gain). I have covered the effectiveness of the Paleo, Keto, Mediterranean, DASH, vegetarian, and Vegan diets for both short and long-term weight loss in my book Slaying The Food Myths, so I won’t repeat that information here. Instead, I will share a few updates from the past 100 issues.

My Tips On The Best Approach For Losing Weight: Every health guru has a favorite diet they like to promote. I am different. My book, Slaying the Food Myths, is probably the first “anti-diet” diet book ever written. Based on my years of research I can tell you that we are all different. There is no single diet that is best for everyone. In this article I have summarized my tips for selecting the weight loss diet that is best for you.

The US News & World Report’s Recommendation For the Best Diets: Each year US News & World Report assembles some of the top nutrition experts in the country and asks them to review popular diets and rank them for effectiveness and safety. In this article I summarize their ratings for 2022.

Does Intermittent Fasting Have A Downside? In previous articles in “Health Tips From the Professor” I have reported on studies showing that intermittent fasting is no more effective for weight loss than any other diet that restricts calories to the same extent. But does intermittent fasting have a downside? In this article I reported on a study that suggests it does.

Can A Healthy Diet Help You Lose Weight? Most investigators simply compare their favorite diet to the standard American diet. And any diet looks good compared to the standard American diet. In this article I reported on a study that compared two whole food diets that restricted calories by 25% to the standard American diet. One calorie-restricted diet was more plant-based and the other more meat-based. You may be surprised at the results.

Omega-3s

Omega-3s continue to be an active area of research. Here are just a few of the top studies over the past two years.omega3s

Do Omega-3s Oil Your Joints? In this article I reviewed the latest information on omega-3s and arthritis.

Do Omega-3s Add Years To Your Life? In this article I discussed a study that looks at the effect of omega-3s on longevity.

The Omega-3 Pendulum: In this article I discuss why omega-3 studies are so confusing. One day the headlines say they are miracle cures. A few weeks later the headlines say they are worthless. I discuss the flaws in many omega-3 studies and how to identify the high-quality omega-3 studies you can believe.

Do Omega-3s Reduce Congestive Heart Failure? In this article I review a recent study on omega-3s and congestive heart failure and discuss who is most likely to benefit from omega-3 supplementation.

Plant-Based Diets

Vegan FoodsWill Plant-Based Proteins Help You Live Longer? In this article  I review a study that looks at the effect of swapping plant proteins for animal proteins on longevity.

Can Diet Add Years To Your Life? In this article  I review a study that takes a broader view and asks which foods add years to your life.

Is A Vegan Diet The Secret To Weight Loss? This is an update of my previous articles on vegan diets. This article asked whether simply changing from a typical American diet to a vegan diet could influence weight loss and health parameters in as little as 16 weeks. The answer may surprise you.

Is A Vegan Diet Bad For Your Bones? No diet is perfect. This article looks at one of the possible downsides to a vegan diet. I also discuss how you can follow a vegan diet AND have strong bones. It’s not that difficult.

Anti-Inflammatory Diets

What Is An Anti-Inflammatory Diet? In this article  I discuss the science behind anti-inflammatory diets Inflammationand what an anti-inflammatory diet looks like.

Can Diet Cause You To Lose Your Mind? In this article  I discuss a study looking at the effect of an inflammatory diet on dementia. The study also looks at which foods protect your mind and which ones attack your mind.

Do Whole Grains Reduce Inflammation? You have been told that grains cause inflammation. Refined grains might, but this study shows that whole grains reduce inflammation.

Nutrition And Pregnancy

pregnant women taking vitaminsHere are the latest advances in nutrition for a healthy pregnancy.

The Perils Of Iodine Deficiency For Women. In this article I reviewed the latest data showing that iodine is essential for a healthy pregnancy and discuss where you can get the iodine you need.

Do Omega-3s Reduce The Risk Of Pre-Term Births? You seldom hear experts saying that the data are so definitive that no further studies are needed. In this article I reviewed a study that said just that about omega-3s and pre-term births.

Does Maternal Vitamin D Affect ADHD? In this article I reviewed the evidence that adequate vitamin D status during pregnancy may reduce the risk of ADHD in the offspring.

How Much DHA Should You Take During Pregnancy? In this article I reviewed current guidelines for DHA intake during pregnancy and a recent study suggesting even higher levels might be optimal.

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate? In this article I reviewed two studies that found most prenatal supplements on the market are not adequate for pregnant women or their unborn babies.

Children’s Nutrition

Here are the latest insights into children’s nutrition.Obese Child

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness? In this article I reviewed a recent study documenting the increase in ultra-processed food consumption by American children and the effect it is having on their health. I then ask, is it really kindness when we let our children eat all the sugar and ultra-processed food they want?

Is Diabetes Increasing In Our Children? In this article I reviewed a study documenting the dramatic increase in diabetes among American children and its relationship to ultra-processed food consumption and lack of exercise.

How Much Omega-3s Do Children Need? In this article I reviewed an study that attempts to define how much omega-3s are optimal for cognition (ability to learn) in our children.

Diabetes

diabetesHere are some insights into nutrition and diabetes that may cause you to rethink your diet.

Does An Apple A Day Keep Diabetes Away? You may have been told to avoid fruits if you are diabetic. In this article I reviewed a study showing that fruit consumption actually decreases your risk of diabetes. Of course, we are all different. If you have diabetes you need to figure out which fruits are your friends and which are your foes.

Do Whole Grains Keep Diabetes Away? You may have also been told to avoid grains if you are diabetic. In this article I reviewed a study showing that whole grain consumption actually decreases your risk of diabetes. Once again, we are all different. If you have diabetes you need to figure out which grains are your friends and which are your foes.

Heart Disease

Here is an interesting insight into nutrition and heart disease that may cause you to rethink your diet.

Is Dairy Bad For Your Heart? You have been told that dairy is bad for your heart AND that it is good for your heart. Which is correct? In this article I discuss some recent studies on the topic and conclude the answer is, “It depends”. It depends on your overall diet, your weight, your lifestyle, and your overall health.

Breast Cancer

Here are some facts about breast cancer every woman should know.breast cancer

The Best Way To Reduce Your Risk Of Breast Cancer In this article I review two major studies and the American Cancer Guidelines to give you 6 tips for reducing your risk of breast cancer.

The Truth About Soy And Breast Cancer You have been told that soy causes breast cancer, and you should avoid it. In this article I review the science and tell you the truth about soy and breast cancer.

Supplementation

Vitamin SupplementsSome “experts” claim everyone should take almost every supplement on the market. Others claim supplementation is worthless. What is the truth about supplementation?

What Do The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines Say About Supplements? Every 5 years the USDA updates their Dietary Guidelines for foods and supplements. In this article I discuss what the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines say about supplements. Yes, the USDA does recommend supplements for some people.

Who Benefits Most From Supplementation? Not everyone benefits equally from supplementation. In this article I discuss who benefits the most from supplementation.

Should Cancer Patients Take Supplements? Doctors routinely tell their cancer patients not to take supplements. Is that the best advice? In this article I review a study that answers that question.

Can You Trust Supplements Marketed on Amazon? Amazon’s business model is to sell products at the lowest possible price. But do they check the quality of the products marketed on their site? In this article  I review a study that answers that question.

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate? In this article I reviewed two studies that found most prenatal supplements on the market are not adequate for pregnant women or their unborn babies.

The Bottom Line 

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

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

Final Comment: You may wish to share the valuable resources in this article with others. If you do, then copy the link at the top and bottom of this page into your email. If you just forward this email and the recipient unsubscribes, it will unsubscribe you as well.

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

 

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

The participants in these studies:

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

The studies were of 3 types:

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

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

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

In short, this Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

The Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

Does Red Meat Cause Frailty In Older Women?

Which Proteins Are Best?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Fatty SteakThe ads from the meat lobby say, “Red meat does a body good”. Are the ads true?

If we consider the health consequences of regularly eating red meat, the answer appears to be a clear, “No”. Multiple studies have shown a link between red meat consumption and:

  • Coronary heart disease.
  • Stroke
  • Type 2 diabetes.
  • Colon cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer.

And, if we consider the environmental consequences of red meat production, the answer also appears to be, “No”. I have discussed this in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

But what about muscle mass and strength? Red meat is a rich source of protein, and we associate meat consumption with an increase in muscle mass. Surely, red meat consumption must help us build muscle mass and strength when we are young and preserve muscle mass and strength as we age.

This is why the recent headlines claiming that red meat consumption increases the risk of frailty in older women were so confusing. I, like you, found those headlines to be counterintuitive. So, I have investigated the study (EA Struijk et al, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 13: 210-219, 2022) behind the headlines. Here is what I found.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study utilized data acquired from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS). The NHS began in 1976 with 121,700 female nurses aged 30 to 55. This study followed 85,871 nurses in the NHS once they reached age 60 for an average of 14 years.

Dietary intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire that was administered to all participants in the study every four years between 1980 and 2010. The long-term intake of red meat and other protein sources was based on a cumulative average of all available diet questionnaires for each participant.

The participants also filled out a Medical Outcomes Short Report every four years between 1992 and 2014. Data from this survey was used to calculate something called the FRAIL scale, which includes the following frailty criteria:

  • Fatigue
  • Low muscle strength.
  • Reduced aerobic capacity.
  • Having ≥5 of the following chronic diseases:
    • Cancer
    • High blood pressure
    • Type 2 diabetes
    • Angina
    • Myocardial infarction (heart attack)
    • Congestive heart failure
    • Asthma
    • COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
    • Arthritis
    • Parkinson’s disease
    • Kidney disease
    • Depression
  • Greater than ≥5% weight loss in two consecutive assessments.

Frailty was defined as having met 3 or more criteria in the FRAIL scale. The study looked at the effect of habitual consumption of red meat or other protein sources on the development of frailty during the 14-year follow-up period.

Does Red Meat Cause Frailty In Older Women?

The investigators separated the participants into 5 quintiles based on total red meat consumption, unprocessed red meat construction, or processed red meat consumption. The range of intakes was as follows.

Total red meat: 0.4 servings per day to 1.8 servings per day.

Unprocessed red meat: 0.3 servings per day to 1.3 servings per day.

Processed red meat: 0.04 servings per day to 0.6 servings per day.

Clearly none of the women in this study were consuming either vegan or keto diets. As might be expected from a cross-section of the American public, there was a fairly narrow range of daily meat consumption.

Here are the results of the study:

  • Each serving per day of total red meat increased frailty by 13%.
  • Each serving per day of unprocessed red meat increased frailty by 8%.
  • Each serving per day of processed red meat increased frailty by 26%.
  • When each component of the frailty index was examined individually, all of them were positively associated with red meat consumption except for weight loss.

This was perhaps the most unexpected finding of the study. Not only did red meat consumption increased the risk of chronic diseases in these women, which would be expected from many previous studies. But red meat consumption also made these women more tired, weaker, and shorter of breath.

The authors concluded, “Habitual consumption of any type of red meat was associated with a higher risk of frailty.”

Which Proteins Are Best?

Red Meat Vs White MeatThe investigators then asked if replacing one serving/day of red meat with other protein sources was associated with a significantly lower risk of frailty. Here is what they found:

  • Replacing one serving per day of unprocessed red meat with a serving of:
    • Fish reduced frailty risk by 22%.
    • Nuts reduced frailty risk by 14%.
  • Replacing one serving per day of processed red meat with a serving of:
    • Fish reduced frailty risk by 33%
    • Nuts reduced frailty risk by 26%
    • Low-fat dairy reduced frailty risk by 16%
    • Legumes reduced frailty risk by 13%.

The authors concluded, “Replacing red meat with another source of protein including fish, nuts, legumes, and low-fat dairy may be encouraged to reduce the risk of developing frailty syndrome. These findings are in line with dietary guidelines promoting diets that emphasize plant-based sources of protein.” [I would note that fish and low-fat dairy are hardly plant-based protein sources.]

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanI am not yet ready to jump on the “eating red meat causes frailty” bandwagon. This is a very large, well-designed study, but it is a single study. It needs to be replicated by future studies.

And, as a biochemist, I am skeptical about any study that does not offer a clear metabolic rationale for the results. As I said earlier, increased protein intake is usually associated with an increase in muscle mass when we are young and a preservation of muscle mass as we age. There is no obvious metabolic explanation for why an increase in red meat consumption in older women would cause a decrease in muscle mass and other symptoms of frailty.

On the other hand, there are plenty of well documented reasons for decreasing red meat intake. Consumption of red meat is bad for our health and bad for the health of the planet as I have discussed in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. And substituting other protein sources, especially plant proteins, is better for our health and the health of our planet.

Finally, we also need to consider the possibility that this study is correct and that future studies will confirm these findings. Stranger things have happened.

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Increased protein intake and resistance exercise can help slow this process. While I am not ready to say that red meat causes decreased muscle mass, I do think this study should make us think about which protein sources we use to prevent sarcopenia. At the very least we should not use age-related muscle loss as an excuse to increase our red meat intake. That might just be counterproductive.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effect of red meat consumption on frailty in older women. It came to the unexpected conclusion that:

  • Each serving per day of total red meat increased frailty by 13%.
  • Each serving per day of unprocessed red meat increased frailty by 8%.
  • Each serving per day of processed red meat increased frailty by 26%.
  • The increase in frailty could be reduced by replacing one serving/day of red meat with a serving of fish, nuts, low-fat dairy, or legumes.

I am not yet ready to jump on the “eating red meat causes frailty” bandwagon. This is a very large, well-designed study, but it is a single study. It needs to be replicated by future studies. And, as a biochemist, I am skeptical about any study that does not offer a clear metabolic rationale for the results.

On the other hand, there are plenty of well documented reasons for decreasing red meat intake. Consumption of red meat is bad for our health and for the health of the planet.

Finally, we also need to consider the possibility that this study is correct and that future studies will confirm these findings. Stranger things have happened.

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Increased protein intake and resistance exercise can help slow this process. This study should make us think about which protein sources we use to prevent sarcopenia. At the very least we should not use age-related muscle loss as an excuse to increase our red meat intake. That might just be counterproductive.

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.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

Which Diet Should You Choose?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Emoticon-BadMany of you started 2022 with goals of losing weight and/or improving your health. In many cases, that involved choosing a new diet. That was only a month ago, but it probably feels like an eternity.

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January.

  • Perhaps the diet isn’t working as well as advertised…
  • Perhaps the diet is too restrictive. You are finding it hard to stick with…
  • Perhaps you are always hungry or constantly fighting food cravings…
  • Perhaps you are starting to wonder whether there is a better diet than the one you chose in January…
  • Perhaps you are wondering whether the diet you chose is the wrong one for you…

If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories.

If you are still searching for your ideal diet, I will summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2022”. For the full report, click on this link.

How Was This Report Created?

Expert PanelUS News & World Report recruited panel of 27 nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes, and heart disease to review the 40 most popular diets.  The panel is not the same each year. Some experts are rotated off the panel, and others are added. The experts rate each diet in seven categories:

  • How easy it is to follow.
  • Its ability to produce short-term weight loss.
  • Its ability to produce long-term weight loss.
  • its nutritional completeness.
  • Its safety.
  • Its potential for preventing and managing diabetes.

 

  • Its potential for preventing and managing heart disease.

They converted the experts’ ratings to scores 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). They then used these scores to construct nine sets of Best Diets rankings:

  • Best Diets Overall combines panelists’ ratings in all seven categories. However, all categories were not equally weighted. Short-term and long-term weight loss were combined, with long-term ratings getting twice the weight. Why? A diet’s true test is whether it can be sustained for years. And safety was double counted because no diet should be dangerous.
  • Best Commercial Diets uses the same approach to rank 15 structured diet programs that require a participation fee or promote the use of branded food or nutritional products.
  • Best Weight-Loss Diets was generated by combining short-term and long-term weight-loss ratings, weighting both equally. Some dieters want to drop pounds fast, while others, looking years ahead, are aiming for slow and steady. Equal weighting accepts both goals as worthy.
  • Best Diabetes Diets is based on averaged diabetes ratings.
  • Best Heart-Healthy Diets uses averaged heart-health ratings.
  • Best Diets for Healthy Eating combines nutritional completeness and safety ratings, giving twice the weight to safety. A healthy diet should provide sufficient calories and not fall seriously short on important nutrients or entire food groups.
  • Easiest Diets to Follow represents panelists’ averaged judgments about each diet’s taste appeal, ease of initial adjustment, ability to keep dieters from feeling hungry and imposition of special requirements.
  • Best Plant-Based Diets uses the same approach as Best Diets Overall to rank 12 plans that emphasize minimally processed foods from plants.
  • Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets is based on short-term weight-loss ratings.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

Are you ready? If this were an awards program I would be saying “Envelop please” and would open the envelop slowly to build suspense.

However, I am not going to do that. Here are the top 5 and bottom 5 diets in each category (If you would like to see where your favorite diet ranked, click on this link). [Note: I excluded commercial diets from this review.]

Best Diets Overall 

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet. The Mediterranean diet has been ranked #1 for 5 consecutive years.

#2: DASH Diet (This diet was designed to keep blood pressure under control, but you can also think of it as an Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.)

#3: Flexitarian Diet (A flexible semi-vegetarian diet).

#4: MIND Diet (This diet is a combination of Mediterranean and DASH but is specifically designed to reduce cognitive decline as we age.)

#5: The TLC Diet (This diet was designed by the NIH to promote heart health.)

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Whole 30 Diet (A whole food, restrictive diet, designed for a 30-day jump start to weight loss. It was not designed for long-term use).

#37: Modified Keto Diet (A slightly less restrictive version of the Keto Diet).

#38: Keto Diet (A high protein, high fat, very low carb diet designed to achieve ketosis).

#39: Dukan Diet (High protein, low carb, low fat diet).

#40: GAPS Diet (A diet designed to improve gut health).

Best Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5: Weight Loss

#1: Flexitarian Diet

#2: Volumetrics Diet (A diet based on the caloric density of foods).

#3: Vegan Diet (A diet that only allows plant foods).

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet (A diet designed to establish lifelong healthy eating habits).

#5: Ornish Diet (A whole food, semi-vegetarian diet designed to promote heart health).

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Fertility Diet (A diet designed to improve fertility, but the experts were skeptical that it would increase your chances of becoming pregnant)

#37: Whole 30 Diet

#38: Alkaline Diet (A diet designed to make your blood more alkaline, but the experts were skeptical about that claim)

#39: AIP Diet (A diet designed for people with autoimmune diseases)

#40: GAPS Diet

Best Diabetes Diets

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Vegan Diet

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Alkaline Diet

#37: Dukan Diet

#38: GAPS Diet

#39: Sirtfood Diet (a very low calorie, fad diet that emphasizes plant foods rich in sirtuins)

#40: Whole 30 Diet

Best Heart-Healthy Diets 

strong heartThe Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Ornish Diet

#3: DASH Diet

#4: Flexitarian Diet

#5: TLC Diet

#6: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Keto Diet

#37: AIP Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Dukan Diet

Best Diets for Healthy Eating

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: DASH Diet

#3: Flexitarian Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: TLC Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Raw Food Diet

#37: Atkins Diet

#38: Dukan Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Keto Diet 

Easiest Diets to Follow

The Top 5: Easy

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Fertility Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Modified Keto Diet

#37: Keto Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: GAPS Diet

#40: Raw Foods Diet 

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5 (Excluding Commercial Diets): 

#1: Atkins Diet

#2: Biggest Loser Diet

#3: Keto Diet

#4: Raw Food Diet

#5: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5 

#36: Dr. Weil’s Anti-Inflammatory Diet

#37: The Fertility Diet

#38: AIP Diet

#39: Alkaline Diet

#40: Gaps Diet

Which Diets Are Best For Rapid Weight Loss?

Happy woman on scaleThere are 3 take-home lessons from the rapid weight loss category:

1) If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do. The top 5 diets are very different. For example, the keto and vegan diets are polar opposites, yet they both are in the top 5 for rapid weight loss.

  • The Atkins and keto diets are meat heavy, low carb diets. They restrict fruits, some vegetables, grains, and most legumes.
  • The Biggest Loser diet relies on restrictive meal plan and exercise programs.
  • The restrictions of the raw food diet are obvious.
  • The vegan diet is a very low-fat diet that eliminates meat, dairy, eggs, and animal fats.
  • I did not include commercial diets that rated high on this list, but they are all restrictive in one way or another.

2) We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of your favorite foods.

  • If you lose weight on a vegan diet and add back some of your favorite foods, you might end up with a semi-vegetarian diet. This is a healthy diet that can help you maintain your weight loss.
  • If you lose weight on the Atkins or keto diets and add back some of your favorite foods, you end up with the typical American diet – one that is high in both fat and carbs. This is not a recipe for long-term success.

3) Don’t pay too much attention to the bottom 5 diets. None of them were designed with weight loss in mind.

Which Diet Should You Choose?

Food ChoicesWith rapid weight loss out of the way, let’s get back to the question, “Which Diet Should You Choose?” My recommendations are:

1) Choose a diet that fits your needs. That is one of the things I like best about the US News & World Report ratings. The diets are categorized. If your main concern is diabetes, choose one of the top diets in that category. If your main concern is heart health… You get the point.

2) Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss. If that is your goal, you will notice that primarily plant-based diets top these lists. Meat-based, low carb diets like Atkins and keto are near the bottom of the lists.

3) Choose diets that are easy to follow. The less-restrictive primarily plant-based diets top this list – diets like Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, and flexitarian.

4) Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences. For example, if you don’t like fish and olive oil, you will probably do much better with the DASH or flexitarian diet than with the Mediterranean diet.

5) In case you were wondering, intermittent fasting ranked 26-30 and the Paleo diet ranked 26-33 on most of the list – not the worst diets, but a long way from the best. If you have a favorite diet I didn’t mention, check the US News website to find where it is ranked.

6) Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

  • On the minus side, none of the diets include sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. These foods should go on your “No-No” list. Sweets should be occasional treats and only as part of a healthy meal. Meat, especially red meat, should become a garnish rather than a main course.
  • On the plus side, primarily plant-based diets offer a cornucopia of delicious plant foods you probably didn’t even know existed. Plus, for any of the top-rated plant-based diets, there are websites and books full of mouth-watering recipes. Be adventurous.

The Bottom Line 

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January. If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories. In the article above I summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2022”.

There are probably two questions at the top of your list.

#1: Which diets are best for rapid weight loss? Here are some general principles:

  • If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do.
  • We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of our favorite foods.
  • Long term weight loss is possible if you transition to a healthy diet after you have lost the weight.

#2: Which diet should you choose? Here the principles are:

  • Choose a diet that fits your needs.
  • Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss.
  • Choose diets that are easy to follow.
  • Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences.
  • Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

For more details on the diet that is best 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.

Can Artificial Sweeteners Make You Hungry?

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Artificial Sweeteners? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Artificial SweetenersWhen artificial sweeteners were first introduced over 100 years ago, we were promised they would end obesity. We didn’t have to change our diets. We could just substitute calorie-free artificial sweeteners for sugar in all our favorite foods.

Since then, both consumption of artificial sweeteners and obesity have skyrocketed in this country. For example, in just the past 20 years:

  • The consumption of artificial sweeteners has increased by 54%, and…
  • The percentage of obese Americans has increased by 41%.

Today, over 40% of Americans are obese, and almost 10% of Americans are severely obese. That is a 4-fold increase since 1960!

Clearly, something isn’t working. Artificial sweeteners are not the magic solution we once thought they would be.

However, as I have told you before, association does not prove causation. Therefore, two important questions are:

  1. Are we consuming more artificially sweetened foods and drinks because more of us have become obese, or…

2) Do artificial sweeteners cause obesity?

Unfortunately, hundreds of clinical studies on this topic have not provided a definitive answer. For example, when we look at studies on diet sodas:

When the studies are tightly controlled by dietitians so that the people consuming diet sodas don’t add any extra calories to their diet, the results are exactly as expected. People consuming diet sodas lose weight compared to people drinking regular sodas.

However, the results are different in the real world where you don’t have a dietitian looking over your shoulder. In these studies, diet sodas are just as likely to cause weight gain as regular sodas.

As Barry Popkin, a colleague at the University of North Carolina, put it” “The problem is that we [Americans] areNo Fast Food using diet sodas to wash down our Big Macs and fries.” In short, people drinking diet sodas tend to increase their caloric intake by adding other foods to their diet. Even worse, the added foods aren’t usually fruits and vegetables. They are highly processed junk foods.

In other words, the suspicion is that artificial sweeteners may cause you to overeat. Various mechanisms for this effect have been proposed. For example, it has been proposed that artificial sweeteners may:

  • Increase your appetite.
  • Interfere with blood sugar control.
  • Increase your cravings for sweets.
  • Alter your gut bacteria.

Unfortunately, clinical studies designed to test these hypotheses have produced inconsistent results. So, we are left with the question:

3) Why are studies on artificial sweeteners so confusing? 

A recent clinical study (AG Yunker et al, JAMA Network Open, 4(9):e2126313, 2021) sheds light on all 3 of these important questions.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study was called the “Brain Response to Sugar” study. It was designed to test the hypothesis that previous studies of artificial sweeteners may have provided misleading results because they didn’t account for the sex and BMI (a measure of obesity) of the study participants.

Many previous studies had primarily enrolled male, ideal weight participants. This study hypothesized that the response to artificial sweeteners might be different in female, overweight participants.

This study recruited 76 participants from the Southern California area between July 2016 and March 2020, when recruitment was halted because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The characteristics of the participants were:

  • 18-35 years old.
  • Weight stable for at least 3 months before the study.
  • Not taking medications and no history of eating disorders, diabetes, or other diseases.
  • 42% male and 58% female.
  • 37% healthy weight, 32% overweight, and 31% obese.
  • 40% included artificial sweeteners in their diet prior to the study, 60% did not.

The study was what is called a “within-participant randomized crossover trial”. Simply put, this means that each participant served as their own control. Here is how it worked:

  • Each participant came to the Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center three times. They arrived at the testing center at 8 AM after an overnight fast.
    • They drank either 75 grams of sucrose in 300 mL of water, enough sucralose in 300 mL of water to provide equivalent sweetness, or 300 mL of plain water at the beginning of each visit. The order in which the drinks were administered was randomized.
  • At 20 minutes after each drink, the participants were placed into an MRI machine shown various food and non-food images.
    • Four high-calorie food images (2 sweet and 2 savory), 4 low-calorie food images, and 4 non-food images were shown to the participants in random order.
    • As the images were shown, the MRI scanned the medial frontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex, regions of the brain associated with appetite and hunger. Specifically, these are regions of the brain that affect:
      • Conditioned motivation to eat.
      • The reward value associated with food cues.
      • In addition, greater food cue reactivity in these regions of the brain has been shown to be associated with obesity.
  • At 125 minutes after each drink, the participants were allowed to select their meal from a buffet table, and the calories consumed was recorded.

Can Artificial Sweeteners Make You Hungry?

HungryHere are the results of the study:

  • There was no overall difference in brain activity in the regions of the brain associated with appetite, hunger, and desire for high-calorie foods following the sucralose and sucrose drinks. However:
    • For participants who were obese, high-calorie savory food images elicited greater brain activity in participants who had consumed sucralose than in participants who had consumed sucrose drinks. This difference was not seen in patients who were normal weight or overweight.
    • For female participants, high-calorie sweet and savory food images elicited greater brain activity in participants who had consumed sucralose than in participants who had consumed sucrose drinks. This difference was not seen in male patients.
    • These differences were not small. The effect of sucralose on brain activity in regions that control appetite and hunger was several-fold greater than the effect sucrose on brain activity in these regions.
    • And as you might expect, the different response to sucralose and sucrose was greatest for women who were obese.
  • Participants consumed more calories at the buffet table after the sucralose drink than after the sucrose drink.
    • There was no significant effect of weight on the differential response to sucralose and sucrose. However:
    • The differential response to sucralose and sucrose was larger for female participants than for the whole group.
  • These results are consistent with previous studies suggesting that appetite responses to food cues might be greater in females and individuals with obesity. However, this was the first study designed to directly test this hypothesis.

The authors concluded, “Our findings indicate that female individuals and those who are obese, and especially female individuals with obesity, might be particularly sensitive to greater neural responsivity elicited by sucralose compared to sucrose consumption. This study highlights the need to consider individual biologic factors in research studies and potentially dietary recommendations regarding the use and efficacy of non-nutritive sweeteners [artificial sweeteners] for body weight management.”

[Note: You may have noticed that the authors extrapolated from their data on sucralose to all artificial sweeteners. Is this extrapolation valid? The short answer is, “We don’t know”. Most of the mechanistic studies have been done with sucralose, but some studies suggest these same effects may be seen with other artificial sweeteners.]

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Artificial Sweeteners?

confusionIt seems like a “no brainer” that zero calorie drinks and reduced calorie foods would reduce weight gain and promote weight loss. But that just doesn’t seem to happen in the real world. Why is that?

  • Is it psychological? Do we feel so virtuous about consuming artificially sweetened foods and drinks that we allow ourselves to splurge on high-calorie junk foods?
  • Or is it physiological? Do artificial sweeteners increase our appetite for high-calorie junk foods?

Unfortunately, clinical studies have not been much help. Some studies suggest that artificial sweeteners increase our appetite for high-calorie foods, while others suggest they don’t. Clinical studies are supposed to resolve questions like these. Why have they been so confusing?

Part of the problem is that some of the studies on artificial sweeteners have been too small and/or too poorly designed to provide clear-cut answers. However, even well-designed clinical studies have two fundamental flaws:

  • Clinical studies are based on averages. They assume everyone is the same.
    • This study, and others like it, show the flaw in that assumption.
      • It appears that artificial sweeteners affect the appetite for high calorie foods more in individuals who are obese than in individuals who are normal weight or slightly overweight.
      • Artificial sweeteners also affect the appetite for high calorie foods more for females than for males.
      • What about age and ethnicity? Is the effect of artificial sweeteners on the appetite for high calorie foods affected by age or ethnicity? No one knows.
      • What about genetics? Is the effect of artificial sweeteners dependent on our genetic background? No one knows.
      • What about our microbiome? Again, no one knows.
  • Gold standard clinical studies only change one variable at a time. In studies of artificial sweeteners, the variable is artificial sweetener versus sugar. But we don’t eat just artificial sweeteners or sugar. We eat foods containing artificial sweeteners or sugar. Do the foods we eat alter the effect of the artificial sweeteners on appetite?
    • One recent study) suggests they might. It found that consumption of sucralose plus easily digested carbohydrate (such as might be found in artificially sweetened junk foods) may increase the craving for sweets more than consumption of either sucralose or sucrose alone.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Simply put, the initial promise of artificial sweeteners as a solution to the obesity epidemic and the alarming increase in diabetes has not been borne out by either clinical studies or real-life experience.

And I have not addressed the potential risks of artificial sweeteners in this article. However, in my opinion, something that has potential risks, no matter how small, and no proven benefit is something to avoid.

But don’t take my word for it. As I reported in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” article, an international consortium of scientists recently reviewed all the pertinent literature and published a position paper on whether artificially sweetened beverages were of value in responding to the global obesity crisis. They concluded:

  • “In summary, the available evidence…does not consistently demonstrate that artificially-sweetened beverages are effective for weight loss or preventing metabolic abnormalities [pre-diabetes and diabetes]. Evidence on the impact of artificially-sweetened beverages on child health is even more limited and inconclusive than in adults.”
  • “The absence of evidence to support the role of artificially sweetened beverages in preventing weight gain and the lack of studies on their long-term effects on health strengthen the position that artificially-sweetened beverages should not be promoted as part of a healthy diet.”

The Bottom Line

When artificial sweeteners were first introduced over 100 years ago, we were promised they would end obesity. We didn’t have to change our diets. We could just substitute calorie-free artificial sweeteners for sugar in all our favorite foods.

Since then, both consumption of artificial sweeteners and obesity have skyrocketed in this country. Clearly, something isn’t working. Artificial sweeteners are not the magic solution we once thought they would be.

In recent years some studies have suggested that the reason that artificial sweeteners have failed us is that they stimulate our appetite for high calorie foods. However, this idea has been controversial. Some studies have supported it. Others have not.

Why have the clinical studies been so confusing? The study I describe in this article was designed to test the hypothesis that previous studies of artificial sweeteners may have provided misleading results because they didn’t account for the sex and BMI (a measure of obesity) of the study participants.

Many previous studies had primarily enrolled male, ideal weight participants. This study hypothesized that the response to artificial sweeteners might be different in female, overweight participants. The study found:

  • There was no overall difference in brain activity in the regions of the brain associated with appetite, hunger, and desire for high-calorie foods following consumption of drinks containing sucralose or sucrose. However:
    • For participants who were obese, high-calorie savory food images elicited greater brain activity in participants who had consumed sucralose than in participants who had consumed sucrose drinks.
    • For female participants, high-calorie sweet and savory food images elicited greater brain activity in participants who had consumed sucralose than in participants who had consumed sucrose drinks.
    • These differences were not small. The effect of sucralose on brain activity in regions that control appetite and hunger was several-fold greater than the effect sucrose on brain activity in those regions.
  • Participants consumed more calories at the buffet table after the sucralose drink than after the sucrose drink.
    • The differential response to sucralose and sucrose was larger for female participants than for the whole group.
  • These results are consistent with previous studies suggesting that appetite responses to food cues might be greater in females and individuals with obesity. However, this was the first study designed to directly test this hypothesis.

The authors concluded, “Our findings indicate that female individuals and those who are obese, and especially female individuals with obesity, might be particularly sensitive to greater neural responsivity elicited by sucralose compared to sucrose consumption. This study highlights the need to consider individual biologic factors in research studies and potentially dietary recommendations regarding the use and efficacy of non-nutritive sweeteners [eg, artificial sweeteners] for body weight management.”

For more details about 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 Diabetes Increasing In Our Children?

Why Is Diabetes Increasing In Our Children? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Last week I shared a study documenting the alarming increase in ultraprocessed food consumption by our children and the effect it was having on their health (https://chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-we-killing-our-children-with-kindness/). For example, childhood obesity is closely linked to ultraprocessed food consumption.

In case you don’t understand why that is, here is what I said last week: “Because ultraprocessed foods are made in a factory, not grown on a farm:

  • They are high in fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates. That means they have a high caloric density. Each bite has 2-3 times the calories found in a bite of fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • Even worse, the food industry has weaponized our natural cravings for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. They feed their prototypes to a series of consumer tasting panels until they find the perfect blend of sugar, salt, and fat to create maximum craving.
  • And if that weren’t enough, they add additives to create the perfect flavor and “mouth appeal”.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and obesity in both children and adults.
    • It is also no wonder that the rate of childhood obesity has almost quadrupled in the last 40 years.”

Unfortunately, whenever you see an increase in obesity, type 2 diabetes is not far behind. Several studies have reported a dramatic increase in type 2 diabetes in our children over the last 20 years.

Because diabetics can manage their blood sugar levels with insulin and/or a variety of drugs, many people consider it as just an inconvenience. Nothing could be further from the truth. Diabetes is a deadly disease, and it is even deadlier when it appears early in life.

You probably already know that long-term complications of diabetes include heart disease and irreversible damage to nerves, kidneys, eyes, and feet. But you may not have known that childhood diabetes is more dangerous than diabetes in adults because:

  • It is more challenging to manage in children.
  • The complications of diabetes start to show up much earlier in life and affect quality of life at a much earlier age. For example:
    • Cardiovascular events occur 15 years earlier in someone with diabetes.
    • On average, a 50-year-old with diabetes will die 6 years earlier than someone without diabetes.
    • On average, a 10-year-old with diabetes will die 19 years earlier than a child without diabetes.

The study (JM Lawrence et al, JAMA, 326: 717-727, 2021) I will discuss today is the largest and most comprehensive study of childhood diabetes to date.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study were obtained from the SEARCH For Diabetes In Youth Study. This study collected data on physician-diagnosed cases of diabetes in 3.47 million children ages 19 or younger from 6 geographical areas in the US in 2001, 2009, and 2017.

The 6 geographical areas were:

  • Southern California (7 counties, including Los Angeles).
  • Colorado (14 counties, including Denver).
  • Ohio (8 counties, including Cincinnati)
  • South Carolina (4 counties, including Columbia).
  • Washington State (5 counties, including Seattle).
  • Indian Health Service users in select areas of Arizona and New Mexico.

The data on diabetes diagnoses were obtained by creating active surveillance networks composed of pediatric and adult endocrinologists, other clinicians, hospitals, and health plans in the study areas.

Is Diabetes Increasing In Our Children?

IncreaseTo answer this question let’s start with a historical perspective:

  • In 1950 obesity in US children was rare and type 2 diabetes in children was practically unknown.
    • Since then, obesity rates have skyrocketed, and type 2 diabetes has followed along behind it.
  • Between 1925 and 1950 the prevalence of type 1 diabetes in US children remained constant, but it has been steadily increasing since 1950.
    • Type 1 diabetes remains more prevalent than type 2 diabetes in our children, but the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has been increasing faster than type 1 diabetes.

Now let’s look at the results from the SEARCH For Diabetes In Youth Study:

Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes:

  • The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in US children aged 10-19 increased from 0.34/1000 youths in 2001, to 0.46/1000 youths in 2009, to 0.67/1000 youths in 2017.
    • This is a 94% increase between 2001 and 2017. Put another way, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in our children has almost doubled in just 16 years!
    • The greatest increase was seen among Black (0.85/1000 youths), Hispanic (0.57/1000 youths), and American Indian (0.42/1000 youths) population groups.
  • These data are consistent with 3 previous studies reporting a doubling of type 2 diabetes in children over similar time periods.

Note: Since data collection ended in 2017, this study does not take into account the increase in type 2 diabetes caused by increased body weight and reduced activity in children during the pandemic. There are no firm data on the increase in type 2 diabetes in children during the pandemic, but some hospitals have reported increases of 50% to 300% in new diagnoses of type 2 diabetes in 2020.

Prevalence of Type 1 Diabetes:

  • The prevalence of type 1 diabetes in US children aged 19 and younger increased from 1.48/1000 youths in 2001, to 1.93/1000 youths in 2009, to 2.15/1000 youths in 2017.
  • This is a 45% increase between 2001 and 2017.
    • The greatest increase was seen among White (0.93/1000 youths), Black (0.89/1000 youths), and Hispanic (0.59/1000 youths) population groups.
    • These data are consistent with a similar study of type 1 diabetes in children in Holland.

In summary:

  • This study documents a dramatic increase in the prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in US children between 2001 and 2017.
  • Type 2 diabetes is still less prevalent than type 1 diabetes in US children, but it is increasing twice as fast.

Why Is Diabetes Increasing In Our Children?

Question MarkWhen it comes to type 2 diabetes, the experts agree:

  • The increase in type 2 diabetes in children is directly related to the obesity epidemic, which is now impacting our children. The obesity epidemic is, in turn, caused by:
    • Decreased exercise. Video games and social media have replaced actual games played outside.

However, when it comes the increase in type 1 diabetes, the experts are perplexed. There is no easy explanation. Let’s start with the basics:

  • Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease. With type 1 diabetics, their immune system starts attacking the insulin-producing beta cells in their pancreas. Consequently, they lose the ability to produce insulin.
  • The autoimmune response seen in type 1 diabetes is caused by a combination of genes and environment. Specifically:
    • Certain genes predispose to type 1 diabetes. However:
      • Only some people with those genes develop type 1 diabetes.
      • Our genetics doesn’t change with time, so genetics cannot explain the increases in type 1 diabetes we are seeing.
  • That leaves the environment. There are many hypotheses about how our children’s environment influences their risk of developing type 1 diabetes. However:
    • Some of these hypotheses involve things that have not changed over the last 15-20 years. They cannot explain the increase in type1 diabetes we are seeing in children.
    • Some of these hypotheses are not supported by good data. They are speculative.

With that in mind, I will list the top 5 current hypotheses and evaluate each of them.

#1: The viral infection hypothesis: Basically, this hypothesis states that type 1 diabetes can be triggered by child with flucommon viral infections such as the flu.

  • This is a plausible hypothesis. Whenever our immune system is stimulated by invaders it sometimes goes rogue and triggers autoimmune responses.
  • It is also supported by good data. The onset of type 1 diabetes is often associated with a viral infection in genetically susceptible children.
  • However, prior to the pandemic viral infections have been constant. They haven’t changed over time. Therefore, they cannot explain an increase in type 1 diabetes between 2001 and 2017.

#2: The hygiene hypothesis: Basically, this hypothesis states that when we raise our children in a sterile environment, their immune system doesn’t develop normally. Essentially the hypothesis is saying that it’s not a bad thing if your toddler eats some dirt and moldy fruits. However:

  • The data linking hygiene to food allergies is better than the data linking hygiene to autoimmune responses.
  • There is no evidence that hygiene practices have changed significantly between 2001 and 2017.

#3: The vitamin D hypothesis: Basically, this hypothesis states that vitamin D deficiency is associated with the autoimmune response that causes type 1 diabetes.

  • One of the functions of vitamin D is to regulate the immune system.
  • As I have reported previously, suboptimal vitamin D levels are associated with increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes.
  • While we know that up to 61% of children in the US have suboptimal vitamin D levels, we don’t know whether that percentage has changed significantly in recent years.

happy gut bacteria#4: The gut bacteria hypothesis: Basically, this hypothesis suggests that certain populations of gut bacteria increase the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. This is what we know.

  • Children who develop type 1 diabetes have a unique population of gut bacteria.
  • This population of gut bacteria also triggers inflammation, and chronic inflammation can lead to autoimmune responses.
  • A diet rich in highly processed foods supports growth of the same gut bacteria found in children with type 1 diabetes.
  • Consumption of highly processed foods has increased significantly in the last twenty years.

#5: The obesity hypothesis: Basically, this hypothesis suggests that obesity increases the risk of developing type 1 diabetes.

  • While the mechanism is not clear, childhood obesity is associated with both inflammatory and autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes.
  • Childhood obesity has increased dramatically in the past few years.

As you may have noticed, there are weaknesses to each of these hypotheses. This is why there is no current agreement among experts as to why type 1 diabetes is increasing in our children.

My guess is that none of these hypotheses can fully explain the increase in type 1 diabetes in our children, but that several of them may contribute to it.

What Can We Do?

Family Riding BicyclesWhatever the mechanism, the increase in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in our children is troubling. Unless this trend is reversed, we may be dooming our children to short, unhealthy lives. So, what can we, as concerned parents and grandparents, do?

For type 2 diabetes, the answer is clear.

1) Reverse the dominance of ultraprocessed foods in children’s diets. Encourage the consumption of whole, unprocessed or minimally processed foods, and include lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. Set a good example as well.

2) Encourage more activity. Get them outside and moving. Create family activities that involve exercise.

3) Reverse the obesity epidemic. If we succeed in reversing the dominance of ultraprocessed foods in their diet and encouraging more activity, we can reverse the obesity epidemic without putting our children on crazy diets.

For type 1 diabetes, the answer is less clear because the cause for the increase in type 1 diabetes is uncertain. However, I will point out that:

1) Increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and legumes supports the growth of friendly gut bacteria that reduce inflammation and the risk of autoimmune diseases. For more detail on an anti-inflammatory diet, click here.

2) Reversing the obesity epidemic also reduces inflammation and the risk of autoimmune diseases.

3) Adequate vitamin D levels reduce the risk of autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. My recommendation is to get your 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels tested and supplement with vitamin D3 as needed, especially during the winter months.

The Bottom Line

Last week I shared a study documenting the alarming increase in ultraprocessed food consumption by our children and the effect it was having on their health. For example, childhood obesity is closely linked to ultraprocessed food consumption, and the rate of childhood obesity has almost quadrupled in the last 40 years.

Unfortunately, whenever you see an increase in obesity, type 2 diabetes is not far behind. This week’s study looked at the prevalence of childhood diabetes in 3.47 million children from 6 geographical areas of the United States between 2001 and 2017. This study found:

  • The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in US children increased 94% between 2001 and 2017. It almost doubled.
  • The prevalence of type 1 diabetes in US children increased 45% between 2001 and 2017.

These statistics are tragic because diabetes is a deadly disease.

You probably already know that long-term complications of diabetes include heart disease and irreversible damage to nerves, kidneys, eyes, and feet. But you may not have known that childhood diabetes is more dangerous than diabetes in adults because:

  • It is more challenging to manage in children.
  • The complications of diabetes start to show up much earlier in life and affect quality of life at a much earlier age. For example:
    • Cardiovascular events occur 15 years earlier in someone with diabetes.
    • On average, a 50-year-old with diabetes will die 6 years earlier than someone without diabetes.
    • On average, a 10-year-old with diabetes will die 19 years earlier than a child without diabetes.

For more details about this study, why the prevalence of diabetes in US children is increasing, and what we can do about it, 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

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

fast foodIt breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

Let me explain. The human brain is hardwired to crave sweets, salt, and fat. In prehistoric times each of these cravings had a survival benefit. For example:

  • Mother’s milk is naturally sweet. It only makes sense that babies should crave the nutrition source that is essential for their early growth and development.
  • Fruits provide a cornucopia of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. But fruits were scarce and seasonal in prehistoric times. Their sweetness provided an incentive for early man to seek them out.
  • Some salt is essential for life. Yet in early history it was scare. It was worth its weight in gold.
  • In prehistoric times it was feast or famine. The human body has an unlimited capacity to store fat in times of plenty, and those fat stores carried early man through times of famine.

Today most Americans live in a time of food abundance. There are fast food restaurants on almost every street corner and in every shopping mall. We think of famine as the days we skipped lunch because we were busy.

Yet these cravings remain, and the food industry has weaponized them. They are churning out an endless supply highly processed foods and beverages. These foods are not being designed to improve their nutritional value. They are designed to satisfy our cravings and lure us and our children into consuming more of them every year.

Scientists have developed a classification system that assigns foods in the American diet to different groups based on the degree of processing of that food. As you might expect, the best classification is unprocessed foods. The worst classification is called “ultraprocessed foods”. [I will describe this classification system in more detail in the next section.]

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. That is the topic of the study (L Wang et al, JAMA, 326: 519-530, 2021) I will discuss today.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study were obtained from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) dietary data collected from 33,795 American children (ages 2-19, average age = 10) between 1999 and 2018.

NHANES is a program conducted by the CDC to survey the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey has been conducted on a continuous, yearly basis since 1999.

The dietary data are collected via 24-hour dietary recalls conducted by trained interviewers, with a second recall administered over the phone 3-10 days later to improve the accuracy of the data.

  • Children aged 12-19 completed the dietary survey on their own.
  • For children aged 6-11, a parent or guardian assisted them in filling out the survey.
  • For children aged 2-5, a parent or guardian filled out the survey for them.

The foods and beverages consumed by the children were divided into 4 major groups based on the extent of processing using a well-established classification system called NOVA. The 4 groups are:

1) Unprocessed Or Minimally Processed Foods.

  • This includes whole foods and foods that are minimally processed without the addition of oils, fats, sugar, salt, or other ingredients to the food.
  • Examples of minimally processed foods include things like oatmeal, nut butters, dried fruit, frozen fruits or vegetables, and dried beans.

2) Processed Culinary Ingredients.

  • This includes recipes from restaurants or in-home cooking that add small amounts of oils, fats, sugar, salt, and seasonings to whole foods.

3) Processed Foods

  • This includes foods made in factories by the addition of salt, sugar, oil, or other substances added to whole or minimally processed foods.
  • Examples include tomato paste, canned fruits packed in sugar syrup, cheese, smoked or cured meat.

4) Ultraprocessed Foods

  • These are industrial formulations created in factories mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories (flavor enhancers, colors, and food additives).
  • Examples include sugar sweetened beverages; sweet or savory packaged snacks; chocolates and candies; burgers, hot dogs, and sausages; poultry and fish nuggets, pastries, cakes, and cake mixes.

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

Obese ChildAs I said above, the important question is, “Are we killing our children with kindness when we give them the sugary drinks, sweets, convenience foods, and fast foods they crave?” After all, the foods we give them when they are young are the ones they are most likely to select when they get older.

Let’s start by looking at how pervasive these foods have become. That was the purpose of the study I am discussing today, and the results of this study are alarming. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!
  • Ultraprocessed foods were more likely to be consumed away from home and at fast food restaurants.

When the investigators looked at individual categories of ultraprocessed foods:

  • The percentage of calories coming from ready to heat and eat dishes like frozen pizzas and other frozen meals or snacks increased from 2.2% to 11.2%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sweet snacks and desserts increased from 10.7% to 12.9%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sugar sweetened beverages decreased from 10.8% to 5.3%.
    • This is potentially the only good news from this study.

The authors concluded. “Based on NHANES data from 1999 to 2018, the estimated energy intake from consumption of ultraprocessed foods has increased among youths in the US and has consistently comprised the majority of their total energy intake.”

“These results suggest that food processing may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies.”

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods

Fast Food DangersThis study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

#1: Their nutrition suffers. When the investigators divided the children into 5 groups based on the percentage of calories coming from ultraprocessed foods, the children consuming the most ultraprocessed food had:

  • Significantly higher intakes of carbohydrates (mostly refined carbohydrates); total fats; polyunsaturated fats (mostly highly processed omega-6-rich vegetable oils); and added sugars.
  • Significantly lower intakes of fiber; protein; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; calcium; magnesium; potassium; zinc; vitamins A, C, D, and folate.
    • The low intake of fiber means our children will be less likely to have health-promoting friendly bacteria and more likely to have disease-promoting bad bacteria in their guts.
    • The low intake of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D means they will be less likely to achieve maximum bone density as young adults and will be more likely to suffer from osteoporosis as they age.

#2: They are more likely to become obese. Remember, these are foods that are made in a factory, not grown on a farm.

  • They are high in fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates. That means they have a high caloric density. Each bite has 2-3 times the calories found in a bite of fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • As I said earlier, the food industry has weaponized our natural cravings for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. They feed their prototypes to a series of consumer tasting panels until they find the perfect blend of sugar, salt, and fat to create maximum craving.
  • And if that weren’t enough, they add additives to create the perfect flavor and “mouth appeal”.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and obesity in both children and adults.
    • It is also no wonder that the rate of childhood obesity has almost quadrupled (5% to 18.5%) in the last 40 years.

#3: They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

  • Obesity; high intake of fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates; and low intake of fiber, omega-3s, and essential nutrients all contribute to an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and premature death in adults.
    • It is also no wonder a recent study found that type 2 diabetes in children has almost doubled between 2001 and 2017.

The data are clear. When we allow our children to subsist on a diet mostly made up of the ultraprocessed foods they crave, we may be giving them, not love, but a lifetime of obesity and declining health instead. And yes, we may be killing them with kindness.

Instead, my recommendations are:

  • expose your children to a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed foods at an early age.
  • They will reject some of them, and that’s OK. Introduce others until you find whole, minimally processed foods they like. Reintroduce them to some of the foods they initially rejected as they get older.
  • Don’t keep tempting ultraprocessed foods in your house.
  • You may just succeed in putting your children on the path to a healthier diet and a healthier, longer life.

The Bottom Line

It breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. A recent study did just that. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!

This study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

  • Their nutrition suffers.
  • They are more likely to become obese.
  • They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

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 Whole Grains Keep Diabetes Away?

Are Whole Grains Healthy? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

deceptionLow carb enthusiasts will tell you that carbohydrates are the villain. They tell you that cutting carbohydrates out of your diet will reduce your risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

If they limited their list of villainous foods to highly processed foods with white flour and/or added sugars, many nutrition experts would agree with them. There is widespread agreement in the nutrition community that we eat far too much of these foods.

However, I don’t have to tell you that many low carb diets also eliminate whole grains, fruits, and beans from their diets based solely on the carbohydrate content of these foods. Is this good advice? Is there any data to back up this claim?

The short answer is no. Last week I shared a study showing that fruits reduced your risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

This week I will review a study looking at the effect of whole grain consumption on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study combined data from women in the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014) and the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2017), and men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016). There were 158,259 women and 36,525 men in these three studies.

None of the participants had type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at the time they entered the studies.

At the beginning of each study and every 4 years later the participants were asked to fill out a food frequency questionnaire to collect information about their usual diet over the past year. Validation studies showed that the diets of the participants changed little over the interval of the studies. [Note: This is a strength of these studies. Many clinical studies only collect dietary data at the beginning of the study, so there is no way of knowing whether the participant’s diets changed over time.]

The participants in these studies were followed for an average of 24 years. They were sent follow-up questionnaires every two years to collect information on diseases they had been diagnosed with over the past two years. Participants who reported type 2 diabetes were sent a supplementary questionnaire to confirm the diagnosis.

This study measured the effect of whole grain consumption, and frequently consumed whole grain foods, on the long term (24 year) risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

The data were adjusted for multiple possible confounding variables (other factors that might affect the risk of developing type 2 diabetes) including age, ethnicity, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use, healthy eating index (a measure of how healthy the overall diet was), caloric intake, obesity, family history of diabetes, and use of oral contraceptives or postmenopausal hormones.

In addition, a stratified analysis was performed to assess the extent to which obesity, physical activity, smoking status, and family history of diabetes influenced the outcome.

In short, this was a very rigorous and well-controlled study.

Do Whole Grains Keep Diabetes Away?

Whole GrainsTotal whole grain consumption was divided into five groups ranging from 2 servings per day to < 0.1 serving per day. When participants with the highest whole grain intake were compared to those with the lowest whole grain intake:

  • Whole grain consumption was associated with a 29% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
    • The association between whole grain consumption and reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes was stronger for lean individuals (45% reduction in risk) than for overweight (34% reduction in risk) or obese individuals (23% reduction in risk).
    • The association between whole grain consumption and reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes was not affected by physical activity, smoking status, or family history of diabetes.

When they looked at the entire range of whole grain intake among participants in the study:

  • The risk reduction for developing type 2 diabetes was nonlinear.
    • The greatest portion of risk reduction (30% decreased risk) occurred between 0 and 2 servings/day.
    • However, the reduction in risk continued to decrease at a slower rate up to 4.5 servings/day (38% decreased risk), the highest intake recorded for participants in this study.

When they looked at the most frequently consumed whole grain foods and compared the risk of developing type 2 diabetes for participants consuming one or more servings per day compared with less than 1 serving per month:

  • People consuming whole grain cold breakfast cereals were 19% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
  • People consuming whole grain breads were 21% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
  • People consuming popcorn were 8% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Once again, the risk reduction was nonlinear.

  • For whole grain cold breakfast cereals risk reduction plateaued at around 0.5 servings per day.
  • For whole grain breads the greatest portion of risk reduction occurred at around 0.5 servings per day (17% decreased risk), but the reduction in risk continued to decrease at a slower rate up to 4 servings/day (28% decreased risk).
  • For popcorn, the risk reduction curve was non-linear. There was a slight, non-significant, decrease in risk at about 0.2 servings per day, followed by a steady increase in risk up to 1.75 servings per day (24% increased risk).

When they looked at less frequently consumed whole grain foods and compared the risk of developing type 2 diabetes for participants consuming two or more servings per week compared with less than 1 serving per month:

  • People consuming oatmeal were 21% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
  • People consuming brown rice were 12% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
  • People consuming added bran were 15% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

There were not enough people consuming these whole grains for the investigators to determine how many servings were optimal.

The authors concluded, “Higher consumption of total whole grains and several commonly eaten whole grain foods, including whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, whole grain bread, brown rice, and added bran, was significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. These findings provide further support for the current recommendations of increasing whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet for the prevention of type 2 diabetes.”

Are Whole Grains Healthy?

Question MarkThis is a very impressive study. As described above, it is a large (194,784 participants), long lasting (24 years), and well-designed study. With this data in mind, we can answer several important questions.

Are Whole Grains Healthy?

This study explodes the myth that you should avoid whole grains if you want to prevent diabetes. Instead, the study shows that whole grain consumption decreases your risk of developing type-2 diabetes.

I recently reviewed another large, well-designed study showing that whole grain consumption reduces your risk of dying from heart disease, cancer, and all causes combined.

So, clearly whole grains are good for you. They should be an important part of your diet.

Which Whole Grains Are Healthy?

According to this study, whole grain breakfast cereals, whole grain breads, oatmeal, brown rice, and bran are all healthy. All of them significantly reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Other whole grains are likely to be healthy too, but Americans consume so little of them, they could not be analyzed in this study.

However, there are some caveats:

  • You have to read labels carefully. Unless it says “100% whole grain”, it probably contains more refined grains than whole grains.
    • Yes, food manufacturers are intentionally deceptive. Who knew?
  • You have to look at the food, not just “whole grain” on the label.
    • It is hard to imagine, but Dr. Kellogg originally created breakfast cereals as health food. However, today many “whole grain” cereals are loaded with sugar and artificial ingredients. They are highly processed foods that are anything but healthy.
    • The case of popcorn is a perfect example. Popcorn is loaded with fiber. It should reduce your risk of diabetes. However, in this study it increased the risk of diabetes. That’s because 70% of the popcorn that Americans consume is purchased either pre-popped or ready to pop. It contains unhealthy ingredients like salt, butter, sugar, trans fats, and artificial flavors. It is a highly processed food. Air popped popcorn without the added ingredients is probably very healthy.

Why Are Whole Grains Healthy?

Dr. Strangelove and his buddies have told you to avoid all grains because they contain carbohydrates that are converted to sugar. That is good advice for refined grains. Not only are they rapidly converted to sugar. But they are also found in highly processed foods along with sugar, fat, and a witch’s brew of chemicals.

However, whole grains are different. Yes, whole grains are carbohydrate-rich foods, and the carbohydrate is converted to sugar during digestion. But:

  • They also contain fiber, which slows the digestion of the carbohydrate and delays the absorption of the sugar released during digestion.
  • The carbohydrate is trapped in a cellular matrix, which must be digested before the carbohydrate can be released.

In addition:

  • Whole grains contain nutrients and phytonutrients not found in refined grains.
  • The fiber in whole grains supports the growth of friendly bacteria in the gut.

How Many Whole Grain Foods Should I Be Eating?

This study found that you get the biggest “bang for your buck” when you go from 0 to around 2 servings per day of whole foods.

  • If you aren’t fond of whole grain foods, that is good news. It is also in line with USDA recommendation that half the grains we eat should be whole grains. You don’t need to eat whole grains with every meal.
  • If you are a purist, you can reduce your diabetes risk even more by increasing your whole grain intake up to at least 4.5 servings per day, the highest intake measured in this study.

Are Low Carb Diets Healthy?

Low carb diets may be effective for short term weight loss, but there is no evidence that they are healthy long term. And, because they cut out one or more food groups many experts feel they are likely to be unhealthy long term.

My advice is to forget “low carb” and focus on “healthy carb” instead.

  • Eliminate refined carbs and the highly processed foods they are found in.
  • Include fruits, whole grains, and beans as part of your diet. They are high carbohydrate foods, but, as this and other studies have shown, the carbohydrates in those foods are healthy carbs.

The Bottom Line

Low carb enthusiasts tell you to eliminate whole grains from your diet if you want to reduce your risk of developing diabetes. Is this true? Is it good advice?

A recent study put this advice to the test. It was a large (194,784 participants), long lasting (24 years), and well-designed study. Here is what the study found.

When participants with the highest whole grain intake were compared to those with the lowest whole grain intake:

  • Whole grain consumption was associated with a 29% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

When they looked at the entire range of whole grain intake among participants in the study:

  • The risk reduction for developing type 2 diabetes was nonlinear.
  • The greatest portion of risk reduction (30% decreased risk) occurred between 0 and 2 servings/day.
  • But the reduction in risk continued to decrease at a slower rate up to 4.5 servings/day (38% decreased risk), the highest intake recorded for participants in this study.

When they looked at individual foods, whole grain breakfast cereals, whole grain bread, oatmeal, brown rice, and added bran all reduced diabetes risk.

The authors concluded, “Higher consumption of total whole grains and several commonly eaten whole grain foods, including whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, whole grain bread, brown rice, and added bran, was significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. These findings provide further support for the current recommendations of increasing whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet for the prevention of type 2 diabetes.”

For more details about 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 An Apple A Day Keep Diabetes Away?

A Holistic Approach To Preventing Diabetes 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

VillainLow carb enthusiasts will tell you that carbohydrates are the villain. They tell you that cutting carbohydrates out of your diet will reduce your risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

If they limited their list of villainous foods to foods with white flour and/or added sugars, many nutrition experts would agree with them. There is widespread agreement in the nutrition community that we eat far too much of these foods.

However, I don’t have to tell you that many low carb diets also eliminate fruits, whole grains, and beans from their diets based solely on the carbohydrate content of these foods. Is this good advice? Is there any data to back up this claim?

The short answer is no. In fact, most studies suggest the opposite is true. I have covered these studies in previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. For example:

  • In one issue I covered studies showing the people consuming primarily plant-based diets weigh less, have less inflammation, and have a lower risk of diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure than people consuming the typical American diet.
  • In another issue I shared studies showing that women consuming a plant-based low carb diet weigh less, and have reduced risk of diabetes and heart disease than women consuming a meat-based low carb diet.

However, these studies looked at the effect of the whole diet, not individual components of the diet.

This week I will review a study (NP Bondonno et al, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2021, doi:10.1210/clinem/dgab335) looking at the effect of fruit consumption on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Next week I will review a study looking at the effect of whole grain consumption on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study made use of data from the Australian Diabetes Obesity And Lifestyle Study. This study recruited 7675 Australians 25 years or older from 7 states and territories in Australia in 1999 and 2000 and followed them for 5 years. The characteristics of the study population were:

  • Gender = 45% male, 55% female
  • Average age = 54 years
  • Average BMI = 26.8 (slightly overweight)
  • Did not have diabetes at time of entry into the study.

The participants filled out a food frequency questionnaire at the time of entry into the study. This questionnaire was used to analyze:

  • the amount of fruit consumed.
  • the amounts of vegetables, red meat, and processed meat consumed.
  • how many calories were consumed.

At the time of entry into the study several measurements were taken that assessed whether the participants had an increased risk of developing diabetes (otherwise known as pre-diabetes). These included:

  • Fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels.
  • A 2-hour glucose tolerance test. The results of this test were used to calculate insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity.

The study also recorded any participants who were diagnose with diabetes over the next 5 years.

Does An Apple A Day Keep Diabetes Away?

AppleThe data from this study were statistically adjusted for confounding variables (Other variables that might affect the risk of diabetes). Many confounding variables were included in the adjustment, but the ones of interest to us are age, sex, physical activity, obesity, caloric intake, and intakes of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, and processed meat.

After adjustment for all these variables the results were:

At the beginning of the study:

  • Fruit intake was inversely associated with insulin levels and insulin resistance.
  • Fruit intake was directly associated with insulin sensitivity.

In other words, the more fruit people ate, the less likely they were to have prediabetes at the time they entered the study.

At 5 years:

  • Fruit intake was inversely associated with diabetes.
  • Fruit juice had no effect on diabetes risk.

In other words, the more fruit people ate, the less likely they were to develop diabetes 5 years later. Fruit juice, on the other hand, had no beneficial effect on diabetes risk.

  • The benefit of fruit intake plateaued at 2-3 servings a day.

In other words, you don’t need to become a fruitarian. A modest intake of fruit (2-3 servings a day) is all you need.

In case you haven’t noticed, 2-3 servings of fruit a day matches USDA recommendations – and the recommendations of almost every other governmental and medical organization. What do they know that you didn’t know?

The most commonly eaten fruits in this study were apples (23%), bananas (20%), and oranges and other citrus fruits (18%). Enough people ate these three fruits that their effects on the risk of developing diabetes could be analyzed separately.

  • The beneficial effect of each of these fruits plateaued at about one serving a day.

In other words, an apple a day does keep diabetes away. However, apples can’t do it alone. You need a variety of fruits for optimal benefit.

The authors concluded, “A healthy diet including whole fruits, but not fruit juice, may play a role in mitigating type 2 diabetes risk.”

A Holistic Approach To Preventing Diabetes

Myth Versus FactsThis study explodes the myth that you should avoid fruits if you want to prevent diabetes. Yes, fruits do contain sugar, but:

  • They also contain fiber, which slows the absorption of that sugar.
  • The sugar is trapped in a cellular matrix, which must be digested before that sugar can be released. That also slows the absorption of sugar.

This is why fruit consumption reduces the risk of diabetes while fruit juice consumption does not.

However, I don’t want to give you the impression that you can reduce your risk of diabetes just by consuming more fruit. You need a holistic approach. Here are diabetes prevention tips from the American Diabetes Association.

  1. Get more physical activity.
    • The greatest benefit comes from a fitness program that includes both aerobic exercise and resistance training.

2) Get plenty of fiber.

    • Include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, and nuts in your diet.

3) Lose extra weight.

    • One recent study showed that losing as little as 7% of your body weight and exercising regularly could reduce your risk of developing diabetes by almost 60%.

4) Skip fad diets and simply make healthier food choices.

    • “Low-carb diets, the glycemic index diet, and other fad diets may help you lose weight initially. But their effectiveness at preventing diabetes and their long-term effects aren’t known. And by excluding or strictly limiting a particular food group, you may be giving up essential nutrients.”

5) See your doctor on a regular basis and have your blood sugar tested, especially if you are overweight, have a family history of diabetes, or are over 45.

The Bottom Line

Low carb enthusiasts tell you to eliminate fruits from your diet if you want to reduce your risk of developing diabetes. Is this true? Is it good advice?

A recent study put this advice to the test. The study recruited 7675 Australians 25 years or older and followed them for 5 years. It correlated fruit intake with measures of prediabetes at the beginning of the study and correlated fruit intake with the onset of diabetes over the next 5 years. Here is what the study found.

  • The more fruit people ate, the less likely they were to have prediabetes at the time they entered the study.
  • The more fruit people ate, the less likely they were to develop diabetes 5 years later.
  • The benefit of fruit intake plateaued at 2-3 servings a day. In other words, you don’t need to become a fruitarian. A modest intake of fruit (2-3 servings a day) is all you need.

The most commonly eaten fruits in this study were apples (23%), bananas (20%), and oranges and other citrus fruits (18%). Enough people ate these three fruits that their effects on the risk of developing diabetes could be analyzed separately.

  • The beneficial effect of each of these fruits plateaued at about one serving a day.

In other words, an apple a day keeps diabetes away. However, apples can’t do it alone. You need a variety of fruits for optimal benefit.

The authors concluded, “A healthy diet including whole fruits, but not fruit juice, may play a role in mitigating type 2 diabetes risk.”

For more details about this study and a holistic approach to reducing your risk of diabetes recommended by the American Diabetes Association, 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 Low Fat Diets Reduce The Risk Of Diabetes?

Why Is Nutrition So Confusing?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

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

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

In today’s “Health Tips From The Professor” I am going to share a study (CQ Lai et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112: 1200-1211, 2020) that looks at the effect of diet (low-fat versus low-carb diets) on a particular kind of DNA modification (methylation) that affects a gene (CPT) which influences our risk for metabolic diseases (obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL, insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and type 2 diabetes).

[Note: For simplicity I will just refer to type 2 diabetes in the rest of this article. Just be aware that whatever I say about type 2 diabetes applies to other metabolic diseases as well.]

Previous studies have shown that:

  • Methylation of the CPT gene is the only epigenetic change in the entire genome that is associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • CPT gene activity regulates multiple metabolic pathways that influence the risk of type 2 diabetes.
  • High fructose and sucrose consumption increases CPT gene methylation in rats, and high fat diets suppress that methylation.

Based on those data, the authors hypothesized that carbohydrate and fat intake affect the methylation of CPT gene, which:

  • Alters the activity of the CPT gene and…
  • Affects the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Since we are talking about our diet making alterations to our DNA, we could consider this as an example of, “We are what we eat”.

Biochemistry 101: Why Is Nutrition So Confusing?

ConfusionNow it is time for my favorite topic, Biochemistry 101. Along the way you will discover why nutrition is so complicated – and so confusing.

The CPT gene codes for a protein called carnitine palmitoyltransferase or CPT. CPT transports fats into the mitochondria where they can be oxidized to generate energy. Simply put, without CPT we would be unable to utilize most of the fats we eat. And, as you might expect, CPT is not required for carbohydrate metabolism.

  • In a simple world where our DNA sequence determines our destiny, we would either have an active CPT gene or an inactive mutant version of the gene. If we had the mutant version of the CPT gene, we would be unable to use fat as an energy source.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. Epigenetic modifications alter the activity of the CPT gene. When the CPT gene is unmethylated it is fully active. Methylation inactivates the gene.

  • In a simple world, a high fat diet would activate the CPT gene so our body would be able to utilize the fat in our diet. It would do that by decreasing methylation of the gene. Conversely, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet would decrease CPT gene activity by increasing methylation of the gene.

This is the one simple prediction that works exactly as expected. 

  • In a simple world, CPT would be involved in transport of fat into our mitochondria and nothing else. In that world, the activity of the CPT gene would only affect fat metabolism.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. By mechanisms that are not completely understood, carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) also influences both insulin resistance and release of insulin by our pancreas. That means the activity of the CPT gene also affects our risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 

  • In the simplest terms, we can think of diabetes as an inability to properly regulate blood sugar levels. In a simple world, that would mean that carbohydrates are the problem, and we could reduce our risk of developing diabetes by restricting our intake of carbohydrates.

However, we don’t live in a simple world. There are short-term studies supporting the effectiveness of both low carb and low fat diets at helping to control blood sugar levels. However, longer term studies generally show that only whole food, low fat diets are associated with reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In other words, healthy carbohydrates aren’t the problem. They are the solution for reducing your risk of type 2 diabetes. This isn’t intuitive. It isn’t simple. But the weight of evidence points in this direction.

[I should add the emphasis is on “healthy” carbohydrates. I am talking about diets that emphasize whole food sources of carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes), not diets loaded with sugar, refined carbohydrates, and highly processed foods.]

Confused yet? Don’t worry. The authors of this study combined all this information into a single, unifying hypothesis.

They proposed that the fat and carbohydrate content of the diet influence methylation of the CPT gene, which influences the activity of the CPT gene, which influences both fat metabolism and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Specifically, they proposed that:

  • High fat diets reduce methylation of the CPT gene. This activates the CPT gene which results in more carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) being produced. This improves fat metabolism, but also increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
  • High carbohydrate, low fat diets increase methylation of the CPT gene. This inactivates the CPT gene which results in less CPT being produced. This is OK because there is little fat to be metabolized. However, it also has the advantage of reducing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

This can be visually represented as:Diet And CPT

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study combined the results from 3,954 selected participants in three previous clinical trials:

  • The Genetics of Lipid Lowering Drugs and Diet Network (GOLDN) study.
  • The Framingham Heart Study.
  • The REGICORE study. This study is similar in design to the Framingham Heart Study except the participants were drawn from a region of Spain.

The participants were selected based on 4 criteria:

  • The study they were in measured metabolic disease outcome.
  • The study they were in included a detailed diet analysis.
  • A DNA methylation analysis was performed on blood taken from these participants so that the methylation status of the CPT gene could be determined.
  • mRNA levels were measured for the CPT gene (This is a measure of how active the gene is. Active genes will produce lots of mRNA. Inactive genes will produce very little mRNA).

The study then analyzed the data and looked at the associations between carbohydrate and fat intake with:

  • Methylation of the CPT gene.
  • Activity of the CPT gene (measured as the amount of CPT mRNA produced by the gene).
  • Type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

Do Low Fat Diets Reduce The Risk Of Diabetes?

The authors systematically tested the predictions of their unifying hypothesis (To help you understand the significance of their findings, I am repeating the visual representation of their unifying hypothesis below):

Diet And CPT

  1. Methylation of the CPT gene was negatively associated with type 2 diabetes. Simply put, when the methylation of the of the CPT gene was high, the risk of type 2 diabetes was low. This confirmed the results of previous studies.

2) Carbohydrate and fat intake influenced methylation of the CPT gene. Specifically:

    • Carbohydrate intake and the ratio of carbohydrate to fat intake were positively associated with CPT methylation. Simply put, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet resulted in increased methylation of the CPT gene.
    • Fat intake was negatively associated with CPT methylation. Simply put, a high fat, low carbohydrate diet resulted in decreased methylation of the CPT gene.

3) Carbohydrate and fat intake influenced the activity of the CPT gene. Specifically:Diabetes and healthy die

    • Carbohydrate intake and the ratio of carbohydrate to fat intake was negatively associated with CPT mRNA levels (a measure of CPT gene activity). Simply put, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet resulted in lower CPT gene activity. This means the CPT gene produced less CPT. And, combined with the previous data, it also means that methylation of the CPT gene decreases its activity.
    • Fat intake was positively associated with CPT mRNA levels. Simply put, a high fat, low carbohydrate diet resulted in greater CPT gene activity. This means the CPT gene produces more CPT. And, combined with the previous data, it also means that reducing methylation of the CPT gene increases its activity.

4) CPT gene activity influenced the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Specifically:

    • High CPT gene activity was positively associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes.
    • Low CPT gene activity was negatively associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Putting this all together, as the authors had predicted,

  1. High fat, low carbohydrate diets reduce methylation of the CPT gene. This activates the CPT gene which results in more CPT being produced. This improves fat metabolism, but also increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

2) High carbohydrate, low fat diets increase methylation of the CPT gene. This results in less CPT being produced. This is OK because there is little fat to be metabolized. However, it also has the advantage of reducing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In short, the results of the study confirmed all the predictions of the author’s unifying hypothesis.

Putting it all together, the authors concluded, “Our results suggest that the proportion of total energy supplied by carbohydrate and fat can have a causal effect on metabolic diseases [like type 2 diabetes] via the epigenetic status (DNA methylation) of the CPT gene.” Simply put, their data suggested that high carbohydrate, low fat diets reduced the risk developing type 2 diabetes.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Peek Behind The CurtainLet me start by saying that occasionally I like to give you a peak behind the curtain and talk about emerging areas of research. We should think of this article as the beginning of an exciting new area of research rather than as a definitive study.

I should start with the disclaimer that this study looks at associations between diet, methylation of the CPT gene, and risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Associations do not prove cause and effect. This study does not prove that epigenetic changes to the CPT gene caused the reduction in type 2 diabetes risk.

High carbohydrate and high fat diets likely influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in other ways as well. For example, the fiber in healthy high carbohydrate diets may support friendly gut bacteria that reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

I also don’t view this study as one that settles the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are better for reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. It does not clinch the argument for low fat diets. Rather, this study suggests a mechanism by which low fat diets may reduce the risk of metabolic diseases.

In summary, this study does not end the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are best. However, it does remind us just how complex the human body is. It reminds us that simple assumptions about how foods affect our bodies may not be the correct assumptions. It also helps us understand why nutrition can be so confusing.

The Bottom Line 

In recent years, DNA sequencing has become all the rage. It seems like everyone is offering to sequence your genome and tell you what kind of diet is best for you.

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

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

Epigenetics makes nutrition more complicated, and more confusing. For example, diabetes is characterized an inability to control blood sugar levels properly. Accordingly, it seems only logical that carbohydrates, especially sugars and simple carbohydrates, are the problem.

This study showed that high carbohydrate, low fat diets cause epigenetic modifications to a gene that reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Conversely, high fat, low carb diets have the opposite effect.

This mechanism is consistent with multiple long-term studies showing that whole food, low fat diets reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

This study does not end the debate as to whether low carb or low fat diets are best. However, it does remind us just how complex the human body is. It reminds us that simple assumptions about how foods affect our bodies may not be the correct assumptions. It also helps us understand why nutrition can be so confusing.

For more details read the article above.

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

 

Health Tips From The Professor