Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Time-Restricted Eating Better Than Other Diets?

by

Is Time-Restricted Eating Right For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Time-restricted eating is the latest fad. If you read Dr. Strangeloves’ blogs, he or she will tell you that eating for 8-10 hours and fasting the rest of the day will change your metabolism. They tell you that:

  • You don’t need to change what you eat.
  • You don’t have to restrict calories.
  • You don’t have to restrict fats or carbs.
  • You will feel fuller and naturally eat less.
  • The pounds will just drop away magically.

And you will have benefits like:

  • Better blood sugar control.
  • Lower levels of heart-unhealthy lipids like LDL and triglycerides.
  • Enhanced cellular repair, which might help you live longer.

Are these claims true? Is there something special about time-restricted eating, or is it simply another way to cut calories?

Two recent studies (EA Thomas et al, Obesity; 30: 1027-1038, 2022) and (D Liu et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 386: 1495-1505, 2023) answered these questions by cutting calories to the same extent for people following a time-restricted eating pattern and people who had no restrictions on when they ate.

How Were These Studies Done?

clinical studyStudy 1: The authors enrolled 81 adults aged 18 to 50 years (average = 38 years, 69% female) with BMIs of 27 to 45 (overweight to morbidly obese).

The study lasted 39 weeks with measurements taken at baseline, 12 weeks, and 39 weeks.

The participants were divided into two groups:

  • A time-restricted eating group that was advised to restrict their eating to start eating within 3 hours of waking and restrict their eating to 10 hours.
  • A calorie restricted group that was given no time limitations on when they could eat.

Both groups were:

  • given a personalized calorie goal which represented a 35% caloric restriction based on measurements of their resting energy expenditure.
  • enrolled in a 39-week, group-based, comprehensive weight-loss program. Groups were taught by registered dietitians and met weekly through the first 12 weeks, and monthly between weeks 13 and 39.

Study 2: The authors enrolled 139 adults 18 to 75 years (average age = 32, 64% female) with BMIs of 28 to 45. The study lasted 12 months.

The participants were divided into two groups:

  • A time-restricted eating group that was advised to restrict their eating to between 8 AM and 4 PM (an 8-hour window) each day.
  • A calorie restricted group that was given no time limitations on when they could eat.

Both groups:

  • Were told to reduce calories by 25% which represented a 1500-1800 calorie/day diet for men and a 1200-1500 calorie/day diet for women.
  • Received dietary information booklets that provided portion advice and sample menus.
  • Were required to write in a daily dietary log, photograph the food they ate, and note the time they ate it using a mobile app.
  • Received follow up phone calls or app messages twice per week and met with trained health coaches every two weeks.

Is Time Restricted Eating Better Than Other Diets?

Here are the results of the two studies.

Study 1: There was no difference between the time-restricted group and the group who were just told to cut calories at either 12 or 39 weeks for:

  • Weight loss.
  • Body composition (fat loss and lean muscle mass loss).
  • Appetite and eating behaviors.
  • HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control).

The authors concluded two things:

  1. “Time-restricted eating with caloric restriction was found to be an acceptable dietary strategy, resulting in similar levels of adherence and weight loss compared to caloric restriction alone.”

2) “The addition of behavioral support and caloric restriction to a time-restricted eating intervention results in a clinically significant weight loss, a reduction in caloric input, and an improvement in diet quality.”

Study 2: There was no difference between the time-restricted group and the group who were just told to cut calories at 12 months for:

  • Weight loss, BMI, and waist circumference.
  • Body composition (fat loss and lean muscle mass loss).
  • Appetite and eating behaviors.
  • Blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, fasting blood sugar levels, and several measures of blood sugar control.

The authors concluded, “Among patients with obesity, a regimen of time-restricted eating was not more beneficial with regard to reduction in body weight, body fat, or metabolic risk factors than daily caloric restriction.”

Is Time-Restricted Eating Right For You?

Questioning WomanThe take-home lessons are the same for both studies.

  1. You can forget the metabolic mumbo-jumbo of the Dr. Strangeloves of our world. When you restrict calories to the same extent, time-restricted eating is no more successful and no healthier than any other diet.”

2) Like any other diet, time-restricted eating works best when you focus on eating healthy foods and reducing your caloric intake.

So, what does this mean for you? I have two thoughts:

1) If you find it easier to cut calories by restricting the time you eat, then time-restricted eating is right for you. If not, choose a healthy, reduced calorie diet that best fits your food preferences and lifestyle.

2) Time-restricted eating works best when you are in complete control of when and what you eat. They don’t work as well for travel, holidays with friends and family, and other social occasions. If your lifestyle is such that you are often not in control of when and what you eat, you might want to choose a more flexible diet.

The Bottom Line 

Time-restricted eating is the latest fad. If you read Dr. Strangeloves’ blogs, he or she will tell you that eating for 8-10 hours and fasting the rest of the day will change your metabolism, the weight will fall away effortlessly, and your health will be better.

But is this true? Two recent studies tested the hypothesis that time-restricted eating offers a special advantage by cutting calories to the same extent for people following a time-restricted eating pattern and people who had no restrictions on when they ate.

Both studies found there was no difference between the time-restricted group and the group who were just told to cut calories for:

  • Weight loss.
  • Body composition (fat loss and lean muscle mass loss).
  • Appetite and eating behaviors.
  • HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control).

The take-home lessons are the same for both studies.

  1. You can forget the metabolic mumbo-jumbo of the Dr. Strangeloves of our world. When you restrict calories to the same extent, time-restricted eating is no more successful and no healthier than any other diet.”

2) Like any other diet, time-restricted eating works best when you focus on eating healthy foods and reducing your caloric intake.

For more information on this study and a discussion of whether time-restricted eating might be right 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.

 ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Do Produce Prescriptions Improve Health?

by

What Are The Pros And Cons Of Produce Prescriptions?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Can you imagine a world in which doctors asked their patients how many fruits and vegetables they were eating rather than how many drugs they were taking? Can you imagine a world in which doctors advised their patients to try a healthier diet before they put them on drugs?

Unfortunately, that world doesn’t exist currently and is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future.

But what if there were another approach to encourage healthier eating? And what if it made a meaningful impact on people’s health?

There is such an approach, and it’s called a “produce prescription”.

“What are produce prescriptions?”, you might ask. Simply put, produce prescriptions are government programs that provide lower-income Americans with food insecurity extra income that can only be spent on fresh fruits and vegetables.

And it isn’t a lot of extra income. Previous studies have shown that lower-income Americans only need an extra $63 to $78/month to afford the recommended 3-5 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day.

But do produce prescriptions work? Do they significantly improve the diet and health of lower-income Americans who participate in programs offering produce prescriptions?

These are the questions that the authors of the current study (K Hager et al, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality And Outcomes; 16:e009520, 2023) set out to answer.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors evaluated the results from 9 pilot produce prescription studies that were administered at 22 sites in 12 states between 2014 and 2020. These pilot studies were generally funded as experimental programs through Medicare and SNAP.

The pilot programs enrolled:

  • Adults at risk for poor cardiometabolic health (at risk for both heart disease and diabetes). The enrollment criteria included being overweight or obese and having either diabetes or elevated blood pressure.
  • Children who were overweight or obese.
  • People recruited from health centers serving predominantly low-income neighborhoods who were food insecure.

The authors of the study only included pilot studies that collected data on food intake and measured at least 1 biomarker of improved health (BMI (a measure of obesity), HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control) and blood pressure).

The income incentive to purchase more fruits and vegetables varied from state to state but averaged $63/month.

With these criteria the study included 1817 children and 2064 adults.

The adults:

  • Averaged 54.4 years old.
  • Were 70.7% female, 29.8% non-Hispanic White, 45.1% non-Hispanic Black, 21.4% Hispanic, 3.6% other.

The children:

  • Averaged 9.2 years old.
  • Were 51.4% female, 9.2% non-Hispanic White, 13.1% non-Hispanic Black, 75.5% Hispanic, 2.3% other.

Overall:

  • 3% of families enrolled in the program experienced food insecurity.
  • 7% of families enrolled in the program were involved in SNAP.

Finally, the programs lasted an average of 6 months.

Do Produce Prescriptions Improve Health?

The results were encouraging:

  • At the beginning of the study fruit and vegetable intake was 2.7 cups/day for adults and 3.4 cups/day for children.
  • By the end of the study fruit and vegetable intake increased by 0.85 cups/day for adults and 0.26 cups/day for children.

Note: It is unfortunate that the authors chose to report fruit and vegetable consumption as cups/day because most of us think in terms of servings per day and the relationship between servings and cups varies with each fruit and vegetable. For example, one cup represents:

  • One serving of raw spinach.
  • Two servings of cooked spinach.
  • Two servings of most fruits.
  • One serving of bananas.

I could go on, but you get the point.

  • So, perhaps a better way to think about these results would be to say both adults and children in these low-income households were eating around 3.6 cups/day of fruit and vegetable intake – a 31% increase for adults and a 7.6% increase for children.
  • Another way of thinking about it would be to say that produce prescription programs got both adults and children in food-insecure households up to a healthier 3.6 cups/day of fruits and vegetables.

As for other outcomes:

  • Food insecurity dropped by one third for families participating in these programs.
  • The families reported that they felt healthier.
  • BMI (a measure of overweight and obesity) decreased for both adults and children.
  • HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control) and blood pressure decreased in adults with cardiometabolic disease (heart disease and diabetes) at the beginning of the programs.

In the words of the authors, “In this large, multisite evaluation, produce prescriptions were associated with significant improvements in fruit and vegetable intake, food security, and health status for adults and children, and clinically relevant improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, and BMI for adults with poor cardiometabolic health.”

What Are The Pros And Cons Of Produce Prescriptions?

pros and consThe pros are obvious.

Food insecurity in low-income neighborhoods is a major problem. In the words of the authors:

  • “Food insecurity is strongly associated with poor health outcomes and higher health care costs.
  • Food-insecure individuals under use medications and choose cheaper, unhealthful foods due to costs.
  • [There are] stark disparities in household food insecurity…by race/ethnicity, with 7.1% of White, non-Hispanic households experiencing food insecurity compared with 21.7% of Black, non-Hispanic households, and 17.2% of Hispanic households.”

The authors do not claim that food insecurity is the only cause of health disparities in this country, but a simple program that reduces food insecurity and improves health outcomes is an obvious plus.

But there are cons as well.

  • While the results of these programs were statistically and clinically significant, they were relatively modest. In the words of the authors, “Produce prescriptions may need to be of longer duration or combined with additional components…”
  • Most Americans have the income to buy more fruits and vegetables but chose not to. Programs like this can reduce health disparities but are unlikely to improve the health of the American population as a whole.
  • There was no mention of the cost of implementing this program nationwide in the article, but that is likely to be a major stumbling block.

Unfortunately, government agencies never think of replacing old programs that don’t work with new programs that do work. They only think of adding the cost of the new program to their current budget.

Unfortunately, once you start talking about programs that increase government spending, they become political footballs. Because of this many beneficial programs end up in the dustbin of history.

The Bottom Line 

Food insecurity among low-income households is a major cause of health disparities in this country. Several states across the country have piloted an idea called produce prescription programs. Simply put, these programs provide high-risk families who have food insecurity and poor health with a monthly stipend that can only be used to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from grocery stores and farmers markets.

A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of these pilot programs and found the produce prescription programs:

  • Improved fruit and vegetable intake for the families who participated in the programs.

In addition:

  • Food insecurity dropped by one third for families participating in these programs.
  • The families reported that they felt healthier.
  • BMI (a measure of overweight and obesity) decreased for both adults and children.
  • HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar control) and blood pressure decreased in adults with cardiometabolic disease (heart disease and diabetes) at the beginning of the programs.

In the words of the authors, “In this large, multisite evaluation, produce prescriptions were associated with significant improvements in fruit and vegetable intake, food security, and health status for adults and children, and clinically relevant improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, and BMI for adults with poor cardiometabolic health.”

For more information on this study and a summary of the pros and cons of produce prescription programs, read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy?

by

What Does A Heart Healthy Diet Look Like?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

heart attacksHeart disease is a big deal. According to the CDC, “Heart disease is the leading cause of death for men, women, and people of most racial and ethnic groups in the United States. One person dies every 33 seconds in the United States from cardiovascular disease. About 695,000 people in the United States died from heart disease in 2021 – that’s 1 in every 5 deaths”.

This doesn’t have to happen. According to the Cleveland Clinic, “90 percent of heart disease is preventable through healthier diet, regular exercise, and not smoking”. For this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, I will focus on the role of diet on heart health.

The problem is many Americans are confused. They don’t know what a heart-healthy diet is. There is so much conflicting information on the internet.

Fortunately, the American Heart Association has stepped in to clear up the confusion.

In 2021 they reviewed hundreds of clinical studies and published “Evidence-Based Dietary Guidance to Promote Cardiovascular Health”.

And recently they have published a comprehensive review (CD Gardner et al, Circulation, 147: 1715-1730, 2023) of how well popular diets align with their 2021 dietary guidelines.

I will cover both publications below. But first I want to address why Americans are so confused about which diets reduce heart disease risk.

Why Are Americans Confused About Diet And Heart Disease Risk?

I should start by addressing the “elephant in the room”.

  • As I discussed in last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article, Big Food Inc has seduced us. They have developed an unending supply of highly processed foods that are cheap, convenient, easy to prepare, and fulfill all our cravings. These foods are not heart-healthy, but they make up 73% of our food supply.

The Institute of Medicine, the scientific body that sets dietary standards, states that a wide range of macronutrient intakes are consistent with healthy diets. Specifically, they recommend carbohydrate intake at 45% to 65%, fat intake at 20% to 35%, and protein intake at 10% to 35% of total calories. (Of course, they are referring to healthy carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.)

The authors of this article pointed to several reasons why Americans have been misled about heart-healthy diets.

  • Many of the most popular diets fall outside of the “Acceptable Macronutrient Range”.
  • Many popular diets exclude heart-healthy food groups.

And, the words of the authors,

  • “Further contributing to consumer misunderstanding is the proliferation of diet books, [and] blogs [by] clinicians with limited understanding of what the dietary patterns entail and the evidence base for promoting cardiometabolic health.” I call these the Dr. Strangeloves of our world.

What Does A Heart Healthy Diet Look Like?

Let me start by sharing the American Heart Association’s 10 “Evidence-Based Dietary Guidelines to Promote Cardiovascular Health.

#1: Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight
#2: Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits; choose a wide variety
#3: Choose foods made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains
#4: Choose healthy sources of protein
Mostly from plants (beans, other legumes, and nuts)
Fish and seafood
Low-fat or fat-free dairy products instead of full-fat dairy products
If meat or poultry are desired, choose lean cuts and avoid processed forms
#5. Use liquid plant oils (olive, safflower, corn) rather than animal fats (butter and lard) and tropical oils (coconut and palm kernel)
#6. Use minimally processed foods instead of highly processed foods
#7: Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars
#8: Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt
#9: If you do not drink alcohol, do not start; if you choose to drink alcohol, limit intake
#10: Adhere to this guidance regardless of where food is prepared or consumed

Here are my comments on these guidelines:

  • If you have been reading my “Health Tips From the Professor” blog for a while, you probably realize that these aren’t just guidelines to promote heart health. These guidelines also reduce the risk of diabetes, cancer, inflammatory diseases, and much more.
  • If you have read my post on coconut oil, you will know that I have a minor disagreement with the AHA recommendation to avoid it. There is no long-term evidence that coconut oil is bad for the heart. But there is also no long-term evidence that it is good for the heart. My recommendation is to use it sparingly.
  • And you probably know there has been considerable discussion recently about whether full fat dairy is actually bad for the heart. In my most recent review of the topic, I concluded that if full fat dairy is heart healthy, it is only in the context of a primarily plant-based diet and may only be true for fermented dairy foods like unpasteurized yogurt and kefir.
  • Finally, guideline 10 may need some translation. Basically, this guideline is just asking how easy it is to follow the diet when you are away from home.

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy?

confusionIn evaluating how well diets adhered to the American Heart Association guidelines the authors ignored item 1 (energy intake) because most of the diets they evaluated did not provide any guidelines on how many calories should be consumed.

Each diet was given a score between 0 (Fail) and 1 (A+) for each of the other 9 guidelines by a panel of experts. The points for all 9 guidelines were added up, giving each diet a rating of 0 (worst) to 9 (best). Finally, a score of 9 was assigned 100%, so each diet could be given a percentage score for adherence to heart-healthy guidelines.

Here are the results:

Tier 1 diets (the most heart healthy diets) received scores of 86% to 100%. Going from highest (100%) to lowest (86%), these diets were:

  • DASH, Nordic, Mediterranean, Pescetarian (vegetarian diets that allow fish), and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian (vegetarian diets that allow dairy, eggs, or both).
  • You will notice that these are all primarily plant-based diets.

Tier 2 diets were Vegan and other low-fat diets (TLC, Volumetrics). They both received scores of 78%.

  • The Vegan diet received 0 points for category 10 (ease of following the diet when eating out). It was also downgraded in category 7 for not having clear guidance for the use of salt when preparing foods.
  • The other low-fat diets were downgraded in categories 7, 10, and 5 (use of tropical oils).

Tier 3 diets received scores of 64% to 72%. They included very-low fat diets (<10% fat, very strict vegan diets) and low-carb diets (Zone, South Beach, Low-Glycemic Index).

  • They received 0 points for category 10 and were downgraded for eliminating heart-healthy food groups (liquid plant oils for the very low-fat diets, and fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and plant proteins for the low-carb diets).

Tier 4 diets (the least heart healthy diets) were the Paleo diet with a score of 53% and very low-carb diets (Atkins and Ketogenic) with a score of 31%.

  • The Paleo diet received 0 points for categories 10, 3 (choose whole grains), and 5 (using liquid plant oils rather than animal fats or tropical oils). It was also downgraded for lack of healthy plant-based protein sources.
  • The very low-carb diets were the least heart healthy. They received 0 points for categories 2 (eat plenty of fruits and vegetables), 3 (choose whole grains), 3 (healthy protein sources), 5 (use liquid plant oils instead of animal fats), 7 (minimize salt consumption), and 10 (ease of following the diet away from home).

The authors concluded, “Numerous [dietary] patterns [are] strongly aligned with 2021 American Heart Association Dietary Guidance (ie, Mediterranean, DASH, pescetarian, vegetarian) [and] can be adopted to reflect personal and cultural preferences and budgetary constraints.

Thus, optimal cardiovascular health would be best supported by developing a food environment that supports adherence to these patterns wherever food is prepared or consumed.”

Given our current food environment that last statement is wildly optimistic. But at least you have the information needed to make the best food choices for you and your family

The Bottom Line 

In 2021 the American Heart Association published 10 guidelines for evaluating heart-healthy diets. A recent study looked at how well popular diets adhered to those guidelines. The authors separated the diets into four categories (tiers) based on how heart-healthy they were. The results were not surprising:

  • Tier 1 diets (the most heart healthy diets) were DASH, Nordic, Mediterranean, Pescetarian (vegetarian diets that allow fish), and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian (vegetarian diets that allow dairy, eggs, or both).
  • Tier 2 diets were Vegan and other low-fat diets (TLC, Volumetrics).
  • Tier 3 diets included very-low fat diets (<10% fat, very strict vegan diets) and low-carb diets (Zone, South Beach, Low-Glycemic Index).
  • Tier 4 diets (the least heart healthy diets) were the Paleo diet and very low-carb diets (Atkins and Ketogenic).

The authors concluded, “Numerous [dietary] patterns [are] strongly aligned with 2021 American Heart Association Dietary Guidance (ie, Mediterranean, DASH, pescetarian, vegetarian) [and] can be adopted to reflect personal and cultural preferences and budgetary constraints.

Thus, optimal cardiovascular health would be best supported by developing a food environment that supports adherence to these patterns wherever food is prepared or consumed.”

Given our current food environment that last statement is wildly optimistic. But at least you have the information needed to make the best food choices for you and your family.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Repetitive Motion Can Cause Eye Pain

by

Relief From Eye Pain 

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

SunIt’s been hot this summer! High temperature records were broken not just in the USA, but all over the world!  The funny thing is it was sometimes hotter up north than down here in Florida.

A snowbird client came in several weeks ago and told me they came back to Florida because they don’t have central air in their house up north (never needed it before).  That’s pretty incredible.

For those of us who are old enough to remember the days before air conditioning, we are even more grateful for air conditioning.

I remember being pregnant with my son in 1967, when we were living in San Antonio, Texas.  Most people didn’t have air conditioning yet, and we certainly didn’t.

I came to realize why Southerners talk so slow (remember, I’m a New Yorker).  It was so hot we just didn’t talk at all. It took too much effort!

Fortunately, this time of year seems to pass quickly, and we’ll be getting back into cooler weather before we know it.  At least, that’s what I’m telling myself.

Repetitive Motion And Eye Pain

eye musclesThis week I had a client come to the office with a situation that is pretty rare.  He described his pain as on his eyeball, which then referred to the entire top half of his skull.  It was like drawing a line that went under his eyes, through his ears, and around his head.  It was definitely a headache but concentrated on his eyes.

This client works in an industry that has the computer screen changing frequently and he’s needing to locate information on the new screen quickly.  He has experienced eye strain before, but other times just having the weekend off has resolved the problem.  This time the pain didn’t go away.

We don’t ever think about the muscles that move our eyes, but they can get repetitively strained just like any other muscle in the body.  This especially happens if you are watching something that has your eye moving back and forth rapidly, like a game on your computer or phone.

The muscles that are most prone to a repetitive strain injury are the ones on the top of the eye and on the outside of the eye.  I’m not an eye doctor so I can’t explain why these two muscles cause more problems than the others, but my experience has shown this to be the truth.

Relief From Eye Pain

eye pain relief massageThe treatment is simple, but you need to do it cautiously.  If you wear contacts, you’ll need to remove them. The pressure is VERY light.

Put your fingertip directly onto your eyeball and press down GENTLY.

Slide your finger from the top of your eyeball to the outside of your eyeball.

If you find a point where it is tender, that’s the spasm that is putting a strain on your eyeball.  Just leave your fingertip on that point for 30 seconds. You may even get a light show while doing this, with different shapes and colors.

You’ll find that this simple treatment will soothe tired eyes at the end of the day.  But remember, the pressure needs to be light and gentle.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly 

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

 

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer?

by

How Can You Reduce Your Cancer Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

We are facing a food crisis in this country. Big Food Inc is taking over our diet. Currently, 73% of our food supply is processed. And because these are manufactured foods, not real foods, they are 52% cheaper than the whole unprocessed foods we should be eating.

And Big Food Inc has seduced us. They know our weaknesses. The foods they make are convenient and easy to prepare. They also know our bodies were created with an ingrained craving for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. These cravings served us well in prehistoric times, but in today’s world Big Food Inc has weaponized them. Their foods are designed to satisfy every craving. They have done their best to make their processed foods irresistible!

The result is no surprise. In 2018 (LG Baraldi et al, BMJ Open, 2018, 8(3) e020574 60% of the calories the Average American consumes came from processed foods, and the percentage has only increased since then.

This is alarming because higher consumption of processed foods has been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and all-cause mortality.

Some studies have suggested that higher consumption of processed foods may also be linked to increased risk of cancer. The authors of the current study (K Chang, eClinicalMedicine 2023;56: 101840) set out to test this hypothesis.

How Are Processed Foods Defined In This Study?

Before I proceed with describing the findings of this study, I should probably contrast the common definition of processed foods with the current scientific definition of processed foods. The scientific community has recently developed something called “The NOVA food classification system” to describe the various levels of food processing.

The NOVA system categorizes foods into four groups according to the extent of processing they have undergone:

  1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
    • This category includes foods like fruit, vegetables, milk, and meat.

2) Processed culinary ingredients.

    • This category includes foods you might find in restaurants or prepare yourself to which things like sugar, vegetable oils, butter, or cream were added in the preparation.

3) Processed foods.

    • This category includes foods like canned vegetables, freshly made breads, and cheeses.

4) Ultra-processed foods.

    • This category includes foods like soft drinks, chips, packaged snacks, most breakfast cereals, chicken nuggets & fish sticks, fast food burgers, hot dogs, and other processed meats.

The actual list is much longer, but you get the idea. What we call processed foods, scientists call ultra-processed foods. Since the term “ultra-processed foods” has not yet entered the popular vocabulary, I will use the term “processed foods” in describing the results of this study because it is more understandable to the average reader.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors of this study started by using data from the UK Biobank study. The UK Biobank study is a long-term study in the United Kingdom that is investigating the contributions of genetics and environment to the contribution of disease.

The authors focused on 197,426 (54.6% women) participants in the study who completed up to five 24-hour dietary recalls between 2009 and 2012. The participants were age 58 (range 40 to 69) when they entered the study and were followed for an average of 9.8 years. None of the participants had been diagnosed with cancer at the time of their enrollment in the study.

The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between percent of “processed food” in the participant’s diets and both the frequency of newly diagnosed cancer and the frequency of cancer deaths during the 9.8 years of follow-up.

More importantly, the size of this study allowed the authors to examine associations between processed food consumption and both the risk of cancer and cancer mortality for 34 site-specific cancers – something most previous studies were unable to do.

  • The percentage “processed food” in their diets was calculated from the 24-hour dietary recalls using the NOVA scoring system.
  • The frequency of newly diagnosed cancers and cancer deaths was obtained by linking the data in this study with the national cancer and mortality registries, provided by the National Health Service.

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer?

CancerThe authors started by dividing participants into four equal quartiles based on their consumption of processed foods:

  • For quartile 1 processed foods made up between 0 and 13.4% of calories (average = 9.2%).
  • For quartile 2 processed foods made up between 13.5 and 20% of calories (average = 16.7%).
  • For quartile 3 processed foods made up between 20.1 and 29.4% of calories (average = 24.3%).
  • For quartile 4 processed foods made up between 29.5 and 100% of calories (average = 41.4%).

They started by looking at the risk of developing cancer during the 9.8-year follow-up period. A total of 15,921 participants developed cancer during that time. When the authors compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • The risk of overall cancer of any type increased by 7%.
  • The risk of lung cancer increased by 25%.
  • The risk of ovarian cancer increased by 45%.
  • The risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma increased by 63%.
  • The risk of brain cancer increased by 52%.

Furthermore, every 10% increase in processed food consumption was associated with:

  • A 2% increase in overall cancer incidence…and…
  • A 19% increase in ovarian cancer incidence.

A total of 4,009 participants died from cancer during that time. When the authors compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • Overall cancer mortality increased by 17%.
  • Lung cancer mortality increased by 38%.
  • Ovarian cancer mortality increased by 91%.

Furthermore, every 10% increase in processed food consumption was associated with:

  • A 6% increase in overall cancer mortality.
  • A 16% increase in breast cancer mortality.
  • A 30% increase in ovarian cancer mortality.

The authors concluded, “Our UK-based study suggests that higher [processed food] consumption may be linked to an increased [frequency] and mortality for overall and certain site-specific cancers especially ovarian cancer in women…These findings suggest that limiting [processed food] consumption may be beneficial to prevent and reduce the modifiable burdens of cancer.”

How Can You Reduce Your Cancer Risk?

American Cancer SocietyLet’s start with the American Cancer Society recommendations to limit cancer risk:

1) Avoid tobacco use. 

2) Get to and stay at a healthy weight.

If you are already at a healthy weight, stay there. If you are carrying extra pounds, try to lose some. Losing even a small amount of weight can reduce your risk of cancer and have other health benefits. It is a good place to start.

3) Be physically active and avoid time spent sitting.

Current recommendations are to get at least 150-300 minutes of moderate intensity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity activity each week. Getting to or exceeding 300 minutes is ideal.

In addition, you should limit sedentary behavior such as sitting, lying down, watching TV, and other forms of screen-based entertainment. This is especially important if you spend most of your working day sitting.

4) Follow a healthy eating plan.

A healthy eating pattern includes a variety of vegetables, fiber-rich legumes (beans and peas), fruits in a variety of colors, and whole grains. It is best to avoid or limit red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products. This will provide you with key nutrients in amounts that help you get to and stay at a healthy weight.

5) It is best not to drink alcohol.

It is best not to drink alcohol. People who choose to drink alcohol should limit their intake to no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink a day for women.

This study adds an exclamation point to the American Cancer Society’s recommendation to avoid or limit “processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products”.

You may be asking, “What is so harmful about processed foods?” The most obvious harm is that they are replacing healthier foods that reduce cancer risk, such as “a variety of vegetables, fiber-rich legumes (beans and peas), fruits in a variety of colors, and whole grains” that the American Cancer Society recommends for reducing cancer risk.

But there are other reasons as well. In the words of the authors:

  • “Evidence has been accumulating on the strong obesity and type-2 diabetes-promoting potential of [processed foods], both of which are risk factors for many cancers including those of the digestive tract and some hormone-related cancers in women.
  • Emerging research has suggested other common properties of [processed foods] that may contribute to adverse cancer outcomes, including the use of controversial food additives, contaminants such as acrylamide that form during [food processing], and toxic contaminants such as phthalates and bisphenol-F that migrate from food packaging [into the food].”

The Bottom Line 

You probably know that processed foods are bad for you. But do processed foods cause cancer? A very large study (197,426 people followed for 9.8 years) suggests the answer to that question appears to be yes.

When the authors of the study compared the group consuming the most processed foods with the group consuming the least processed foods:

  • The risk of overall cancer of any type increased by 7%.
  • The risk of lung cancer increased by 25%.
  • The risk of ovarian cancer increased by 45%.
  • The risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma increased by 63%.
  • The risk of brain cancer increased by 52%.

And when they looked at cancer deaths and did the same comparison:

  • Overall cancer mortality increased by 17%.
  • Lung cancer mortality increased by 38%.
  • Ovarian cancer mortality increased by 91%.

The authors concluded, “Our study suggests that higher [processed food] consumption may be linked to an increased [frequency] and mortality for overall and certain site-specific cancers especially ovarian cancer in women…These findings suggest that limiting [processed food] consumption may be beneficial to prevent and reduce the modifiable burdens of cancer.”

These results are alarming because the most recent study shows that 60% of calories in the American diet comes from processed foods, and the percentage is increasing each year. We need to reverse this trend!

For more information on this study, why processed foods increase your risk of cancer, and what the American Cancer Society recommends to reduce your risk of cancer, read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 

 

Are Sustainable Diets Nutritionally Complete?

by

How Do Sustainable Diets Compare With Meat-Based Diets?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Earth DayIn a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have discussed a sustainable diet popularly known as the planetary diet. Here is a brief synopsis of that article:

  • The planetary diet came from an international commission called the “EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems” (Bureaucrats and scientists love long names.)
  • They were commissioned to recommend a diet that was both healthy and sustainable (good for the environment) through the year 2050.
  • The commission reported that the methods of food production required to support our current diets:
    • Occupy 40% of global land.
    • Are responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas production and 70% of freshwater use.
  • They further reported that:
    • Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems (In other words, we cannot limit global warming just by switching to electric cars and stoves.).
    • Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
    • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.
  • The planetary diet they recommended is a primarily plant-based diet. But it is not any plant-based diet. It limits animal foods to an extent that approaches a vegan diet.

That raises two important questions:

  1. Are sustainable diets like the planetary diet healthy? The answer to that question is a resounding, “Yes”. Numerous studies have shown that primarily plant-based diets are healthier than meat-based diets long term.

2) Are sustainable diets nutritionally complete? That is the question the authors of the current study (N Neufingerl and A Eilander, Nutrients, 14: 29, 2022) set out to answer.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors searched the literature and identified 147 high-quality articles published between 2000 and January 2020 that compared the nutritional adequacy of primarily plant-based diets or vegan diets with meat-based diets.

They excluded:

  • Intervention studies because the nutritionists designing those studies assured the nutritional adequacy of the plant-based diet used in the study.
  • Overly restrictive plant-based diets such as the raw food diet or macrobiotic diet.
  • Primarily plant-based diets for disease prevention like the Mediterranean or DASH diets because they were too unlike the planetary diet.
  • Studies with pregnant or lactating women, populations with specific diseases, and athletes.

They chose diets that measured intakes of energy (calories), protein, PUFA (polyunsaturated fats), total omega-3 fats, ALA, EPA, DHA, fiber, vitamins A, B1, B6, B12, niacin, folate, C, D, E, iron, zinc, calcium, iodine, magnesium, and phosphorous. [Note: Not all studies measured intakes of all the nutrients in this list.]

Their goal was to compare the nutritional adequacy of the diets, not the health of the diets. So, they did not report on the saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, or percent processed food content of the diets.

How Do Sustainable Diets Compare With Meat-Based Diets?

Food ChoicesThe Study showed that:

Vegan diets:

  • Tended to be inadequate in EPA, DHA, vitamins B12, D, calcium, iodine, iron, and zinc.
  • Tended to have favorably high intakes of fiber, PUFA, ALA, vitamins B1, B6, C, E, folate, and magnesium.

Vegetarian diets:

  • Tended to be inadequate in fiber, EPA, DHA, vitamins B12, D, E, calcium, iodine, iron, and zinc.
  • Tended to have favorably high intakes of PUFA, ALA, vitamin C, folate, and magnesium.

Meat-eaters:

  • Tended to be inadequate in fiber, PUFA, ALA, vitamins D, E, folate, calcium, and magnesium.
  • Tended to have favorably high intakes of protein, niacin, vitamin B12, and zinc.

Other observations:

  • Pesco-vegetarians (vegetarians who include fish as a major protein source) had the highest intake EPA and DHA of any of the groups studied.
  • Both vegetarians and vegans had lower protein intake than meat-eaters, but their average protein intake was adequate.

Finally, there are two important reminders as you look at the data.

  • The data for each nutrient was based on average intake of that nutrient in the diet group. The authors did not report the percent of people consuming that diet who had inadequate intake.
  • The authors were comparing the nutritional completeness of each diet, not the effect of the diets on diseases like heart disease and diabetes. However, this comparison is important because nutritional inadequacies left untreated for a long period of time can have significant health consequences.

Are Sustainable Diets Nutritionally Complete?

The authors concluded “…there are dietary inadequacies in any [restrictive] diet.” This is no surprise.

With respect to sustainable plant-based diets, the authors said, “In people following self-selected plant-based diets, especially vegan diets, intake of certain nutrients is lower compared to meat-containing diets.”

So, the answer to the question, “Are sustainable diets nutritionally complete?”, is clearly, “No. They do not provide 100% of the essential nutrients you need.”

Long-term nutritional deficiencies can have serious health implications. So, what should you do about it?

The authors made the following recommendations, “As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment, public health strategies should facilitate the transition to a [more] balanced diet…through consumer education, food fortification, and possible supplementation.”

Let me comment on the three recommendations they listed:

  • Consumer education is a great idea, but it is usually drowned out by Big Food Inc’s advertising budgets and the misleading information provided by the Dr. Strangeloves of the world.
  • Food fortification is also a useful idea. After all, it has eliminated several deficiency diseases in the past. But it is hard to fortify fruits and vegetables. And eating more highly processed plant-food products is not the way to better health – even if they are fortified. Besides, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the USDA to act.
  • That leaves responsible supplementation as the only viable option for anyone wanting to switch to a plant-based diet to save the planet. And if the environment is important to you, you will probably want to choose a supplement company that follows sustainable practices and is certified carbon neutral.

The Bottom Line 

Primarily plant-based diets are healthier for you and healthier for the planet. But are they nutritionally complete?

A recent systemic review of 147 published studies was designed to answer that question. As you might suspect, the answer was a clear, “No”.

Vegan diets:

  • Tended to be inadequate in EPA, DHA, vitamins B12, D, calcium, iodine, iron, and zinc.

Vegetarian diets:

  • Tended to be inadequate in fiber, EPA, DHA, vitamins B12, D, E, calcium, iodine, iron, and zinc.

The authors concluded, “As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment, public health strategies should facilitate the transition to a balanced diet…through consumer education, food fortification, and possible supplementation.”

Let me comment on the three recommendations they listed:

  • Consumer education is a great idea, but it is usually drowned out by Big Food Inc’s advertising budgets and the misleading information provided by the Dr. Strangeloves of the world.
  • Food fortification is also a useful idea. But it is hard to fortify fruits and vegetables. And eating more highly processed plant-food products is not the way to better health – even if they are fortified.
  • That leaves responsible supplementation as the only viable option for anyone wanting to switch to a plant-based diet to save the planet. And if the environment is important to you, you will probably want to choose a supplement company that follows sustainable practices and is certified carbon neutral.

For more information on this study, and the science behind my summary of the 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.

___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 

Is Whole Fat Dairy Healthy?

by

Is It Dairy Or Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

CheesesFor years we have been told to select low fat dairy foods. But recent headlines claim, “That’s nonsense. Whole fat dairy foods are healthy.” Are those headlines true?

In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have kept you abreast of recent studies suggesting that whole fat dairy foods may not be as bad for us as we thought. I also cautioned you that the headlines may not have accurately represented the studies they described.

Headlines have to be simple. But truth is often more nuanced. If we believed the current headlines, we might be asking ourselves questions like, “Should we ditch the current health guidelines recommending low-fat dairy foods? Are foods like ice cream, sour cream, and cheddar cheese actually be good for us?

To answer these questions, I will look at the study (A Mente et al, European Heart Journal, 44, 2560-2579, 2023) behind the current headlines and put the study into perspective.

Spoiler alert: If I could summarize the study findings in two sentences, they would be, “Whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet. But can it be part of an unhealthy diet?”

Stay tuned. I will discuss the science behind that statement below.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study started with data collected from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The PURE study is an ongoing study correlating diet, lifestyle, and environmental effects on health outcomes. It has enrolled 166,762 individuals, age 35-70, from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries on 5 continents.

Habitual food intake was determined using country-specific food frequency questionnaires at the time participants joined the study. Participants (166,762) from the PURE study who had complete dietary information were included in this study and were followed for an average of 9.3 years.

Based on preliminary analysis of data from the PURE study, the authors developed their version of a healthy diet, which they call the PURE diet. Like most other healthy diets, the PURE diet emphasizes fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and fish. However:

  • Based on studies suggesting that whole fat dairy foods can be part of a healthy diet, the PURE diet includes whole fat dairy foods.

This is different from most other healthy diet recommendations.

They went on to develop what they referred to as the PURE healthy diet score by:

  • Determining the median intake for each of the 6 food groups included in their PURE diet (fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, fish, and whole fat dairy).
  • Assigning each participant in the study a score of 0 or 1 depending on whether their intake for that food group was below or above the median intake.
  • Adding up the points. Since 6 food groups were included in the PURE diet, this means that each participant in the study was assigned a PURE diet score ranging from 0-6.

Once they had developed a PURE diet score, they expanded their data by including five additional large independent studies that included people from 70 countries. The combined data from all six studies amounted to 245,597 people from 80 countries. Of the people included in the data analysis:

  • 21% came from high income countries.
  • 60% came from middle income countries.
  • 19% came from low-income countries.

This is very similar to the global population distribution. This is a strength of this study because it allowed them to ask whether the PURE diet score worked as well in low-income countries as in high-income countries.

Finally, they correlated the PURE diet score with outcomes like all-cause mortality, heart attack, and stroke.

Is Whole Fat Dairy Healthy?

QuestionsThe authors of this study divided the participants of all 6 studies into quintiles based on their PURE diet score and compared those in the highest quintile (PURE score of ≥ 5) with those in the lowest quintile (PURE score of ≤ 1).

The people in the highest quintile were eating on average 5 servings/day of fruits and vegetables, 0.5 servings/day of legumes, 1.2 servings/day of nuts, 0.3 servings/day of fish, 2 servings/day of dairy (of which 1.4 servings/day was whole fat dairy), 0.5 servings/day of unprocessed red meat, and 0.3 servings/day of poultry.

 

The people in the lowest quintile ate significantly less fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and dairy; and slightly less legumes, unprocessed red meat, and poultry than those in the highest quintile.

However, they consumed significantly more refined wheat foods and white rice. This study did not track consumption of highly processed foods, but the high consumption of white flour leads me to suspect they ate a lot more highly processed food.

With that in mind, when the authors compared people with the highest PURE diet scores to those with the lowest PURE diet scores:

  • All-cause mortality was reduced by 30%.
  • Cardiovascular disease was reduced by 18%.
  • Heart attacks were reduced by 14%.
  • Strokes were reduced by 19%.
  • The PURE healthy eating score was slightly better at predicting health outcomes than the Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI (Healthy Eating Index) scores. But the differences were small. So, I still recommend choosing the healthy diet that best fits your preferred foods and your lifestyle.
  • The PURE healthy eating score was significantly better at predicting health outcomes than the Planetary diet score. I will discuss the nutritional inadequacy of “sustainable diets” like the Planetary diet in next week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” article.

Because of the size and design of this study, they were able to make three interesting observations.

  1. The PURE, Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI diet scores were predictive of health outcomes in every country across the globe. You no longer have to wonder if what works in the United States will work in low-income countries and in countries with very different food preferences. Previous studies have not been able to make that claim.

2) You don’t have to be perfect.

    • A 20% increase (one quintile) in PURE score was associated with a 6% lower risk of major cardiovascular events and an 8% lower risk of mortality. In other words, even small improvements in your diet may improve your health outcomes.
    • The health benefits of the PURE diet started to plateau at a score of 3 (with 6 being the highest score). The authors concluded that most of the health benefits were associated with a modestly higher consumption of healthy foods compared to little or no consumption of healthy foods.

Simply put, that means the health benefits gained by going from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet are not as great as the health benefits gained by going from a poor diet to a moderately healthy diet.

[Note: There are still improvements in health outcomes when you go from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet.  My recommendation: “You don’t need to achieve perfection, but you shouldn’t accept mediocrity”.]

3) The PURE diet score was more predictive of health outcomes in some countries than in others.

    • The PURE diet score was more predictive of health outcomes in low-income countries. The authors felt that was because low-income countries started with average PURE scores of 2.1, whereas higher-income countries started with average PURE scores of 3.5.

The authors felt this was another example getting more “bang for the buck” by going from a poor diet to a moderately healthy diet than from a moderately healthy diet to a very healthy diet. (Remember, the health benefits associated with improving PURE diet scores start to plateau at a PURE score of 3.

    • The difference in benefits for low-income countries compared to high-income countries was observed for the Mediterranean, DASH, and HEI diet scores. So, it is probably safe to say for any healthy diet you don’t need to be perfect. You just need to be better.

The authors concluded, “A diet composed of higher amounts of fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, and whole fat dairy is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in all world regions, especially in countries with lower income where consumption of these foods is low.”

Is It Dairy Or Diet?

CheesesThe headlines are telling us that recommendations to choose low-fat dairy products are out of date. They say there is no reason to fear whole fat dairy foods. They are good for you. Bring on the ice cream, sour cream, cream cheese, and high fat hard cheeses!

As usual, there is a kernel of truth in the headlines, but headlines have to be simple. And the latest headlines are an oversimplification of what the studies actually show. Let me provide perspective to the headlines by asking two questions.

#1: Is it dairy or diet? A major weakness of this and similar studies is that they fail to consider diet context. What do I mean by that? Let’s dig a little deeper into this study.

  • Let’s start with a description of the PURE diet. It is a diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and fish. In other words, it is a primarily plant-based diet.
  • Although the authors keep referring to the diet as one that includes whole fat dairy. It would be more accurate to say that it includes dairy, which was 30% low-fat and 70% whole fat.
  • The authors said that removal of any one food group from this combination reduced the predictive power of the PURE diet. In other words, the beneficial effect of 70% whole fat dairy is best seen in the context of a primarily plant-based diet.
  • The PURE diet was most effective at predicting health outcomes in low-income countries where a significant percent of the population consumes a primarily plant-based diet because meats are expensive.

So, a more accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet. But that is too complicated for a headline.

#2: If whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet, can it also be part of an unhealthy diet?

To answer that question let’s compare the potential effects of whole fat dairy on a primarily plant-based diet compared to the typical American or European diet.

  • Milk and other dairy foods are excellent sources of calcium, vitamin B12, and iodine and good sources of protein, vitamin D, choline, zinc, and selenium – nutrients that are often low or missing in plant-based diet. And this is true whether the dairy foods are low-fat or whole fat.
  • Primarily plant-based diets tend to be low in saturated fat, so the potential negative effects of adding a small amount of saturated fat to the diet may be outweighed by the beneficial effects of the nutrients dairy foods provide.

On the other hand,

  • The typical American or European diet provides plenty of protein and vitamin B12 and significantly more choline, vitamin D, iodine, and zinc than a plant-based diet. The added nutrients from adding dairy foods to this kind of diet is still beneficial, but the benefits are not as great as adding dairy foods to a primarily plant-based diet.
  • If you read the American Heart Association statement on saturated fats, it does not say that any amount of saturated fat is bad for you. In fact, small amounts of saturated fats play some beneficial roles in our bodies. The American Heart Association says, “Eating too much saturated fat can raise the level of LDL cholesterol in your blood…[which] increases your risk of heart disease and stroke.”
  • Here is where the problem lies. The typical American or European diet already contains too much saturated fat. Whole fat dairy just adds to that excess.

So, the most accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet but may not be a healthy addition to the typical American diet. But that is way too complicated for a headline.

You are probably wondering what this means for you. Here are my recommendations.

If you eat like most Americans, you should continue to follow the current health guidelines to choose low-fat dairy foods.

If you happen to be among the few Americans who eat a primarily plant-based diet, you will probably benefit by adding a mixture of low-fat and whole fat dairy foods to your diet.

The Bottom Line 

Once again, the headlines are telling us that recommendations to choose low-fat dairy products are out of date. The articles say there is no reason to fear whole fat dairy foods. They are good for you. Bring on the ice cream, sour cream, cream cheese, and high fat hard cheeses!

As usual, there is a kernel of truth in the headlines, but headlines have to be simple. And the latest headlines are an oversimplification of what the studies actually show. In this post I looked at the study behind the most recent headlines and provided perspective to the headlines by asking two questions.

#1: Is it dairy or diet? A major weakness of this and similar studies is that they fail to consider diet context.

When you consider diet context a more accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet. But that is too complicated for a headline.

#2: If whole fat dairy can be part of a healthy diet, can it also be part of an unhealthy diet?

When you consider that question the most accurate description of this study would be it shows that a mixture of low-fat and whole-fat dairy foods are a healthy addition to a primarily plant-based diet but may not be a healthy addition to the typical American diet. But that is way too complicated for a headline.

You are probably wondering what this means for you. Here are my recommendations.

If you eat like most Americans, you should continue to follow the current health guidelines to choose low-fat dairy foods.

If you happen to be among the few Americans who eat a primarily plant-based diet, you will probably benefit by adding a mixture of low-fat and whole fat dairy foods to your diet.

For more information on this study, and the science behind my summary of the 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.

_________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Does Cranberry Juice Cure UTIs?

by

Are Cranberry Supplements As Effective As Cranberry Juice?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

UTIs (urinary tract infections) are not to be taken lightly. Here are some fast facts:

  1. They occur most frequently in women:
    • 50%-60% of women will have at least one UTI in their life.
    • 25% of women will experience recurrent UTIs as often as 3-4 times per year.

2) They occur much less frequently in men, but their frequency increases significantly in men over the age 50, usually due to prostrate enlargement or other factors that interfere with bladder emptying.

3) The symptoms of UTIs are unpleasant. They are:

    • A burning, painful feeling when urinating.
    • A need to urinate more often.
    • Sudden urges to urinate.
    • Blood in the urine or cloudy urine.

4) The risks of untreated UTIs can be significant. They include:

    • Infection of the kidney or prostate, which are much more difficult to treat.
    • Sepsis, which occurs when bacteria from the urinary tract enter the bloodstream. This can be very serious, even deadly.

5) The standard treatment for UTIs is antibiotics. This treatment is usually effective, but there are side effects to antibiotic treatment, especially when it is repeated 3-4 times per year.

6) For men with repeated UTIs caused by an enlarged prostrate, the standard treatment is usually prostrate reduction surgery. Again, this treatment is usually effective, but it can have some life-changing side effects. According to the Mayo Clinic, they include:

    • Urinary incontinence (difficulty holding urine).
    • Urgent and frequent need to urinate.
    • Having to get up more frequently in the night to urinate.

In short:

  • The symptoms of UTIs are unpleasant.
  • The risk of not treating UTIs is significant.
  • Standard UTI treatments work but can have significant side effects.

A Brief History Of Cranberry Products And UTIs

So, you are probably asking, “What if there were a natural treatment with no side effects?” And you have probably heard that cranberries can effectively treat UTIs. Is that true, or is it an “old wives’ tale”?

There are good reasons for thinking that cranberries and cranberry products (cranberry juice and cranberry supplements) might prevent UTIs.

  • Cranberries contain polyphenolic compounds called proanthocyanidins (PACs for short) that prevent bacteria from sticking to the cells that line the bladder.
  • Several clinical studies have reported that cranberry products are useful for treating UTIs.

However, other studies have come up empty. The Cochrane Collaboration (considered the gold standard for reviewing the usefulness of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical interventions, reviewed the literature on cranberry products and UTIs in 2012 and said there was not enough moderate to high quality evidence to conclude that cranberry products were effective in preventing UTIs.

If you scan the internet nowadays, that is the overwhelming message you will find. Most medical centers and reliable sources of health information will tell you that the effectiveness of cranberry products for treating UTIs is a myth. It is an “old wives’ tale”.

But time marches on. More clinical studies on the topic have been published and the Cochrane Collaboration has once again reviewed the data. The latest review (G Williams et al, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001321, 2023) came to a very different conclusion.

I will share their findings below. But first I will discuss why it has been so difficult to decide whether cranberry products are effective at preventing UTIs.

Why Are Studies On Cranberry Products And UTIs So Confusing?

Questioning WomanLet me start by telling you what Cochrane Collaboration studies are and why they are so respected.

In simplest terms, a Cochrane Collaboration study is what is called a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis combines data from many smaller studies. This allows them to make statistically significant comparisons that would not have been possible with a smaller data set.

However, what most non-scientists do not know is that statistically significant comparisons can be false if the meta-analysis includes studies that are poorly designed. I refer to this as “Garbage in; garbage out.”

The strength of Cochrane Collaboration studies is that they not only report statistically significant conclusions. They also report the quality of data on which that conclusion was based – rating it as either poor, moderate, or high quality. And statistically significant conclusions based on poor quality data are generally ignored.

With that behind us, let’s ask what causes the “Garbage in; garbage out” phenomenon. There are multiple causes, by I will only mention two that are relevant to this discussion.

  1. The total number of participants in the studies included in the meta-analysis. When you combine multiple studies there will be differences in the population groups included in different studies. To obtain high quality data, you need to have a large enough population group in the meta-analysis so that these differences are minimized.
    • This is an acute problem for studies on the efficacy of cranberry products for UTIs. Cranberry products cannot be patented, so studies on their efficacy are not backed by pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets. Consequently, these studies are very small.
    • This is the biggest difference between the 2012 and 2023 Cochrane Collaboration studies. The 2023 study was able to include 26 additional studies with around 4,000 participants that were published after 2012. This moved some of the effects seen in the 2012 study from low-quality to moderate-quality status.
    • Thus, while the 2012 study concluded that existing data did not support the use of cranberry products, the 2023 study was able to conclude that cranberry products were effective in some population groups.

2) Differences in study design. There are a lot of differences I could discuss, but I will focus on differences in the cranberry products used in these studies in my discussion below.

Does Cranberry Juice Cure UTIs?

When the 2023 Cochrane Collaboration study looked at randomized studies that compared cranberry products to a placebo or to no intervention, they found that with moderate quality evidence:

  • Cranberry products reduced the overall risk of UTIs by 30%.

When they looked at individual population groups, cranberry products:

  • Reduced the risk of UTIs in women with recurrent UTIs (8 studies, 1555 participants) by 26%.
  • Reduced the risk of UTIs in children (5 studies, 504 participants) by 54%.
  • Reduced the risk of UTIs in people at risk of UTIs because of medical interventions (6 studies, 1434 participants) by 53%.

It should be noted that these are all groups at high risk of developing UTIs. They did not find a beneficial effect of cranberry products in elderly institutionalized men and women, perhaps because the frequency of UTIs was lower in that group.

The authors felt it worth mentioning two analyses that were considered low quality evidence because of small sample size.

  • They did not see a difference in effectiveness between cranberry products and antibiotics. This would be a huge finding if it is supported by studies with larger population groups.
  • Cranberry products were 61% more effective at reducing the risk of UTIs than probiotics. This was not unexpected, but this conclusion was based on only 3 studies with 215 participants, so the quality of evidence was low.

The authors concluded, “These data support the use of cranberry products to reduce the risk of symptomatic, culture-verified UTIs in women with recurrent UTIs, in children, and in people susceptible to UTIs following medical interventions. The evidence currently available does not support its use in the elderly, patients with bladder emptying problems, or pregnant women.”

I would note this is the first Cochrane Collaboration study to support the use of cranberry products for treatment of UTIs in any population group. As it becomes widely known, it is likely to change the recommended treatment of UTIs. I would anticipate physicians recommending cranberry products as a first line treatment for UTIs, with antibiotics becoming a second line treatment.

I also would not be surprised if the efficacy of cranberry products for UTIs is proven for other population groups in future, larger studies.

Are Cranberry Products As Effective As Cranberry Juice?

Question MarkThe 2023 Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis included studies with a wide variety of cranberry products, so it was unable to determine whether there was a difference in efficacy between cranberry juice and cranberry tablets.

However, other studies suggest that there might be significant differences. The Proanthocyanidins (PACs) found in cranberries can be divided into:

  • Water soluble PACs found in the juice and cranberry tablets derived from the juice.
  • Water-insoluble PACs found in the pulp and cranberry tablets derived from the pulp.

A recent study (AB Howell et al, Journal of Dietary Supplements,19: 621-639, 2022) found that the water-soluble PACs were much more effective at preventing bacteria from binding to the cells lining the bladder than the water-insoluble PACs. The author of the study concluded that:

  • Cranberry juice and cranberry products made from the juice are likely to be much more effective at combating UTIs than cranberry products derived from the pulp.

Cranberry pulp is a byproduct of making cranberry juice. It is much less expensive to make cranberry products from the pulp than from the juice. So, I don’t need to tell you how most commercially available cranberry products are made.

What Does The Professor Do? 

professor owlThe professor is a tad over 50 and has an enlarged prostate, so I have occasional UTIs. Both my father and my father-in-law experienced urinary incontinence after prostrate reduction surgery, so I don’t want to go that route.

And I prefer natural solutions to antibiotics, so I choose to go the cranberry route when I notice that burning sensation that tells me a UTI is coming on.

If I wanted to take a cranberry pill, I would choose one made from the juice rather than the pulp. However, why take a pill when you can take the real thing, cranberry juice?

But you need to read labels carefully. Many commercial cranberry juices you find in supermarkets contain mostly cheaper juices with just a smidgen of cranberry juice. And most of them contain lots of added sugar, which feeds the bacteria.

So, I reach for unsweetened 100% cranberry juice or 100% cranberry concentrate in the health food store. It’s a bit tart, but it works every time.

The Bottom Line 

The use of cranberry products to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) has been controversial, and many medical professionals have concluded it is not an effective treatment.

However, the latest Cochrane Collaboration study (the gold standard of clinical studies) has concluded that cranberry products are effective in treating UTIs for some populations. This is likely to change medical recommendations for treating UTIs in the future.

For more information on this study, which cranberry products are best, and what the professor does when he has a UTI, read the article above.

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

___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ___________________________________________________________________

 

Treating Tension Headaches Naturally

by

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

The snowbirds are long gone!  The plus is that it’s easier to get into restaurants, and the roads aren’t as crowded.  Of course, the minus is the weather. August is the hottest month of the year.

August is definitely a s-l-o-w month in Florida.  The temperature is in the mid-upper 90’s, which isn’t really too bad for a Floridian, but the humidity feels like it’s 120°!

You walk out of your cool house, and it hits you like a wet washcloth, immediately making you sweat from your hair to your toes.

So, it’s time to just relax, enjoy the beach and read a good book.   And thank heaven for air-conditioning!

Topic Of The Month – Tension Headaches

headacheLately a lot of people have been coming to my office complaining of headaches that have plagued them for a long time…in one case for years!

This woman has been everywhere and had every test that the medical world could offer.  Nothing showed why she had these terrible headaches.  At one point she told me the pain was a 10 on a scale of 1-10.  Imagine how terrible it was for her to suffer every day from such a crippling condition.  My heart went out to her!

Fortunately, her problem was caused by muscles, the one thing that most of the medical world doesn’t consider when looking for a solution to pain.

In fact, if you watched my TED talk: The Pain Question No One is Asking, you may have already heard me talk about this missing link. (If you haven’t heard my TED talk, go to YouTube and enter: Julie Donnelly, Pain and I’ll pop up.)

Let’s talk about muscles and why they will cause headaches (and a whole lot more!).

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

While there are many causes for headaches, such as stress, anxiety, depression, head injury, or anxiety, and life-threatening causes we won’t go into here, one type of headache that is caused by muscular tension is known as a muscle contraction tension headache.

As shown in the graphics above, muscle spasms (colored circles) will refer pain to your head, even when you don’t feel any discomfort where the spasm is actually occurring (as seen in the graphic on the bottom, the Sternocleidomastoid muscle).

(Please don’t get confused with the Posterior Deltoid showing in the right graphic, or the jaw muscles on the left graphic…I just didn’t know how to delete them from the graphic)

Muscles in the neck and scalp can become tense or contract in response to stress, depression, or anxiety, leading to tension headaches.  Fortunately, in many cases, simply pressing on the trigger points (the colored circles) will release the tension being felt in your head.

To prevent tension headaches, it is important to maintain good posture, practice relaxation techniques, and use a pillow that keeps your head, neck, and spine in a horizontal plane while you sleep.

Treating Tension Headaches Naturally

There are too many treatments for headaches to include all of them in this newsletter.  If you want to know them, I suggest you get one of my books, especially Pain-Free Living or The Pain-Free Athlete.

Meanwhile, I want to share an important Julstro self-treatment that you may find works well for tension headaches:

 

Place a ball such as the Perfect Ball (shown in picture) or a tennis ball, on the top of your shoulder.

 

 

 

Lean into the corner of a wall, as shown. headache relief shoulder muscle pressure using wall

 

Keep your head close to the wall to prevent the ball from slipping and landing on the floor.

 

Bend at your hips so your upper body goes up and down, causing the ball to roll along the top of your shoulder. This will treat both the levator scapulae and trapezius muscles – both are key muscles for tension headaches.

 

Be gentle with this treatment as it will cause pain to be felt in your head as you are doing the treatment.  Only use enough pressure that it “hurts so good.”

Do 5-6 passes on each side.  It can be repeated often during the day but give a little time between each session to allow the muscle to relax.

Drink a LOT of water so the acid that you’re pressing out of the muscle will get flushed out of your body.

This may look a bit confusing, but it’s simple when you follow the directions.  And the best part is, IT WORKS!

How to Learn the Other Treatments for Headaches

If you go to www.FlexibleAthlete.com you can read a lot more about muscles and pain.  You will also find my books and other self-treatment tools by pressing on Shop.

Have a Happy Summer!  Please remember to drink a lot of water to keep yourself hydrated.  😊

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

www.FlexibleAthlete.com

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

Do Muscadine Polyphenols Reduce Skin Aging?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Red WineNormally, I don’t discuss results from pilot studies. I wait until larger studies have been published in peer reviewed journals. But I thought this study might be of interest to you.

Polyphenols from muscadine grapes and muscadine wine have been reported to reduce cellular aging. So, scientists from the University of Florida decided to do a pilot study asking whether muscadine polyphenols in the diet might improve signs of an aging skin. They reported their results in a poster (L Christman and L Gu, Dealcoholized Muscadine Wine Improved Skin Health, Reduced Oxidative Stress, and Inflammation in Women in a Randomized Controlled Trial, July 24, 2023) presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s NUTRITION 2023 meeting.

They enrolled 17 healthy women ages 40-67 to participate in a randomized, single-blinded, placebo controlled, cross-over study. Simply put, that means:

  • The study started with a 7-day “run-in period” in which their diet was standardized.
  • Then they were asked to drink 10 ounces/day of dealcoholized muscadine wine or a placebo drink for 6 weeks. Since participants did not know which beverage they were given, this is the “single-blind” part of the experimental design.
  • This was followed by a 21-day “wash-out” period to allow muscadine polyphenols to be flushed out of their system.
  • They then were switched to the opposite beverage for an additional 6 weeks. This was the “cross-over” portion of the experimental design.

Their skin conditions and blood markers of inflammation and oxidative stress were measured at the start (baseline) and end of each 6-week portion of the study.

When compared to both baseline and placebo, the dealcoholized muscadine wine significantly improved:

  • Skin elasticity, which prevents the skin from sagging as it ages.
  • Retention of moisture at the skin surface, which indicates the skin is providing a more effective barrier against aging.
  • Skin smoothness.
  • Blood glutathione peroxidase activity, a measure of antioxidant protection.

The authors concluded, “This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that consumption of polyphenol-rich dealcoholized muscadine wine improved skin conditions associated with aging. This is likely due to decreases in inflammation and oxidative stress.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanAs for what this study means for you, I have two words, “Stay tuned”.

On the plus side, while muscadine polyphenols have been shown to reduce markers of skin aging when applied to the skin, this is the first study to suggest those same benefits may be seen from the inside out – i.e., from dietary muscadine polyphenols.

On the minus side, this is a pilot study. Pilot studies are meant to test hypotheses to see whether there is enough evidence to justify larger studies. In the words of the authors, “…repeating this study with a larger and more diverse group of people would help to confirm and strengthen the findings going forward.”

So, stay tuned. When the results of larger studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I will give you an update.

The Bottom Line 

Scientists at the University of Florida recently did a pilot study to see whether muscadine polyphenols in the diet might improve signs of an aging skin. When compared to a placebo, dealcoholized muscadine wine significantly improved skin elasticity, moisture retention, and smoothness. It also increased blood glutathione peroxidase activity, a measure of antioxidant protection.

The authors concluded, “This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that consumption of polyphenol-rich dealcoholized muscadine wine improved skin conditions associated with aging. This is likely due to decreases in inflammation and oxidative stress.”

On the plus side, while muscadine polyphenols have been shown to reduce markers of skin aging when applied to the skin, this is the first study to suggest those same benefits may be seen from the inside out – i.e., from dietary muscadine polyphenols.

On the minus side, this is a pilot study. Pilot studies are meant to test hypotheses to see whether there is enough evidence to justify larger studies. In the words of the authors, “…repeating this study with a larger and more diverse group of people would help to confirm and strengthen the findings going forward.”

So, stay tuned. When the results of larger studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I will give you an update.

For more information on this study read the article above.

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

 ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 

 

Health Tips From The Professor