What Is The Best Diet For You?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in best diet

Sorting Through The Dueling Diets

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

battle over best dietDiets are a lot like politics in today’s world. Everyone is absolutely convinced their diet is the best and absolutely convinced the other diets are terrible.

Remember the nursery rhyme: “Jack Sprat could eat no fat. His wife could eat no lean…”? Today’s diets remind me of that. They run the gamut from no fat to no carbohydrates. Surely, both extremes couldn’t be healthy. Or could they?

Some diets eliminate whole food groups. That couldn’t be a good thing. Or, could it?

So, what is the best diet for you?

In today’s article, I will give you the pros and cons of these dueling diets. Before I do that, however, let me give you some principles to put things into perspective.

General Principles For Evaluating Diets

How do you sort out the claims and counterclaims associated with the various diets? More importantly, how do you know which of the claims are true and which are misleading? Here are some general principles to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.  What’s the right diet for you?

We are omnivores. We can adapt to a wide variety of diets and do reasonably well. That means most people will do well on any of these diets short term.

wings proteinAnything is better than the standard American diet (SAD). It is high in sugar and refined carbohydrates. It is also high in saturated and trans fats. That is why proponents of every diet can claim that you will feel better and be healthier when you switch to their diet.

Processed and convenience foods are part of the problem. Most diets recommend “clean eating” (elimination of processed and convenience foods). Any diet that eliminates processed and convenience foods is likely to help you lose weight and get healthier. Caution: As soon as a diet becomes popular, food manufacturers rush in to provide pre-packaged, convenience foods to support that diet. Avoid the temptation to use those foods. Big Food Inc. does not have your best interests in mind. They are not your friends.

Most diets lead to a fairly rapid initial weight loss. This is because they restrict food choices and eliminate processed foods. When you eliminate familiar foods from someone’s diet, they instinctively eat less without even thinking about it. This rapid initial weight loss is part of the allure of almost every diet program. However, over time most people start adding back some of their favorite foods or find new foods they like, and the weight comes back.

Weight loss leads to improved blood parameters irrespective of diet composition. That is why every diet, no matter how bizarre, can claim it lowers your blood pressure, improves your blood sugar, lowers your cholesterol, and lowers your triglycerides.

Long term weight loss is virtually identical on every diet. Numerous clinical studies have compared long term weight loss on low fat diets, low carbohydrate diets, and virtually everything in between. Initial weight loss is more rapid on the low-carbohydrate diets. However, at the end of one or two years there is not a dime’s worth of difference in weight loss between any of the diets. The exception is the Vegan diet. Long term Vegans typically weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts, probably because the foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density (fewer calories per serving).

Healthy carbs and healthy fats are more important than low carb or low fat diets. Ignore the claims and counter claims about low fat and low carb diets. Focus instead on diets that provide moderate amounts of whole grains instead of refined grains & sugar. Also focus on diets that provide moderate amounts of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, especially the omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, instead of saturated and trans fats.

Focus on well balanced meals rather than individual foods. For example, moderate amounts of healthy carbohydrates will have relatively little effect on blood sugar and triglyceride levels as part of a plant-based meal that provides plenty of fiber and protein. However, those same carbohydrate-rich foods by themselves may cause a spike in both blood sugar and triglycerides.

best diet for youPlant-based diets rule. The Ornish diet (a very restrictive form of the Vegan diet) is the only diet that has been shown to reverse atherosclerosis in some people. The Vegan diet and the Mediterranean diet, which is largely plant-based, have been shown to be healthy long term. On the other hand, we simply don’t know whether low carbohydrate diets are healthy long term. Those clinical studies have not been done.

Saturated and trans fats are not your friends. They increase inflammation, which can have many serious long-term health consequences. In addition, the foods that are rich in saturated fats are often acid-forming foods, which can upset your acid-base balance.

We have 5 food groups for a reason. Each food group provides valuable nutrients (vitamins a & minerals) and phytonutrients. You may be able to replace the missing nutrients with supplementation, but you are unlikely to replace the phytonutrients with supplements – even those supplements that claim to be made from whole foods. You should be concerned about the long-term health consequences of any diet that eliminates whole food groups.

Low fat diets aren’t necessarily healthy. Whole food, low-fat diets like the Vegan diet are extremely healthy. However, as soon as health experts started recommending low-fat diets, Big Food Inc. stepped in to offer convenient low fat options. They simply replaced the fat with refined carbohydrates, sugar, and a witch’s brew of chemicals (Remember the part about Big Food Inc. not being your friend?). As a result, the low-fat diet consumed by most Americans is anything but healthy.

The supposed advantages of low carbohydrate diets are misleading. Low carbohydrate diets look very good when you compare them to the Big Food Inc version of the low-fat diet. However, when you compare them to something like the Vegan diet the advantages disappear.

Avoid sugar-sweetened and diet beverages. This should go without saying. Choose water instead. Add carbonation and/or a little lemon or lime juice for flavoring if necessary. Fortunately, most of the major diets exclude sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.

 

The Pros and Cons Of The Major Diets

It is not possible to cover each diet in depth in a single article, so this is meant to be a very brief overview of the major diets.

Low Fat Diets

The Dean Ornish Diet. This is a variation of the Vegan Diet that eliminates all oils, even vegetable oil.

Pros:

  • Whole food, plant-based diet.
  • All the advantages of the Vegan diet, plus it is the only diet shown to reverse atherosclerosis.

Cons:

  • Very restrictive.
  • Long-term adherence is low.

 

vegetablesThe Vegan Diet. This is a whole food, plant based diet. It uses plant proteins instead of meat and plant substitutes for dairy and eggs.

Pros:

  • Whole food, plant-based diet.
  • Associated with lower blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, triglycerides, and inflammation.
  • Clinical studies show that the onset of major diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are delayed by at least 5-10 years. People on this diet live healthier, longer.

Cons:

  • Long-term adherence is relatively low, but some people stick with this diet for a lifetime.

 

Healthy Fat, Healthy Carb Diets

The Mediterranean Diet. This diet emphasizes fresh fruits & vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, seeds, legumes and olive oil. It includes cheese, poultry and eggs in moderation.

whole food dietPros:

Cons:

  • Not designed specifically for weight loss. You will need to watch portion sizes and track calories if you want to lose weight on this diet.

 

The DASH Diet. This diet was specifically designed to help reduce the risk of hypertension and stroke. It is similar to the Mediterranean diet except that it restricts sodium and includes a wider range of lean meats and low-fat dairy products. It does not specifically include olive oil.

Pros:

  • Whole food diet.
  • Clinically proven to lower blood pressure  as effectively as some blood pressure medications.
  • Relatively easy to follow. Includes foods familiar to Americans.

Cons:

  • Not designed specifically for weight loss. You will need to watch portion sizes and track calories if you want to lose weight on this diet.

 

Low Carb Diets

meat protein dietThe Paleo Diet. The Paleo diet is supposedly based on the diet of our paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors. The diet is high in protein & fat, and low in carbohydrates. The diet eliminates grains, sugars, refined oils, dairy, legumes, and starchy fruits & vegetables. Most of the protein comes from meats, but the animals must be grass-fed. This reduces, but does not eliminate, saturated fat and gives a modest increase in omega-3 polyunsaturated fat. Thus, the meats included in this diet are healthier than the meats in other low carbohydrate diets. However, it does not turn red meats into health foods.

Anthropologists tell us that the premise of the Paleo diet is faulty. The diet of our paleolithic ancestors was highly dependent on the foods available in their environment. Some were hunters and gatherers. Others lived in areas where fruits & vegetables were prevalent and game was scarcer. Still others lived in areas where starchy root vegetables were an important part of their diet. Furthermore, the enzymes required for digestion of starches are inducible. We can easily adapt to the introduction of grains into our diet.

Pros:

  • Whole food diet.
  • The Paleo diet is associated with several short-term benefits including weight loss, improved blood sugar control and reduced cholesterol, triglycerides & blood pressure.

Cons:

The Atkins Diet. The Atkins diet is the granddaddy of the low-fat diets. It is a very low carbohydrate diet that restricts sugars, grains, high carbohydrate fruits and vegetables. The allure of the diet is that it includes as much fatty meats and saturated fats as you want.

Pros:

  • The Atkins diet is associated with several short-term benefits including weight loss, improved blood sugar control and reduced cholesterol, triglycerides & blood pressure.

Cons:

  • There are no studies evaluating the long-term benefits and risks of the Atkins diet.
  • Weight loss at the end of one or two years is no better than for the low-fat diets.
  • The high intake of saturated fat has the potential to increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.
  • It is a very restrictive diet. Long-term adherence to this diet is poor.

The Ketogenic Diet. The Ketogenic diet is even more restrictive than the Atkins diet. I have covered the pros and cons of the Ketogenic diet in a recent post, so I will refer you to that article, Is the Ketogenic Diet Safe for details. In short, the Ketogenic diet has some short-term benefits and some potential long-term risks. Ketone supplements mimic some, but not all, of the short-term benefits of the Ketogenic diet. Their long-term health risks are unknown.

 

What Is The Best Diet For You?

what diet is right for youWe are all different, so there is no perfect diet for everyone. Want to know how to find a diet that works for you?  Here are some things to think about.

  • If you are like most Americans, almost any of these diets is better than your current diet.
  • The good thing about all the diets reviewed in this article is:
    • They replace refined carbohydrates & sugars with healthier alternatives (The best of the diets also replace saturated & trans fats with healthier alternatives).
    • They emphasize whole foods rather than processed and convenience foods.
    • They eliminate sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.
    • They emphasize fresh vegetables and most include fresh fruit.
  • If you are looking for rapid initial weight loss:
    • The very restrictive diets at either extreme (very low fat or very low carb) are best because they eliminate familiar foods from the diet.
    • The very low carb diets are slightly more effective than low fat diets initially because of water loss, but weight loss on most low carb and low fat diets is identical after 1-2 years.
    • Because both the Mediterranean and DASH diets involve many familiar foods, you will need to pay more attention to portion sizes and total calories on these diets if your primary goal is to lose weight.
  • If you are looking for long term weight control, the Vegan diet is best, probably because most foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density. Multiple studies have shown that Vegans weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts.
  • If you are looking for long term health benefits:
    • The Vegan and Mediterranean diets are clearly your best choices. They are backed by multiple clinical studies showing they reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia and other diseases.
    • The DASH diet is probably equally healthy. However, because it was designed to control blood pressure, most clinical studies have focused only on how well it reduces blood pressure.
    • There is no evidence that the low carb diets have any long-term health benefits, and there is reason to suspect they may have some long-term health risks.
  • I have serious concerns about long-term health risks for any diet that:
    • Eliminates whole food groups.
    • Is high in saturated and trans fats.
  • The effectiveness of any diet is dependent on how well you stick with it:
    • The long-term adherence to any of the very restrictive diets (either low carb or low fat) is low, although some people do stick with the Vegan diet for a lifetime.
    • Adherence is best with the Mediterranean and DASH diets, probably because many of the foods are familiar and readily available.

 

The Bottom Line

 

In this article I have reviewed the major low fat diets (the Dean Ornish diet and the Vegan diet), the major healthy carb, healthy fat diets (the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet), and the major low carb diets (the Paleo diet, the Atkins diet, and the Ketogenic diet). In summary:

 

  • If you are like most Americans, almost any of these diets is better than your current diet.
  • The good thing about all these diets is:
    • They replace refined carbohydrates & sugars with healthier alternatives (The best of the diets also replace saturated & trans fats with healthier alternatives).
    • They emphasize whole foods rather than processed and convenience foods.
    • They eliminate sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.
    • They emphasize fresh vegetables and most include fresh fruit.
  • If you are looking for rapid initial weight loss:
    • The very restrictive diets at either extreme (very low fat or very low carb) are best because they eliminate familiar foods from the diet.
    • The very low carb diets are slightly more effective than low fat diets initially because of water loss, but weight loss on most low carb and low fat diets is identical after 1-2 years.
    • Because both the Mediterranean and DASH diets involve many familiar foods, you will need to pay more attention to portion sizes and total calories on these diets if your primary goal is to lose weight.
  • If you are looking for long term weight control, the Vegan diet is best, probably because most foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density. Multiple studies have shown that Vegans weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts.
  • If you are looking for long term health benefits:
    • The Vegan and Mediterranean diets are clearly your best choices. They are backed by multiple clinical studies showing they reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia and other diseases.
    • The DASH diet is probably equally healthy. However, because it was designed to control blood pressure, most clinical studies have focused only on how well it reduces blood pressure.
    • There is no evidence that the low carb diets have any long-term health benefits, and there is reason to suspect they may have some long-term health risks.
  • I have serious concerns about long-term health risks for any diet that:
    • Eliminates whole food groups.
    • Is high in saturated and trans fats.
  • The effectiveness of any diet is dependent on how well you stick with it:
    • The long-term adherence to any of the very restrictive diets (either low carb or low fat) is low, although some people do stick with the Vegan diet for a lifetime.
    • Adherence is best with the Mediterranean and DASH diets, probably because many of the foods are familiar and readily available.
  • 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.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • John Angier

    |

    I appreciate your down to earth and commonsense approach to health and diet, Steve. I used to listen in to your webinars when I was active in Shaklee. Keep up the good work! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear John,
      Thank you. I will be recreating my webinars in some form in the New Year, and they will be appropriate for everyone who wishes to improve their health.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Cardoline

    |

    Thank you again for a great article. Having thyroidism it is very difficult to lose weight (saved myself from Hashimoto, thank God as was on the verge). I won’t take the drugs because of their effect on our hormones and body, so I have to watch my diet, exercise, and no way would I never stop taking Shaklee supplemenst for any condition! Have a great New Year and will continue to look forward to hearing from you.

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Caroline,
      You are correct. It is more difficult to lose weight with hypothyroidism, but it is not impossible. Many people just throw up their hands and use hypothyroidism as an excuse to quit trying to lose weight. My hat is off to you for persevering.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

Should We Use Supplements For Cardiovascular Health?

Posted July 10, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are You Just Wasting Your Money On Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

supplements for cardiovascular health wast moneyYou’ve seen the headlines. “Recent Study Finds Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.”  You are being told that supplements are of no benefit to you. They are a waste of money. You should follow a healthy diet instead. Is all of this true?

If I were like most bloggers, I would give you a simple yes or no answer that would be only partially correct. Instead, I am going to put the study behind these headlines into perspective. I am going to give you a deeper understanding of supplementation, so you can make better choices for your health.

 Should we use supplements for cardiovascular health?

In today’s article I will give you a brief overview of the subject. Here are the topics I will cover today:

  • Is this fake news?
  • Did the study ask the right questions?
  • Is this a question of “Garbage In – Garbage Out?
  • Reducing Heart Disease Risk. What you need to know.

All these topics are covered in much more detail (with references) in my book “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, which will be published this fall.

 

How Was This Study Done?

supplements for cardiovascular healthThis study (D.J.A. Jenkins et al, Journal of the American College Of Cardiology, 71: 2540-2584, 2018 ) was a meta-analysis. Simply put, that means the authors combined the results of many previous studies into a single database to increase the statistical power of their conclusions. This study included 127 randomized control trials published between 2012 and December 2017. These were all studies that included supplementation and looked at cardiovascular end points, cancer end points or overall mortality.

Before looking at the results, it is instructive to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Rather than giving you my interpretation, let me summarize what the authors said about strengths and weaknesses of their own study.

The strengths are obvious. Randomized control trials are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, but they have their weaknesses. Here is what the authors said about the limitations of their study:

  • “Randomized control trials are of shorter duration, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.”
  • “Dose-response data were not usually available [from the randomized control studies included in their analysis]. However, larger studies would allow the effect of dose to be assessed.”

There are some other limitations of this study, which I will point out below.

Is This Fake News?

supplements for cardiovascular health fake newsWhen I talk about “fake news” I am referring to the headlines, not to the study behind the headlines. The headlines were definitive: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” However, when you read the study the reality is quite different:

  • In contrast to the negative headlines, the study reported:
    • Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk by 20% and overall heart disease risk by 17%.
    • B complex supplements containing folic acid, B6, and B12 decreased stroke risk by 10%.
    • That’s a big deal, but somehow the headlines forgot to mention it.
  • The supplements that had no significant effect on heart disease risk (multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C) were ones that would not be expected to lower heart disease risk. There was little evidence from previous studies of decreased risk. Furthermore, there is no plausible mechanism for supposing they might decrease heart disease risk.
  • The study did not include vitamin E or omega-3 supplements, which are the ones most likely to prove effective in decreasing heart disease risk when the studies are done properly (see below).

Did The Study Ask The Right Question?

Most of the studies included in this meta-analysis were asking whether a supplement decreased heart disease risk or mortality for everyone. Simply put, the studies started with a group of generally healthy Americans and asked whether supplementation had a significant effect on disease risk for everyone in that population.

That is the wrong question. We should not expect supplementation to benefit everyone equally. Instead, we should be asking who is most likely to benefit from supplementation and design our clinical studies to test whether those people benefit from supplementation.

supplements for cardiovascular health diagramI have created the graphic on the right as a guide to help answer the question of “Who is most likely to benefit from supplementation?”. Let me summarize each of the points using folic acid as the example.

 

Poor Diet: It only makes sense that those people who are deficient in folate from foods are the most likely to benefit from folic acid supplementation. Think about it for a minute. Would you really expect people who are already getting plenty of folate from their diet to obtain additional benefits from folic acid supplementation?

The NIH estimates that around 20% of US women of childbearing age are deficient in folic acid. For other segments of our population, dietary folate insufficiency ranges from 5-10%. Yet, most studies of folic acid supplementation lump everyone together – even though 80-95% of the US population is already getting enough folate through foods, food fortification, and supplementation. It is no wonder most studies fail to find a beneficial effect of folic acid supplementation.

The authors of the meta-analysis I discussed above said that the beneficial effects of folic acid they saw might have been influenced by a very large Chinese study, because a much higher percentage of Chinese are deficient in folic acid. They went on to say that the Chinese study needed to be repeated in this country.

In fact, the US study has already been done. A large study called “The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)” study reported that folic acid supplementation did not reduce heart disease risk in the whole population. However, when the study focused on the subgroup of subjects who were folate-deficient at the beginning of the study, folic acid supplementation significantly decreased their risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death.  This would seem to suggest using supplements for cardiovascular health is a good idea.

Increased Need: There are many factors that increase the need for certain nutrients. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s only focus on medications. Medications that interfere with folic acid metabolism include anticonvulsants, metformin (used to treat diabetes), methotrexate and sulfasalazine (used to treat severe inflammation), birth control pills, and some diuretics. Use of these medications is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine medication use with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial.

Genetic Predisposition: The best known genetic defect affecting folic acid metabolism is MTHFR. MTHFR deficiency does not mean you have a specific need for methylfolate. However, it does increase your need for folic acid. Again, this is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine MTHFR deficiency with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial. I cover this topic in great detail in my upcoming book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths”. In the meantime, you might wish to view my video, “The Truth About Methyl Folate.”

Diseases: An underlying disease or predisposition to disease often increases the need for one or more nutrients that help reduce disease risk. The best examples of this are two major studies on the effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in women. Both studies found no effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in the whole population. However, one study reported that vitamin E reduced heart disease risk in the subgroup of women who were post-menopausal (when the risk of heart disease skyrockets). The other study found that vitamin E reduced heart attack risk in the subgroup of women who had pre-existing heart disease at the beginning of the study.

Finally, if you look at the diagram closely, you will notice a red circle in the middle. When two or three of these factors overlap, that is the “sweet spot” where supplementation is almost certain to make a difference and it may be a good idea to use supplements for cardiovascular health.

Is This A Question Of “Garbage In, Garbage Out”?

supplements for cardiovascular health garbage in outUnfortunately, most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” rather than the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question.

In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.

Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.

 

Should We Use Supplements For Cardiovascular Health?

 

If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this meta-analysis is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but the analysis did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s.

However, if you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.

I would be remiss, however, if I failed to point out that we know healthy diets can decrease heart disease risk. In the words of the authors: “The recent science-based report of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, also concerned with [heart disease] risk reduction, recommended 3 dietary patterns: 1) a healthy American diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, and meat, but high in fruits and vegetables; 2) a Mediterranean diet; and 3) a vegetarian diet. These diets, with their accompanying recommendations, continue the move towards more plant-based diets…” I cover the effect of diet on heart disease risk in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

 

The Bottom Line

 

You have probably seen the recent headlines proclaiming: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” The study behind the headlines was a meta-analysis of 127 randomized control trials looking at the effect of supplementation on heart disease risk and mortality.

  • The headlines qualify as “fake news” because:
    • The study found that folic acid decreased stroke and heart disease risk, and B vitamins decreased stroke risk. Somehow the headlines forgot to mention that.
    • The study found that multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C had no effect on heart disease risk. These are nutrients that were unlikely to decrease heart disease risk to begin with.
    • The study did not include vitamin E and omega-3s. These are nutrients that are likely to decrease heart disease risk when the studies are done properly.
  • The authors of the study stated that a major weakness of their study was that that randomized control studies included in their analysis were short term, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.
  • The study behind the headlines is of little use for you as an individual because it asked the wrong question.
  • Most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” That is the wrong question. Instead we need more clinical studies focused on the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question. I discuss that question in more detail in the article above.
  • In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.
  • Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.
  • If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this study is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B-complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but they did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s in their analysis.
  • If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.
  • However, we do know that healthy, plant-based diets can decrease heart disease risk. I cover heart healthy diets in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”

 

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.

UA-43257393-1