Soy and Breast Cancer

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Food and Health, Nutritiion

soy and breast cancerThe Soy Controversy

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

 

Soy and breast cancer: the wars are heating up again. You may have seen the recent headlines saying: “Soy protein found to speed the growth of breast cancer!” “Eating soy may turn on genes linked to [breast] cancer growth!” “Women with breast cancer should avoid high soy diets!” It all sounds pretty scary.

If this is true, it is big news. In recent years the consensus in the scientific community has been that soy is not harmful for women with breast cancer, and that it might even be beneficial. However, some skeptics have never accepted that consensus view. Those skeptics are once again claiming that soy protein may be risky for women with breast cancer.

Let’s look at the study behind the recent headlines and see if it is compelling enough to challenge the prevailing consensus on the safety of soy for women with breast cancer.

Does Soy Protein Turn On Breast Cancer Growth Genes?

This study (Shike et al, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sep 4 2014, doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju 189) looked at 140 women (average age 56) with invasive breast cancer. They were randomly divided into two groups of 70 and either given soy protein or a placebo between the initial biopsy and the time that surgery was performed to remove the tumor (a period of 7 to 30 days). A second biopsy was obtained at the time of surgery.

The activity of a number of genes associated with breast cancer survival was measured in the two biopsy samples. The observation that made the headlines was:

  • For some of the women in the study the activity of several genes associated with breast cancer growth and survival was increased in the group consuming soy protein compared to the placebo group. The authors concluded: “These data raise concern that soy may exert a stimulatory effect on breast cancer in a subset of women.”

What Are The Limitations Of The Study?

The authors acknowledged the many limitations of the study, but the press has largely ignored them.

  • The increased activity of the cancer growth genes was only seen in 20% of the women studied. For 80% of the women studied soy protein consumption had no effect on the activity of genes associated with breast cancer growth and survival.
  • This effect was only seen for some of the genes associated with breast cancer growth and survival. Other breast cancer growth genes were not affected in any of the women enrolled in the study. The authors conceded that it was unknown whether these limited genetic changes would have any effect on tumor growth and survival.
  • There was no effect of soy consumption on actual tumor growth in any of the women studied.
  • This was a very short term study so it is not known whether these changes in gene expression would have continued if soy supplementation were continued for a longer period of time. There are numerous examples in the literature of initial changes in gene expression in response to a radical change in diet that disappear once the body becomes accustomed to the new diet.
  • There is absolutely no way of knowing if the observed changes in gene expression would actually affect clinical outcomes such as survival, response to chemotherapy or tumor recurrence.

Should Women With Breast Cancer Avoid Soy?breast cancer prevention

Even with all of the limitations listed above, if this were the only study to test the soy-breast cancer hypothesis, I and most other experts would probably be warning women with breast cancer to be very cautious about consuming soy.

However, as I discussed in a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” (https://healthtipsfromtheprofessor.com/soy-and-breast-cancer-recurrence/) at least five clinical studies have been published on the effects of soy consumption on the recurrence of breast cancer in women who are breast cancer survivors, both in Chinese and American populations. The studies have shown either no effect of soy on breast cancer recurrence or a protective effect. None of them have shown any detrimental effects of soy consumption by breast cancer survivors.

A meta-analysis of all 5 studies was published last year (Chi et al, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev., 14: 2407-2412, 2013). This study combined the data from 11,206 breast cancer survivors in the US and China. Those with the highest soy consumption had a 23% decrease in recurrence and a 15% decrease in mortality from breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis of 18 clinical studies found that soy slightly decreases the risk of developing breast cancer in the first place (J Natl Cancer Inst, 98: 459-471, 2006). To date there is absolutely no clinical evidence that soy increases the risk of breast cancer.

The Bottom Line

What does this mean for you if you are a woman with breast cancer, a breast cancer survivor or someone who is concerned about your risk of developing breast cancer?

  1. The study that has generated the recent headlines has so many limitations that I would not recommend any changes in soy consumption at present. It raises an interesting hypothesis that requires further study and validation. If this hypothesis holds up it may result in changes in dietary recommendations for a very small subset of women with invasive breast cancer.
  1. There are many reasons to include soy protein foods as part of a healthy diet. Soy foods are one of the highest quality vegetable protein sources and provide a great alternative to many of the high fat, high cholesterol animal proteins in the American diet.
  1. I personally feel that these studies are clear cut enough that women who are concerned about their breast cancer risk, women with breast cancer, and breast cancer survivors no longer need to fear soy protein as part of a healthy diet.
  1. The responsible websites agree with this assessment. For example, WebMD and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) both say that breast cancer survivors need no longer worry about eating moderate amounts of soy foods.
  1. The irresponsible websites (I won’t name names, but you know who they are) are still warning breast cancer survivors to avoid soy completely. They are citing the latest study, with all of its limitations, as proof that they were right all along. As a scientist I really have a problem with people who are unwilling to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
  1. Finally, I want to emphasize that the published studies merely show that soy does not increase the risk of breast cancer and is safe to use for breast cancer survivors. None of those studies suggest that soy is an effective treatment for breast cancer. The protective effects of soy are modest at best. If you have breast cancer, consult with your physician about the best treatment options for you.

 

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

Is Omega-3 Uptake Gender Specific?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Nutritiion, Supplements and Health

Do We Need To Reexamine Everything We Thought We Knew About Omega-3s?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

is omega-3 uptake gender specific

Some of you may remember the book from a few years ago titled “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. The book proposed that men and women communicate differently (Who would have guessed?), and understanding that fact would help husbands and wives communicate with each other more effectively. I know that some people complained that it was an overly simplistic viewpoint, but I know it sure helped me communicate more effectively with my wife.

I came across a very interesting article recently that suggested the omega-3 fatty acid EPA might be metabolized and utilized differently by men and women. You might say that the statement “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” applies to omega-3 utilization as well.

The Science Behind the Study

Now that I’ve captured your interest, perhaps I should fill in a few details. We have known for years that the long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA appear to be beneficial at reducing the risk of heart disease. There are several mechanisms for that protective effect:

  1. Omega-3s reduce the stickiness of platelets so that platelet aggregation, a fancy name for blood clotting, occurs less readily. Of course, we want our blood to clot when we cut ourselves, but we don’t want it to clot inside our arteries, because that is the very process that can lead to heart attacks and stroke.
  1. Omega-3s lower triglycerides and reduce inflammation, two important risk factors for heart disease.
  1. Omega-3s help keep the walls of our blood vessels elastic, which enhances blood flow and reduces the risk of hypertension.

However, for any of those things to occur, the omega-3 fatty acids must first be incorporated into our cell membranes. Thus, it is not just how much omega-3s we get in our diet that is important. We need to know how many of those omega-3s are actually incorporated into our membranes.

What if the efficiency of omega-3 uptake into cellular membranes were different for men and women? That would change everything. It would affect the design of omega-3 clinical studies. It would affect omega-3 dietary recommendations for men and women. The implications of gender-specific uptake of omega-3s would be far reaching.

Is Omega-3 Uptake Gender Specific?omega-3

The authors of this week’s study (Pipingas et al., Nutrients, 6, 1956-1970, 2014) hypothesized that efficiency of omega-3 uptake might differ in men and women. They enrolled 160 participants in the study (47% male and 53& female) with an average age of 59 years. The study excluded anybody with pre-existing diabetes or heart disease and anybody who was significantly overweight. The study also excluded anyone taking drugs that might mask the effects of the omega-3 fatty acids and anybody who had previously consumed fish oil supplements or more than two servings of seafood per week.

This was a complex study. In this review I will focus only on the portion of the study relevant to the gender specificity of omega-3 uptake. For that portion of the study, both male and female participants were divided into three groups. The first group received 3 gm of fish oil (240 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA); the second group received 6 gm of fish oil (480 mg EPA and 480 mg of DHA); and the third group received sunflower seed oil as a placebo. The study lasted 16 weeks, and the incorporation of omega-3 fatty acids into red blood cell membranes was measured at the beginning of the study and at the end of 16 weeks.

When they looked at men and women combined, they found:

  • A dose specific increase in EPA incorporation into red cell membranes compared to placebo. That simply means the amount of EPA that ended up in the red blood cell membrane was greater when the participants consumed 6 gm of fish oil than when they consumed 3 gm of fish oil.
  • Very little incorporation of DHA into red blood cell membranes was seen at either dose. This was not unexpected. Previous studies have shown that EPA is preferentially incorporated into red cell membranes. Other tissues, such a neural tissue, preferentially incorporate DHA into their membranes.

When they looked at men and women separately, they found:

  • The efficiency of EPA incorporation into red cell membranes compared to placebo was greater for women than for men. In women increased EPA uptake into red cell membranes was seen with both 3 gm and 6 gm of fish oil. Whereas, with men increased EPA incorporation into red cell membranes was only seen at with 6 gm of fish oil.

What Is The Significance Of These Observations?

The authors concluded “This is an important area for future research because dietary recommendations around long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake may need to be gender specific.”

However, there are a number of weaknesses of this study:

  1. It was a very small study. Obviously, this study needs to be repeated with a much larger cohort of men and women.
  1. This study was just looking at incorporation of omega-3s into red cell membranes. We don’t yet know whether the specificity of omega-3 uptake will be the same for other tissues. Nor do we know whether there will be gender specificity in the biological effects of omega-3s.
  1. Most importantly, not all previous studies have reported the same gender specificity in omega-3 uptake seen in this study.

So what does this mean for you? Should men be getting more omega-3 fatty acids in their diet than women, as the authors suggested? That is an intriguing idea, but based on the weaknesses I described above, I think it’s premature to make this kind of recommendation until these results have been confirmed by larger studies.

The Bottom Line

  1. A recent study has suggested that women may be more efficient at incorporating the omega-3 fatty acids EPA into their cellular membranes than men. The authors of the study concluded that “…dietary recommendations around long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake may need to be gender specific.”
  1. However, the study has a number of weaknesses:
  • It was a very small study. Obviously, it needs to be repeated with a much larger cohort of men and women.
  • This study was just looking at incorporation of omega-3s into red cell membranes. We don’t yet know whether the specificity of omega-3 uptake will be the same for other tissues. Nor do we know whether there will be gender specificity in the biological effects of omega-3s.
  • Most importantly, not all previous studies have reported the same gender specificity in omega-3 uptake seen in this study.
  1. The idea that men and women may differ in their needs for omega-3 fatty acids is intriguing, but based on the weaknesses described above, it is premature to make this kind of recommendation until the results of the current study have been confirmed by larger studies.

 

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.

Best Diet For Weight Loss

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Healthy Lifestyle, Healthy Living, Nutritiion

The Diet Wars Heat Up Again

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

best diet for weight loss

What is the best diet for weight loss? One week the headlines say that low-carbohydrate diets are better. The next week it’s low-fat diets that are better. There is even the occasional headline proclaiming that it doesn’t matter which diet you follow as long as you control your calories. It is no wonder that you are confused.

It is unusual, however, to have conflicting headlines within the same week, but that is exactly what happened last week. Let me take you behind the headlines to the actual clinical studies and help you sort through the conflicting headlines.

Are Low-Carbohydrate Diets Best For Weight Loss?

The manuscript behind this headline was published September 2nd in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Bazzano et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 161: 309-318, 2014). This study was designed to determine which was the best diet for weight loss, low carb diet or low fat diet. The study recruited 148 overweight participants (mean age, 46.8, 88% female, 51% black) and randomly assigned them to either a low-fat diet or low-carbohydrate diet.

The participants on the low-fat diet were instructed to consume <30% of their calories from fat, while the participants on the low-carbohydrate diet were told to limit carbohydrates to <40 g/day. Neither group was told to limit calories. They met with a dietitian 10 times during the 12-month study and received information on dietary fiber (target = 25 g/day) and healthy fats (target = <7% saturated fat and little or no trans fats).

At the end of 12 months the low-carbohydrate diet resulted in significantly greater…

  • Weight loss (7.7 pounds)…
  • Decrease in triglyceride levels…
  • Increase in HDL cholesterol…
  • Decrease in the ratio of total to HDL Cholesterol…

…than the low-fat diet. In short, the results suggested that the low-carbohydrate diet was not only better than the low-fat diet for weight loss, but that it was also more effective in reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Case closed, you might be tempted to say. The low carb diet is the best the diet for weight loss. But there have been lots of other studies that have come to the opposite conclusion. So we have to ask the question: “Is this study significantly better than all of the studies that have failed to find any difference between the low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets with respect to weight loss and cardiovascular risk?”

What Are The Strengths & Weaknesses Of the Study?

Strengths of the Study: This was a very well designed study. In particular:

  • Dietitians met with the participants at multiple times during the program to assure adherence to the diet, which was very good.
  • The study utilized multiple dietary recalls, both during the week and on weekends.
  • The study had a diverse population.

Weaknesses of the Study:

  1. The study did not control calories. In fact, the caloric intake was ~160 calories/day greater for the low-fat group than the low-carbohydrate group for at least the first 6 months of the study. low carb dietThat alone would be enough to account for the 7.7 pounds difference in weight loss.The reason for the higher caloric intake of low-fat group is not known. It could be due to the lower palatability of the low-carbohydrate diet. Alternatively, it could be due to the lower satiety of the low-fat diet. It was low in both fat and protein, both of which contribute to satiety (the feeling of fullness after we eat).
  2. The study did not specify the type of carbohydrates consumed. The dietitians instructed the participants on the type of fat they should be eating, but not the type of carbohydrate. That was a significant omission. Diets high in sugars and refined carbohydrates provide less satiety and adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors compared to diets where the carbohydrate comes primarily from fresh fruits, vegetables and legumes.
  3. The study did not control protein intake. In fact, the low-fat group consumed significantly less protein than the low-carbohydrate group. As I pointed out in a previous “Health Tips From the ProfessorHigh Protein Diets and Weight Loss , higher protein intakes are essential for maintaining muscle mass during weight loss. That is important because loss of muscle mass can decrease metabolic rate (the rate at which we burn calories 24 hours a day – even at rest).

The amount of protein consumed by the low-carbohydrate group was close to the amount shown to maintain muscle mass during weight loss, while the amount of protein consumed by the low-fat group was close to the amount associated with loss of muscle mass during weight loss. That was reflected in the results. The low-fat group lost muscle mass while the low carbohydrate group actually gained muscle mass. The resulting difference in muscle probably meant that the low-carbohydrate group was burning more calories on a daily basis than the low-fat group.

In short, this is a good study, but it has important flaws. It is not a game changer.

Do Low-Carbohydrate & Low-Fat Diets Result In Identical Weight Loss?

The study behind this headline was published in the September 3rd edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Johnson et al, JAMA, 312: 923-933, 2014). This study was a meta-analysis that combined the results of 48 studies with 7286 participants. When the authors combined the data from all of the published studies there was no difference in weight loss for the low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets over a one or two year period.

The strength of the study is that it combines the results of multiple studies. That increases the statistical power of the observations and smoothes over the effect of outlier studies, such as the one described above. This is the study I would trust.

What Do The Experts Say?

Dr. Walter Willett, Chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health was best diet for weight lossquoted as saying: “…some people [would] do well on either diet. The key issue for each person is finding a way of eating that is healthy and can be maintained for the long term.”

Dr. Bradley Johnson (the author of the meta-analysis) was quoted as saying: “The take home message is that people should choose a diet they can adhere to…”

The Bottom Line

1)  Ignore the recent headlines suggesting that low-carbohydrate diets may be more effective than low-fat diets for weight loss. When you control for calories and protein intake there is no difference between the two diets with respect to long term weight loss.

2)  You can also ignore the headlines telling you that low-carbohydrate diets are better for cardiovascular health. You don’t need to avoid carbohydrates to have a healthy heart. You just need to make healthy carbohydrate choices – fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains instead of refined flour products and sugary junk food.

3)  Experts will tell you that the best diet is a healthy diet that you can stick with long term.

4)  My personal recommendations are to avoid extremes (either low-fat or low-carbohydrate). Instead:

  • Aim for moderate amounts of healthy fats and healthy carbohydrates.
  • Don’t ignore protein. Make sure you get enough protein to maintain your muscle mass.
  • Control calories by reducing portion sizes and choosing healthy snacks.

 

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

Is There Hope for Alzheimer’s

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Food and Health, Health Current Events, Nutritiion, Vitamins and Health

Preventing Cognitive Decline As We Age

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 alzheimer's

As we age nothing is more terrifying than the word Alzheimer’s. For most of us the ultimate irony would be to spend a lifetime taking good care of our body, only to lose our mind. From time to time there are encouraging reports about the potential of low fat diets, diets rich in fruits and vegetables, B vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, various herbs, and other natural approaches that might slow cognitive decline as we age.

Inevitably, it seems, those hopes are dashed by subsequent meta-analyses supposedly showing that each of those approaches is worthless. That wouldn’t be so bad if there were effective medications to slow cognitive decline and prevent Alzheimer’s, but there aren’t. The Alzheimer’s drugs on the market today simply have not been shown to be effective.

But, what if all of these studies were missing the mark by focusing on individual interventions? Perhaps we should be focusing a holistic approach instead.

 

The Power of Holistic Approaches

One of the examples of the power of a holistic approach that I love to use, because it really made an impression on me as a young scientist, occurred at an International Cancer Symposium I attended more than 30 years ago.

I attended a session in which an internally renowned expert was giving his talk on colon cancer. He said, “I can show you, unequivocally, that colon cancer risk is significantly decreased by a lifestyle that includes a high-fiber diet, a low-fat diet, adequate calcium, adequate B-vitamins, exercise and weight control. But I can’t show you that any one of them, by themselves, is effective.”

The question that came to me as I heard him speak was: “What’s the message that a responsible scientist or responsible health professional should be giving to their patients or the people that they’re advising?” You’ve heard experts saying: “Don’t worry about the fat” “Don’t worry about calcium.” “Don’t worry about B-vitamins.” “Don’t worry about fiber.” “None of them can be shown to decrease the risk of colon cancer.”

Is that the message that we should be giving people? Or should we really be saying what that doctor said many years ago – a lifestyle that includes all of those things significantly decreases the risk of colon cancer?

What about Alzheimer’s and cognitive decline? Could a holistic approach have an impact here as well?

 

Is There Hope For Alzheimer’s?

preventing-cognitive-declineA study performed by Dr. Miia Kivipelto and colleagues at the Karolinska Insitute in Sweden and the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki, Finland suggests that a holistic approach may, in fact, be able to slow cognitive decline in older people.

Previous studies had suggested that exercise, a good diet, socialization and memory training might slow cognitive decline in the elderly, but, like all other individual interventions, the benefits of these interventions were not reproducible. Dr. Kivipelto and colleagues designed a clinical study that combined all of these interventions into a single holistic approach.

They started with 1,260 healthy adults aged 60-77 from Sweden and Finland and divided them into two groups. One group was enrolled in a holistic program involving exercise, a healthy diet, socialization and memory training. This group was closely monitored for compliance. The other group was just given general health advice – not unlike the advice you might expect to receive from your doctor.

Each group was given a memory test at the beginning of the study and a second memory test two years later. Both groups scored about the same on the first memory test. However, the group enrolled in the holistic program did considerably better on the second memory test than the control group who had just been given general health advice.

One of the lead investigators was quoted as saying: “These findings show that prevention is possible, and it may be good to start early [before the signs of cognitive decline become evident]. With so many negative trials of Alzheimer’s drugs reportedly lately, it’s good that we may have something that everyone can do now to lower their risk [of cognitive decline].”

 

Limitations of the Study

There are two big caveats for this study.

1)     The study was too short to assess the effectiveness of this approach at reducing Alzheimer’s. The investigators plan to continue the study for 7 years. They hope that enough participants will have developed Alzheimer’s by then so they can accurately assess whether this approach is as effective at preventing Alzheimer’s as it is at preventing cognitive decline.

2)     This study was recently presented at an Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. It has not yet undergone the rigorous peer review required for publication. Once the study has been published I will give you an update.

 

The Bottom Line

1)     It has been very difficult to prove that individual interventions, whether they are natural or pharmaceutical, are effective at preventing cognitive decline and the onset of Alzheimer’s as we age.

2)    However, a recent study suggests that a holistic approach that includes exercise, optimal nutrition, socialization and memory training may be effective at preventing cognitive decline in older adults.

3)     Based on previously published individual studies, optimal nutrition probably includes:

  • A diet low in fat, especially saturated fat and trans fats
  • A diet with lots of fresh fruits and vegetables
  • Extra B vitamins, especially with high risk populations
  • Extra omega-3 fatty acids

4)     Although not mentioned in this study, maintaining proper body weight is also an important part of a holistic approach to reducing the risk of cognitive decline. In a previous “Health Tips From the Professor” I shared data showing that obesity alone can cause a 3-fold increase in the risk of developing dementia.

5)    The take home message should not be that each of the natural interventions is ineffective at preventing cognitive decline as we age. Rather, the message should be that a holistic approach that combines all of the natural interventions may be effective at preventing cognitive decline.

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.

Nitric Oxide Benefits and Side Effects

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Food and Health, Nutritiion, Supplements and Health

Reverse Heart Disease?reverse-heart-disease

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Nitric oxide has had a meteoric rise from obscurity to fame in just a few short years. It’s an amazing story. After all, nitric oxide is a colorless, odorless gas. Who could have known it was destined for greatness? In this article, we will discuss nitric oxide benefits and side effects.

Its rise to fame started in the 1980’s when scientists from several universities discovered that nitric oxide was an important regulator of numerous physiological processes. Just a few years later in 1992 Science magazine named it “Molecule of the Year”, a very prestigious honor. And, in 1998 three of its co-discoverers received the Nobel Prize for their ground-breaking research.

The Benefits of Nitric Oxide

Proven Benefits

Perhaps the most important benefit of nitric oxide is its role in maintaining the health of the endothelial cells that form the inner lining of our blood vessels. Nitric oxide reduces:

  • Platelet aggregation
  • Damage & inflammation of the endothelial cells
  • Oxidation of LDL cholesterol
  • Growth of smooth muscle cells.

This is important because these are the very physiological processes that, if left unchecked, can lead to atherosclerosis and disease of the cardiovascular system (Davignon and Ganz, Circulation, 109: 1127-1132, 2004; Tousoulis et al, Current Vascular Pharmacology, 10: 4-18, 2012).

cardiovascular-system

However, the effect of nitric oxide that has gotten the most attention is its ability to relax the smooth muscle cells that surround our blood vessels. That leads to increased blood flow, which in turn decreases blood pressure, relieves angina, and even prevents erectile dysfunction (Davignon and Ganz, Circulation, 109: 1127-1132, 2004; Tousoulis et al, Current Vascular Pharmacology, 10: 4-18, 2012).

Possible Benefits

Many people with atherosclerosis, diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure) have low nitric oxide levels. It’s not known whether this is a cause or a result of these diseases, but low nitric oxide levels certainly could contribute to the progression and health consequences of all three diseases. We already know that increasing nitric oxide levels can reduce high blood pressure. It is not yet known whether increasing nitric oxide levels could reduce or reverse heart disease and the effects of diabetes, but this is an area of active research.

Nitric oxide is a neurotransmitter and is thought to play a critical role in memory and learning. It also plays a critical role in immune function. In addition, it enhances the metabolic activity of mitochondria, which could enhance cellular metabolism. The physiological significance of these observations is unknown, but this is another area of active research

Finally, because nitric oxide stimulates blood flow, which should increase oxygen and nutrient delivery to active muscle, it has been suggested that nitric oxide supplements would improve sports performance. The results of clinical studies to test this hypothesis have been mixed. The latest research suggests that nitric oxide supplements may enhance performance in untrained or moderately trained subjects, but not in highly trained subjects (Bescoe et al, Sports Medicine, 42: 99-117, 2012). At last, a sports supplement for the common man!

Drugs That Affect Nitric Oxide Levels

Because nitric oxide has such powerful physiological effects, the pharmaceutical industry has been busy creating drugs that either increase nitric oxide levels or increase the biological effectiveness of nitric oxide. For example, these include drugs to treat angina, hypertension, pulmonary hypertension and erectile dysfunction.

These drugs are generally effective, but have some drawbacks, namely:

  • They have numerous side effects. For example, just listen to the Viagra or Cialis ads on TV.
  • Some of them lose their biological effectiveness over time, especially the angina medications.

Natural Approaches for Increasing Nitric Oxide Levels

nitratesThere are two natural pathways for generating nitric oxide in the body.

1)     The first pathway is an enzymatic process that oxidizes a nitrogen atom in the amino acid arginine to nitric oxide.

2)     The second pathway is a non-enzymatic process in which naturally occurring nitrates and nitrites are reduced to nitric oxide either by bacteria in the mouth and intestine, or by naturally occurring antioxidants.

Arginine is found in proteins. The best protein sources of arginine are red meat, soy, crustaceans (crab, shrimp & lobster), nuts, spinach and lentils. In addition, you can find arginine supplements and arginine-enriched protein supplements.

The best natural sources of nitrates and nitrites are vegetables, especially spinach, beet root and arugula followed by green leafy vegetable and root vegetables in general. Vegetables provide about 80% of the nitrates and nitrites in the American diet.

Nitrates and nitrites do not appear to have the side effects of the nitic oxide producing drugs. This is probably because their effects on raising nitric oxide levels are slower and more modest, and they do not accumulate in the body.

Interestingly, conventionally grown vegetables are higher in nitrates than organically grown vegetables because of the use of inorganic, nitrate-containing fertilizers. However, that doesn’t mean that I recommend conventionally grown produce over organic produce. In last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor”, I reported that conventionally grown produce is 4-fold higher in pesticides.

Red meat and processed meats are also a minor source of nitrates and nitrites in the American diet because nitrates and nitrites are used as preservatives and coloring agents in those meats.

Are Nitrates and Nitrites Beneficial?

Until recently most of the focus has been on arginine as a natural source of nitric oxide. However, there are several lines of evidence suggesting that dietary sources of nitrates and nitrates can also provide the health benefits expected from nitric oxide.

For example, it has long been known that the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet is as effective as medications for lowering moderately elevated blood pressure. The DASH diet recommends 4-5 servings of vegetables per day, and recent studies have suggested that the nitrates found in those vegetables may play an important role in the blood pressure lowering effect of the DASH diet (Hord et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90: 1-10, 2009; Lin et al, Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, p 472396, 2012).

In addition, a recent meta-analysis of 16 clinical trials concluded that inorganic nitrate and beet root juice supplements lower blood pressure by modest amounts in healthy individuals (Siervo et al, Journal of Nutrition, 143: 818-826, 2013).

Are Nitrates and Nitrites Harmful?

There are two potential concerns around increasing dietary nitrate and nitrite intake.

1)     The one you may have heard the most about is the concern that dietary nitrates and nitrites might increase cancer risk. That turns out to be mainly associated with the nitrates and nitrites added to meats because, in the intestine, nitrites can combine with amino acids to form cancer causing nitrosamines.

That does not appear to be a problem with vegetables because vitamin C and other naturally occurring antioxidants in the vegetables prevent nitrosamine formation. There is no cancer risk in consuming more vegetables.

arginine

2)     The other concern is potential drug-nutrient interactions, especially drugs which also increase nitric oxide levels such as drugs for angina, hypertension, pulmonary hypertension and erectile dysfunction. This is because the combination of nitric oxide from nitrates in the diet and from the drugs has the potential to cause dangerously low blood pressure.

As a general precaution, if you are taking any medications I suggest consulting your doctor or pharmacist before increasing your dietary intake of nitrates and nitrites.

 

The Bottom Line

1)     Nitric oxide plays an important role in keeping the endothelial lining of your blood vessels healthy, which is thought to reduce the risk of atherosclerosis.

2)    Nitric oxide also relaxes the smooth muscle cells that surround our blood vessels. That increases blood flow and decreases blood pressure. The increased blood flow also decreases angina and erectile dysfunction.

3)    Nitric oxide also may increase blood flow to active muscle cells. This has been reported to increase exercise efficiency and sports performance. This effect of nitric oxide appears to primarily affect untrained and moderately trained athletes, not highly trained athletes.

4)    It has been suggested that nitric oxide may be useful for memory and learning, immune function, mitochondrial function and may reduce the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Research is currently going on to evaluate these hypotheses.

5)     There are two natural sources of nitric oxide:

  • The amino acid arginine from proteins and supplements
  • Nitrates and nitrites from vegetables such as spinach, beet root and arugula and from supplements.

6)     Foods (primarily vegetables) and supplements providing dietary nitrates have been shown to modestly lower blood pressure in healthy individuals. They are likely to provide the other benefits associated with nitric oxide as well, without the side effects associated with nitric oxide enhancing medications.

7)     Nitrates and nitrites from vegetables are unlikely to increase cancer risk because vitamin C and other antioxidants from the vegetables prevent the conversion of nitrates and nitrites to nitrosamines.

8)     If you are taking any medications, especially medications for angina, high blood pressure or erectile dysfunction, consult with your doctor or pharmacist before increasing your dietary nitrate intake.

9)     High blood pressure is a silent killer. You should never substitute dietary nitrates for blood pressure medication. Always consult with your physician first. They may be willing to work with you to lower the amount of medication if appropriate. Finally, even if you don’t have high blood pressure, you should monitor your blood pressure on a regular basis. High blood pressure can sneak up on you without you realizing it.

 

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

Are Organic Foods Healthier?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Food and Health, Healthy Living, Nutritiion, Supplements and Health

Organic Fruits & Vegetables

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 fruits-vegetables

Are organic foods healthier for us than conventionally grown foods, specifically fruits and vegetables? The controversy about the benefits of organically raised produce continues. In fact, about the only thing that all sides agree on is that:

  • Organic foods have lower pesticide and herbicide residues and cause less environmental pollution.
  • Organic foods generally cost more.

But that is where all agreement ends.

  • Some experts argue that the pesticide levels on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are within safe levels and that any risk from the pesticides is outweighed by the health benefits of the fruits and vegetables themselves.
  • Some studies have suggested that organic foods, fruits and vegetables, are healthier because they have higher antioxidant levels, while other studies have reported no nutritional differences between organic and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.

Benefits of Organic Food?

The present study (Baranski et al, British Journal of Nutrition, doi: 10.1017/S0007114514001366) tried to overcome the shortcomings of many of the previously published reports.

To begin with this study was a meta-analysis that combined the results from 343 of the best designed previous studies to increase the statistical power of the analysis. In addition, the investigators utilized a type of statistical analysis that was superior to previously published studies. In short, it was a very good study. It does show some benefits of organic food.

organic-farms

The results were fairly clear cut:

  • Pesticide residues were four-fold lower in the organically raised produce than the conventionally raised produce. This result has been consistently seen in all of the previously published studies, and is probably the #1 reason that people choose organic produce. It is also one of the most agreed upon benefits of organic food.
  • Polyphenol antioxidant levels were significantly higher in the organically raised produce. The percent increase ranged from 19% to 69% depending on the polyphenolic compound tested. This increase has not been seen in all previously published studies, but would represent a side benefit if true.
  • Levels of the toxic metal cadmium were significantly less in the organically grown fruits and vegetables. The authors speculated that the cadmium found in conventionally grown produce came from the inorganic fertilizers that were used.

Should You Choose Organic Supplements?

natural-medicine

If organic foods are better for you than conventionally grown foods, does that mean that you should also choose organic supplements? While that idea sounds logical, the reality is actually more complex.

While organic foods clearly have less pesticides and toxic metals than conventionally grown foods, the level of those contaminants is not zero – even in foods with organic certification. The problem is that our environment is so polluted that no farm is contaminant free. A farmer can use the best organic practices, but if their groundwater is contaminated or pesticides from neighboring farms blow on to their farm, some of those toxic residues will end up in their “organic” crops.

 

So with supplements, “Organic” certification is not an absolute guarantee of purity. Instead you should insist on getting your supplements from a company with a very rigorous quality control program and a policy of rejecting any raw materials that contain contaminants of any kind.

The Bottom Line

1)     The latest study shows that pesticide residues are four-fold lower in the organically raised produce than the conventionally raised produce. This result has been consistently seen in all of the previously published studies, and is probably the #1 reason that people choose organic fruits and vegetables.

2)    Polyphenol antioxidant levels were significantly higher in the organically raised produce. The percent increase ranged from 19% to 69% depending on the polyphenolic compound tested. This increase has not been seen in all previously published studies, but would represent a side benefit if true.

3)    While one of the benefits of organic foods is they are less likely to be contaminated than conventionally grown foods, an organic certification is not a sufficient proof of purity when you are choosing supplements.You should insist on getting your supplements from a company with a very rigorous quality control program and a policy of rejecting any raw materials that contain contaminants of any kind.

 

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.

Risk Factors of Prostate Cancer

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Nutritiion, Vitamins and Health

Vitamin D Deficiency?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Vitamin D

Is vitamin D deficiency one of the risk factors of prostate cancer? What if something as simple as maintaining optimal vitamin D status could decrease your risk of prostate cancer? There is a lot of indirect evidence suggesting that vitamin D deficiency might affect your risk of developing prostate cancer. For example:

  • Prostate cancer incidence and vitamin D deficiency parallel each other. Both are highest in northern latitudes, in African American men, and in older men.
  • Prostate cancer mortality rates are highest for patients diagnosed in the winter and at Northern latitudes.

However, clinical studies looking at the correlation between 25-hydroxy vitamin D (the biologically active form of vitamin D in the blood) and prostate cancer incidence have been inconsistent. Because of this there has been considerable controversy in the scientific community as to whether or not there was any correlation between vitamin D deficiency and prostate cancer.

Vitamin D Deficiency and Cancer

That’s what makes the recent headlines suggesting that vitamin D is associated with decreased risk of aggressive prostate cancer so interesting. Does this study show low vitamin D to be one of the risk factors of prostate cancer? Have the conflicting data on vitamin D deficiency and prostate cancer finally been resolved or is this just another case of dueling headlines? Let’s start by looking at the study itself.

This study (Murphy et al, Clinical Cancer Research, 20: 2289-2299, 2014) enrolled 667 men, aged 40-79 (average age = 62), from five urology clinics in Chicago over a four year period. These were all men who were undergoing their first prostate biopsy because of elevated serum PSA levels or an abnormal DRE (that’s doctor talk for digital rectal exam – the least favorite part of every guy’s physical exam). The clinics also drew blood and measured each patient’s 25-hydroxy vitamin D level at the time of the prostate biopsy.

This study had a number of important strengths:

  • It was conducted at a northern latitude. Because of that 41.2% of the men in this study were vitamin D deficient (<20 ng/ml) and 15.7% were severely vitamin D deficient (<12 ng/ml). That’s important because you need a significant percentage of patients with vitamin D deficiency to have any chance of seeing an effect of vitamin D status on prostate cancer risk.
  • The study had equal numbers of African American and European American men. That’s important because African American men have significantly lower 25-hydroxy vitamin D status and significantly higher risk of prostate cancer than European American men.
  • All of the men enrolled in the study had elevated PSA levels or abnormal DREs. That’s important because it meant that all of the men enrolled in the study were at high risk of having prostate cancer. That made the correlation between vitamin D status and prostate cancer easier to detect.
  • This was the first study to correlate 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels with prostate biopsies at the time of biopsy. That’s important because it allowed the investigators to distinguish between aggressive tumors (which require immediate treatment and have a higher probability of mortality) and slow growing tumors (which may simply need to be monitored).

The results were pretty dramatic:

  • In African American men vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/ml) was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at time of biopsy.
  • In both European American and African American men severe vitamin D deficiency (<12 ng/ml) was associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer diagnosis at time of biopsy.

The authors concluded: “Our work supports the hypothesis that 25-hydroxy vitamin D is a potential biomarker that plays a clinically significant role in prostate cancer, and it may be a useful modifiable risk factor in the disease”.

That’s “science speak” for “adequate vitamin D status may help prevent prostate cancer” or “low vitamin D may indeed be one of the risk factors of prostate cancer.”

VitaminD-smashes-cancer

Why Have Some Studies Failed To Find A Correlation Between Vitamin D Deficiency and Prostate Cancer?

The authors of the current study had an interesting hypothesis for why some previous studies have not seen an association between vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk. When you compare all of the previous studies, the strongest correlations between vitamin D deficiency and prostate cancer were the studies conducted at northern latitudes, in African American men, or focusing on aggressive prostate cancer as an end point.

That offers a few clues as to why other studies may have failed to find a link between vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk. For example:

  • The clue that the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and prostate cancer risk was strongest at northern latitudes and with African American men suggests that you need to have a significant percentage of subjects with deficient or very deficient levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D before you can see a correlation. Other studies may have failed to show a correlation simply because most of the men in the study had normal vitamin D status.
  • The clue that the correlation is strongest for aggressive prostate cancer is more subtle. The authors hypothesized that prostate cancer develops over a lifetime. If that is the case, measuring vitamin D deficiency at the time of diagnosis may not represent the lifetime vitamin D status. The vitamin D status could have decreased because the men were older or had become overweight, or the vitamin D status could have changed simply because they moved from one geographical location to another.

In contrast, the progression from benign to aggressive prostate cancer is generally short term, so it would be affected by the most recent vitamin D status. If that is the case, then the vitamin D status measured at the time of diagnosis may more accurately reflect the vitamin D deficiency that affected the aggressiveness of the cancer.

 

The Bottom Line

1)     The latest study suggests that vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/ml serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D) may significantly increase the risk of prostate cancer. The correlation between low vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk is strongest for African American men.

2)     The study also suggests that severe vitamin D deficiency (<12 ng/ml serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D) may significantly increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer in both African American and European American men.

3)     This is a very well done study, and it is consistent with many, but not all, of the previous studies. Clearly more research needs to be done. Future research should be focused on high risk subjects and subjects with low vitamin D status so that the correlation between vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk can be adequately tested.

4)     This is another example of why I recommend that you have your serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level measured on a regular basis and that you aim to keep it in the normal range (20-80 ng/ml). Some experts believe that 30-80 ng/ml is optimal.

5)     If you are African American, overweight, live in northern latitudes or it is winter, you may need supplemental vitamin D3. 1,000 – 4,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 is generally considered to be safe. If higher amounts are needed to normalize your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels I recommend that you consult your physician for the appropriate dose.

 

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

Are MultiVitamins a Waste of Money?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Nutritiion

The Multivitamin Controversy You Never Heard About

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

money-waste Are multivitamins a waste of money?  You probably saw the recent headlines telling you that “the experts” have concluded that multivitamins are a waste of money. The article (Gualler et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 159: 850-851, 2013) that generated all of the headlines was an editorial, which means it was an opinion piece, not a scientific study. It represented the opinion of five very prominent doctors, but it was, at the end of the day, just their opinion.

At the time I pointed out fallacies of their arguments in a “Health Tips From the Professor” article (MultiVitamins-Waste Money?). But, what do I know? I have only published 114 papers in peer reviewed journals and two book chapters on nutrition.

It turns out that I’m not the only expert who feels this way. Five very prominent experts recently published rebuttals concluding that the authors of the original editorial ignored “decades of nutrition research and diet monitoring of the U.S. population to reach this misleading conclusion” (Frei et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 160: 807-809, 2014).

Who Are These Experts?

Before I share what these experts said, I should probably share their qualifications:

Balz Frei, PhD

  • Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry & Biophysics & Director of the Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University
  • 203 publications

Bruce N. Ames, PhD

  • Director of the Nutrition & Metabolism Center, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute
  • 540 publications

Jeffrey B. Blumberg, PhD

  • Professor, Freidman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and Director of the Antioxidants Research Laboratory at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University
  • >300 publications

Walter C. Willet, MD, DrPH

  • Chair of the Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health
  • 1,422 publications

Thomas R. Friberg, MD, MS

  • Professor of Ophthamology and Director of the Medical & Surgical Retinal Division of the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine
  • Principle investigator for the AREDS and AREDS II clinical studies.
  • 134 publications

As you can see, these are not just your run of the mill scientists. They are the top experts in the field.

 

Are You Wasting Your Money On Multivitamins?

Are multivitamins a waste of money?   What did these experts say?

  1. They started by pointing out that few people in the United States follow the USDA dietary guidelines, and “consequently, most people in the United States even in cities like Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill are not well nourished”. Specifically:
  • 93% of U.S. adults don’t get enough vitamins D & E from their diet.
  • 71% of U.S. adults don’t get enough vitamin K from their diet.
  • 61% of U.S. adults don’t get enough magnesium from their diet.
  • 50% of U.S. adults don’t get enough calcium and vitamin A from their diet.
  1. They also pointed out that adequate intake of micronutrients is essential for normal body function and to support good health. Specifically:
  • Vitamins A, D, iron and zinc are required for normal immune function
  • Folic acid is required for neurological development. For example, “A multivitamin supplying folic acid dramatically decreases the risk of neural tube defects and is recommended for women of childbearing age.”
  • The AREDS and AREDS II studies have established the value of supplementation in preventing vision loss due to age-related macular degeneration.
  1. They pointed out that largest (15,000 male physicians) and longest (13 years) randomized, placebo controlled trial of a multivitamin (the Physician’s Health Study II) showed a:
  • 8% reduction in cancer incidence and a 12% reduction in cancer deaths
  • 9% reduction in cataract formation
  1. Finally, they pointed out that the claims that supplement use might actually increase mortality were overemphasized. Specifically:
  • The claims that high dose vitamin E increase mortality have been refuted by subsequent studies. I have discussed that in detail in my eBook, “The Myths of the Naysayers” (available for free to all subscribers of “Health Tips From the Professor”).
  • Only 1.1% of the U.S. population consumes more than the recommended upper limit for vitamin A (10,000 IU/day).
  • The only warning that actually holds up is that smokers should avoid high dose beta-carotene.
  • More importantly, all of those concerns involved high dose individual supplements. There is no evidence for any risk from taking a daily multivitamin.

In summary, the experts concluded: “Taking a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement not only helps fill known nutritional gaps in the diet of most persons in the United States (thereby ensuring normal body function and supporting good health), but may have the added benefit of helping to reduce the risk for chronic disease.”

 

The Bottom Line

1)     Are multivitamins are a waste of money?  No.  That was simply the opinion of one group of experts. Other experts have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

2)     Of course, it was only the negative opinion that made the headlines. Somehow the opinion that multivitamins are valuable for most Americans never got the attention of the press.

3)     According to the experts mentioned in this article, multivitamins play an important role in filling well documented nutrition gaps in the U.S. population, assuring normal body function and helping preserve good health. There is evidence that they may have a modest role in reducing the risk for chronic diseases, and there is no evidence that multivitamin supplements increase the risk of mortality.

4)     Of course, you shouldn’t expect miracles from your multivitamin. It’s not going to help you leap tall buildings in a single bound. Your multivitamin should just be one small part of your holistic health program of diet, exercise, weight control and supplementation.

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.

 

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

Eye Pain Relief

Posted August 20, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Simple Treatment To Make Your Eye Pain Disappear

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

 

good newsAs the song goes: ”…Summertime and the living is e-a-s-y….”  Here in Florida we know that the living is easy because it’s so hot who wants to be doing anything except either sitting in the shade, or inside in the air conditioning.  Personally, I don’t think this summer was so bad, especially the evenings, but then, I really hate the cold so maybe my opinion is biased.

To stay in alignment with “living is easy,” I’m taking the advice of a few experts who teach easy ways to stay calm, motivated, and happy.  I’m taking a 30-day break from the news.  It’s so much in my face lately that it’s really affecting me in a very negative way.  So far, I’m two days into my 30 days.

I’ve decided that I want to take away some of the stress that seems to be normal for everyone. To that end I was listening to a speaker who was talking about the dangers of stress and what it does to the body.  Really frightening! He was saying that negative news sells and, for example, in the 1990’s in one city of the USA, homicides had gone down 42%, but the local TV station increased its coverage of homicides by 700%.  It’s only gotten worse in 2019.  It’s making us think we live in a dangerous country, and it sure isn’t helping our blood pressure.

To solve that problem, this speaker recommended going on a “news fast” for 30 days. Absolutely no negative news of any kind for a full month.  I’m surrounded by news all day so it’s a challenge, but I’ve found a great substitute:  www.GoodNewsNetwork.org.  Their mission is to be an antidote to the barrage of negativity experienced in the mainstream media.

So, I want to share this with you, and if you have any other good news stations/websites you love, please feel free to share it with me.

I think I’m off to the beach with a big umbrella and a thermos of ice-cold tea!  Living the e-a-s-y life!

Have a relaxing month!

 

Eye Strain And Eye Pain

 

eye pain reliefThis 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.  He was in desperate need of eye pain relief.

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.

 

Eye Pain Relief

 

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.

Why stay in pain when it’s so easy to find the muscular source of the problem and eliminate it?

 

 

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living (https://julstromethod.com/product/treat-yourself-to-pain-free-living-hardcopy/) is filled with over 100 pictures pain free living bookand descriptions proven to show you how to find and self-treat muscle spasms from head to foot!

Join the 1000’s of people worldwide who have discovered that tight muscles were the true source of pains they thought were from arthritis, fibromyalgia, and other serious conditions.  You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by releasing tight muscles.

 

Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living is your step-by-step guide to pain relief!

 

 

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.

 

About The Author

julie donnellyJulie Donnelly is a Deep Muscle Massage Therapist with 20 years of experience specializing in the treatment of chronic joint pain and sports injuries. She has worked extensively with elite athletes and patients who have been unsuccessful at finding relief through the more conventional therapies.

She has been widely published, both on – and off – line, in magazines, newsletters, and newspapers around the country. She is also often chosen to speak at national conventions, medical schools, and health facilities nationwide.

UA-43257393-1