Why Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?

Is Mixing Diet Sodas With Carbs Bad For You?

Why Do Sodas Cause Obesity?Many people, and many doctors, believe that diet sodas and artificially sweetened foods are a healthy choice. After all:

  • Cutting calories by drinking diet sodas and eating artificially sweetened foods should help you lose weight.
  • If sugar is the problem for diabetics, diet sodas and artificially sweetened foods should be a healthier choice.

On the surface, these ideas appear to be self-evident. They seem to be “no-brainers”. The truth, however, is more complicated.

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

However, as I have described in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, the results are different in the real world where you don’t have a dietitian looking over your shoulder. In those studies, diet sodas are just as likely to cause weight gain as regular sodas.

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

Why is that? The short answer is that nobody knows (more about that later). However, a recent study (JR Dalenberg et al, Cell Metabolism, 31: 493-502, 2020) suggests an unexpected mechanism for the weight gain associated with diet soda consumption. Let’s look at that study.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe study recruited 45 healthy young adults (ages 20-45) who habitually consumed less than 3 diet sodas a month. They were randomly assigned to three groups. The participants in each group came into the testing facility seven times over a span of 2 weeks. Each time they were given 12 ounces of one of three equally sweet tasting beverages in a randomized, double-blind fashion.

  • Group 1 received a sucralose-sweetened drink contained 0.06 grams of sucralose (equivalent to two packets of Splenda).
  • Group 2 received a sugar-sweetened drink contained 7 teaspoons of sucrose (table sugar).
  • Group 3 received a combo drink contained 0.06 grams of sucralose plus 7 teaspoons of maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is a water-soluble carbohydrate that does not have a sweet taste.

o   Maltodextrin was used because Splenda and most other commercial sucralose products contain it along with sucralose. You need something to fill up those little sucralose-containing packets.

o   This drink was included as a control. The expectation was that it would give the same results as the sucralose-sweetened drink.

Three measurements were performed prior to and following the 2-week testing period:

  • An oral glucose tolerance test in which participants drink a beverage containing a fixed amount of glucose. Then their blood sugar and blood insulin levels are measured over the next two hours.

o   This is a measure of how well they were able to control their blood sugar levels.

  • A test in which they were given samples that had either a sweet, sour, salty, or savory taste. Then:

o   They were asked to identify each taste and report how strong the taste was.

o   MRI scans of their brains were performed to determine how strongly their brains responded to each of the tastes.

Is Mixing Diet Soda With Carbs Bad For You?

The results were surprising. The first surprise came when the investigators unblinded the results of the oral glucose tolerance test:

  • Blood sugar and blood insulin responses were unaffected by the 2-week exposure to sugar-sweetened drinks.

o   This was expected.

  • Blood sugar and blood insulin were relatively unaffected by the 2-week exposure to sucralose-sweetened drinks. If anything, the control of blood sugar levels was slightly improved at the end of two weeks.

o   This was a disappointment for the investigators. One of the prevailing theories is that artificially sweetened beverages alter the blood sugar response. The investigators found no evidence for that idea.

  • Following the 2-week exposure to the combo drinks (sucralose plus maltodextrin), blood sugar levels were unaffected, but blood insulin levels were increased. This implies that more insulin was required to control blood sugar levels. In other words, these participants had developed insulin resistance.

o   This result was unexpected. Remember the investigators had included this drink as a control.

o   The investigators pointed out that the insulin resistance associated with the sucralose-maltodextrin combo could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and obesity.

  • Because of this unexpected result, the investigators did a follow-up study in which participants were given a maltodextrin-only drink using the same study protocol. The oral glucose tolerance test was unchanged by the 2-week exposure to maltodextrin-only drinks.

When the investigators conducted taste tests, the ability of participants to taste all four flavors was unchanged by a 2-week exposure to any of the drinks.

However, when the investigators did MRI scans to measure the brain’s response to these flavors:

  • A two-week exposure to the sucralose plus maltodextrin drinks reduced the brain’s response to sweet but not to any of the other flavors.

o   In other words, the subjects could still taste sweet flavors, but their brains were not responding to the sweet taste. Since sweetness activates pleasure centers in the brain this could lead to an increased appetite for sweet-tasting foods.

o   This might explain the weight gain that has been observed in many previous studies of diet sodas.

  • Two-week exposures to the other drinks had no effect on the brain’s response to any of the flavors. Once again, this effect was only seen in the sucralose-maltodextrin combination.

The investigators concluded:

  • “Consumption of sucralose combined with carbohydrates impairs insulin sensitivity…and…neural responses to sugar.
  • Insulin sensitivity is not altered by sucralose or carbohydrate consumption alone.
  • The results suggest that consumption of sucralose in the presence of a carbohydrate dysregulates gut-brain regulation of glucose metabolism.”

The investigators pointed out that this could have several adverse consequences. Again, in the words of the authors:

“Similar exposure combinations (artificial sweeteners plus carbohydrates) almost certainly occur in free-living humans, especially if one considers the consumption of a diet drink along with a meal. This raises the possibility that the combination effect may be a major contributor to the rise in incidence of type 2 diabetes and obesity. If so, addition of artificial sweeteners to increase the sweetness of carbohydrate-containing food and beverages should be discouraged and consumption of diet drinks with meals should be counseled against.”

Why Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?

As I mentioned at the start of this article, there are a lot of hypotheses as to why diet sodas make us fat. These hypotheses break down into two classifications: psychological and physiological.

The psychological hypothesis is easiest to explain. Essentially, it goes like this: We feel virtuous for choosing a zero-calorie sweetener, so we allow ourselves to eat more of our favorite foods. It is unlikely that this hypothesis holds for all diet soda drinkers. However, it is also hard to exclude it as at least part of the explanation for the food overconsumption associated with diet soda use.

There are multiple physiological hypotheses. Most of them are complicated, but here are simplified explanations of the three most popular hypotheses:

  • The sweet taste of artificial sweeteners tricks the brain into triggering insulin release by the pancreas. This causes blood sugar levels to plummet, which increases appetite.
  • The sweet taste of artificial sweeteners is not appropriately recognized by the brain. This diminishes release of hormones that suppress appetite.
  • Artificial sweeteners interfere with insulin signaling pathways, which leads to insulin resistance.

There is some evidence for and against each of these hypotheses.

However, this study introduces a new physiological hypothesis – namely that it is the combination of artificial sweeteners and carbohydrates that results in a dysregulation of the normal mechanisms controlling appetite and blood sugar.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Diet Soda DangersLet’s start with the obvious. This is just a hypothesis.

  • This was a very small study. Until it is confirmed by other, larger studies, we don’t know whether it is true.
  • This study only tested sucralose. We don’t know whether this applies to other artificial sweeteners.
  • The study only tested maltodextrin in combination with sucralose. We don’t know whether it applies to other carbohydrates.

Therefore, in discussing how this study applies to you, let’s consider two possibilities – if it is true, and if it is false.

If this hypothesis is true, it is concerning because:

  • We often consume diet sodas with meals. If, for example, we take the earlier example of a diet soda with a Big Mac and fries, both the hamburger bun and the fries are high carbohydrate foods.

 

  • Sucralose and other artificial sweeteners are used in low calorie versions of many carbohydrate rich processed foods.

If this hypothesis is false, it does not change the underlying association of diet soda consumption with weight gain and type 2 diabetes. It is merely an attempt to explain that association. We should still try to eliminate diet sodas and reduce our consumption of artificially sweetened, low calorie foods.

My recommendation is to substitute water and other unsweetened beverages for the diet drinks or sugar sweetened beverages you are currently consuming. If you crave the fizz of sodas, drink carbonated water. If you need more taste, try herbal teas or infuse water with slices of lemon, lime, or your favorite fruit. If you buy commercial brands of flavored water, check the labels carefully. They may contain sugars or artificial sweeteners. Those you want to avoid.

The Bottom Line

Many studies have called into question the assumption that diet sodas and diet foods help us lose weight. In fact, most of these studies show that diet soda consumption is associated with weight gain rather than weight loss.

There are many hypotheses to explain this association, but none of them have been proven at present.

This study introduces a new hypothesis – namely that the combination of artificial sweeteners and carbohydrates results in a dysregulation of the normal mechanisms controlling appetite and blood sugar. In particular, this study suggested that combining sucralose with carbohydrates caused insulin resistance and reduce the ability of the brain to respond appropriately to sweet tastes.

The authors concluded: “Similar exposure combinations (artificial sweeteners plus carbohydrates) almost certainly occur in free-living humans, especially if one considers the consumption of a diet drink along with a meal. This raises the possibility that the combination effect may be a major contributor to the rise in incidence of type 2 diabetes and obesity. If so, addition of artificial sweeteners to increase the sweetness of carbohydrate-containing food and beverages should be discouraged and consumption of diet drinks with meals should be counseled against.”

If this hypothesis is true, it is concerning because:

  • We often consume diet sodas with meals. If, for example, we take the example of a diet soda with a Big Mac and fries, both the hamburger bun and the fries are high carbohydrate foods.
  • Artificial sweeteners are used in low calorie versions of many carbohydrate rich processed foods.

If this hypothesis is false, it does not change the underlying association of diet soda consumption with weight gain and type 2 diabetes. It is merely an attempt to explain that association. We should still try to eliminate diet sodas and reduce our consumption of artificially sweetened, low calorie foods.

My recommendation is to substitute water and other unsweetened beverages for the diet drinks or sugar sweetened beverages you are currently consuming. If you crave the fizz of sodas, drink carbonated water. If you need more taste, try herbal teas or infuse water with slices of lemon, lime, or your favorite fruit. If you buy commercial brands of flavored water, check the labels carefully. They may contain sugars or artificial sweeteners. Those you want to avoid.

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.

Could A Probiotic Supplement Make You Healthier?

What Is The Truth About Our Microbiome?

Myth BusterOur gut bacteria, often referred to as our microbiome, are a “hot” topic in today’s world. They have been in the news a lot in recent years. If you believe the headlines, the right gut bacteria can make you smarter, healthier, and cure what ails you. They appear to have almost mystical powers. Could a probiotic supplement make you healthier?

How much of this is true and how much is pure speculation? It’s hard to say. Our microbiome is incredibly complex. To make matters more confusing, the terminology used to classify our gut bacteria into groups is not consistent. It varies from study to study.

Perhaps it is time to take an unbiased look at the data and separate fact from speculation.

Could A Probiotic Supplement Make You Healthier?

Probiotic SupplementTo answer the question of whether a probiotic supplement could make you healthier, we need to differentiate between what we know is true and what we think might be true. Let’s start with what we know for certain:

  • Our gut bacteria are affected by diet. People consuming a primarily plant-based diet have different populations of gut bacteria than people consuming a primarily meat-based diet.
    • The populations of gut bacteria found in people consuming a plant-based diet are associated with better health outcomes, but associations have their limitations as discussed below.
  • Our gut bacteria are affected by exercise.
    • It’s not clear whether it is the exercise or the fitness (increased muscle mass, decreased fat mass, improved metabolism) associated with exercise that is responsible for this effect.

Most of the other claims for the effects of gut bacteria on our health are based on associations. However, associations do not prove cause and effect. For example:

  • Certain populations of gut bacteria are associated with obesity.
    • Do our gut bacteria make us obese, or does obesity affect our gut bacteria? There is evidence to support both viewpoints.
  • Certain populations of gut bacteria are associated with better mental health.
    • Do gut bacteria influence mental health, or does the stress associated with poor mental health influence our gut bacteria? Again, there is evidence to support both viewpoints.
  • Certain populations of gut bacteria are associated with better health outcomes (reduction in diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure).
    • Here the question is a little different. In general, the populations of gut bacteria associated with disease reduction are produced by a healthy diet, exercise, and weight control. In this case, the question becomes: Is it the gut bacteria that caused disease reduction, or is it diet, exercise, and weight control that caused disease reduction?

To better understand these points, let’s look at four recently published studies. After reviewing those studies, I will come back to the question of whether a probiotic supplement might decrease our disease risk.

Is Our Microbiome Better Than Our Genes For Predicting Disease?

Predict DiseaseThis study (T. Tierney et al, bioRxiv, 2020) reviewed 47 studies that analyzed people’s microbiome (their gut bacteria) and their genes and asked which was better at predicting their risk of various diseases. The study focused on 13 diseases that are considered “complex” because they are caused by both genetic and environmental factors such as diet and exercise. Examples include diabetes, high blood pressure, digestive disorders, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia.

The study found that our microbiome was a better predictor of these diseases than our genes. This finding is not surprising. Our microbiome is heavily influenced by diet and other environmental factors. Our DNA sequence is not.

This study supports previous studies in suggesting that our microbiome is a better predictor of most diseases than our DNA sequence. The exception would be diseases that are clearly caused by gene mutations, such as sickle cell disease.

Does this mean our microbiome is directly influencing these diseases, or is it merely serving as a marker for diet and other environmental factors that are influencing these diseases? Nobody knows.

Does The Mediterranean Diet Support Gut Bacteria Linked To Healthy Aging?

Mediterranean dietThis study ( TS Ghosh et al, Gut, 17 February 2020) divided people aged 65-79 into two groups. One group consumed a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, olive oil, and fish and low in red meat and saturated fat. The other group consumed a typical western diet. After a year on the diets the gut bacteria in the microbiomes of the two groups was analyzed.

The study found that the group consuming the Mediterranean diet had an increase in gut bacteria associated with healthy aging, reduced inflammation, and reduced frailty.

The title of the paper describing this study was “Mediterranean diet intervention alters the gut microbiome in older people, reducing frailty and improving health status”. But is that true?

There is already good evidence that the Mediterranean diet improves health status. Is it the gut bacteria supported by the Mediterranean diet that were responsible for healthy aging, or were other aspects of the Mediterranean diet responsible for healthy aging? Nobody knows.

Are Low Fat Diets Healthy Because Of Their Effect On Our Microbiome?

Heart Healthy DietThis study (Y Wang et al, Gut Microbes, 21 January 2020) put participants on a low fat diet (20% fat and 66% carbohydrates), a moderate fat diet (30% fat and 56% carbohydrate) or a high fat diet (40% fat, 46% carbohydrates). To assure the accuracy of the diets, participants were provided with all foods and beverages they consumed. After 6 months on the three diets, the gut bacteria of each group were analyzed.

Note: Because all food and beverages were provided, none of the diets included sodas, added sugar, refined flour, saturated fats, or highly processed food. In short, the diets were very different than the typical low fat or low carb diets consumed by the average American.

This study found that participants consuming the high fat, low carb diet had gut bacteria associated with increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. In contrast, the low fat, high carbohydrate diet group had gut bacteria associated with decreased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

To understand this study, you need to reevaluate what you may have learned from Dr. Strangelove’s health blog. It is true that low fat diets in which fat has been replaced with sugar, refined flour, and highly processed low-fat foods are unhealthy. But that’s not what happened in this study.

Remember that all the food and drink the participants consumed was selected by dietitians.

When you replace the fat with whole foods – fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes, as was done in this study, you end up with a very healthy diet.

The authors talked about the importance of the “diet-gut axis” for reducing the risk of heart disease and diabetes. However, is it the gut bacteria that influenced the risk of heart disease and diabetes, or is it the diets themselves that influenced disease risk? Nobody knows.

Can Gut Bacteria Reduce Heart Disease Risk?

MicrobiomeThis study (Y Heianza et al, Journal of The American College Of Cardiology, 75: 763-772, 2019) focused on the interactions between diet, gut bacteria, and a metabolite called TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide).

Here is what we know for certain:

  • L-carnitine (found in high levels in red meat) can be converted to TMA (trimethylamine) by gut bacteria and then to TMAO in the liver.
  • The gut bacteria of meat eaters are very efficient at converting L-carnitine to TMA. Thus, meat eaters tend to have high levels of TMAO in their blood.
  • The gut bacteria of vegans and vegetarians are very inefficient at converting L-carnitine to TMA. Thus, people consuming a primarily plant-based diet tend to have low TMAO levels in their blood.

Here is what we are uncertain about:

  • High TMAO levels are associated with increased heart disease risk. However, there is no direct evidence that TMAO causes heart disease.

What made this study unique is that it measured TMAO levels in the study participants at their entrance into the study and again 10 years later. The study found:

  • Participants with the greatest increase in TMAO levels over the 10 years had a 67% increased risk of heart disease compared to participants whose TMAO levels remained constant.
  • Participants consuming a healthy, primarily plant-based diet had little or no increase in TMAO levels over 10 years. It was the participants consuming an unhealthy diet who had significant increases in their TMAO levels.

This study strengthens the association between TMAO levels and heart disease risk. Because gut bacteria are required to produce TMAO, it also strengthens the association between gut bacteria and heart disease risk. However, is it the high TMAO levels that increased heart disease risk or is it the unhealthy diet that increased heart disease risk? Nobody knows.

What Is The Truth About Our Microbiome?

MicrobiomeBy now you have probably noticed a common theme that runs through all four studies. This is also true of most published studies on our microbiome.

  • We have good evidence that whole food, primarily plant-based diets lead to improved long-term health outcomes.
  • We also have good evidence that whole food, primarily plant-based diets influence the populations of gut bacteria found in our microbiome.
  • We know the populations of gut bacteria supported by primarily plant-based diets are associated with improved health outcomes.
  • We don’t really know whether it is the gut bacteria or the diets that are responsible for the improved health outcomes.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a microbiome skeptic. I think we have enough evidence to say that our gut bacteria are likely to have an important effect on our health. However, to claim that gut bacteria play a primary role in influencing our health would be pure speculation at this point.

A Cautionary Tale

HDL CHolesterolWhy do I make this point? It’s because I suspect that some in the supplement industry will be tempted to make probiotic supplements and claim they contain bacteria “known” to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. You wouldn’t need to change your diet. All you would need to do to improve your health would be to take their probiotic supplement.

Lest you be taken in by such future claims, let me share a cautionary tale.

High HDL cholesterol levels are associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. Exercise and weight loss increase HDL levels. However, those require work. They aren’t easy. So, pharmaceutical companies were constantly looking for ways to raise HDL levels without the hard work.

A few years ago, a pharmaceutical company discovered a drug that increased HDL levels. They thought they had discovered a wonder drug that would bring in billions of dollars. People wouldn’t need to exercise. They wouldn’t need to lose weight. All they would need to do would be to take their drug. HDL levels would go up and heart disease risk would go down.

However, when they tested their drug in a major clinical trial, it didn’t move the needle. HDL levels went up, but heart disease risk stayed the same. It turns out it was the exercise and weight loss that decreased heart disease risk, not the increase in HDL levels.

My message is simple. Even if our gut bacteria are found to play a major role in mediating the effect of diet on health outcomes, don’t assume we can take a probiotic and forget about the role of diet and exercise. Good health starts with a whole food, primarily plant-based diet and a healthy lifestyle.

The Bottom Line

Our gut bacteria, often referred to as our microbiome, are “hot”. If you believe the headlines, the right gut bacteria can make you smarter, healthier, and cure what ails you. How much of this is true and how much is pure speculation? In this article I reviewed four recent studies on diet, gut bacteria, and health outcomes. I took an unbiased look at the data and separated fact from speculation.

There was a common theme that ran through all four studies. This is also true of most published studies on our microbiome.

  • We have good evidence that whole food, primarily plant-based diets lead to improved long-term health outcomes.
  • We also have good evidence that whole food, primarily plant-based diets influence the populations of bacteria found in our gut, also known as our microbiome.
  • We know the populations of gut bacteria supported by primarily plant-based diets are associated with improved health outcomes.
  • We don’t really know whether it is the gut bacteria or the diets that are responsible for the improved health outcomes.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a microbiome skeptic. I think we have enough evidence to say that our gut bacteria are likely to have an important effect on our health. However, to claim that gut bacteria play a primary role in influencing our health would be pure speculation at this point.

Why do I make this point? It’s because I suspect that some in the supplement industry will be tempted to make probiotic supplements and claim they contain bacteria “known” to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. You wouldn’t need to change your diet. All you would need to do to improve your health would be to take their probiotic supplement.

My message is simple. Even if our gut bacteria are found to play a major role in mediating the effect of diet on our health outcomes, don’t assume we can take a probiotic and forget about the role of diet and exercise. Good health starts with a whole food, primarily plant-based diet and a healthy lifestyle.

For more details, read the article above. You may be particularly interested in the cautionary tale I shared about HDL and heart disease risk.

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

Does Resveratrol Improve Blood Sugar Control?

Is The Promise of Resveratrol True?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

blood sugar testIt was just a few years ago that resveratrol was the latest “miracle nutrient”. It was featured on Dr. Oz and on 60 Minutes. It was hot! Today you see dueling headlines. The headlines one week proclaim the benefits of resveratrol. Next week’s headlines say that it’s all hype. What’s a person to believe?

Let me take you behind the headlines to look at the actual studies and answer some important questions.

1)    What do we actually know about the benefits of resveratrol?

2)    Is the evidence for beneficial effects of resveratrol where it should be considering the number of clinical studies that have been published?

3)    What additional studies need to be done before we can be sure that resveratrol is beneficial?

4)    Should you wait until we are absolutely certain resveratrol is beneficial, before you start using it? This is perhaps the most important question of all.

To answer those questions, let’s examine the study behind one of the latest headlines, namely: “Resveratrol Improves Blood Sugar Control in Diabetics”. One of the promises of resveratrol has been that it might help diabetics and pre-diabetics who struggle with blood sugar control. However, this promise was based on animal studies. The study that generated the headlines in question was a meta-analysis of recently published human clinical trials in this area (Liu et al, Am. J. Clin. Nut., 2014, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.082024).

Does Resveratrol Improve Blood Sugar Control?

The meta-analysis included 11 published placebo controlled double blind clinical studies looking at the effects of resveratrol supplementation on fasting blood sugar levels, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control) and insulin resistance (a measure closely associated with type 2 diabetes).

A strength of this meta-analysis is the fact that it included 11 clinical studies. However, a weakness of this analysis is that these studies utilized a wide variety of resveratrol doses (10 mg/day to 1 gram/day), a wide variety of end points and both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. That means that there were only a few studies with common population groups, resveratrol doses, and end points.

The conclusions of the study (and the headlines you may have seen) were that:

•    Resveratrol appeared to improve blood sugar control (based on improvements in fasting blood sugar levels, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c and insulin resistance) in diabetics.

•    No consistent effect of resveratrol on blood sugar control was seen in non-diabetics.

How Good Are These Studies?

While these studies are very promising, they are bot definitive.  There were only 3 published clinical studies in diabetics. While all 3 of the studies showed a positive effect of resveratrol supplementation:

•    The doses used were different in each study (ranging from 10 mg/day to 1 gram/day)

•    Each study measured different end points (one measured blood glucose, insulin levels, hemoglobin A1c and insulin resistance, one measured blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c and the third measured insulin resistance).

As a research scientist I would like to see more studies done at comparable doses and measuring the same end points – we scientists always want more studies.

Similarly, there was not enough consistency in the studies with non-diabetics to draw a firm conclusion. (3 were with obese patients, 3 were with patients with cardiovascular disease, 1 was with patients with metabolic syndrome and 1 was with perfectly healthy subjects.)

If you really wanted to see if something like resveratrol helps non-diabetics with blood sugar control, you would want to start with people who are already experiencing some difficulties with blood sugar control (pre-diabetics or patients with metabolic syndrome) and follow them for a couple of years to see if resveratrol reduces the number of them who become diabetic.

Are The Headlines Just Hype?

Newspaper HeadlinesDoes that mean that the blood sugar benefits of resveratrol are just hype? The answer is no. There is a difference between “very promising, but not yet definitive” and “hype”. We shouldn’t be surprised that human studies on the health benefits of resveratrol are not yet definitive. Science moves slowly. It often takes decades of scientific research before promising concepts are widely accepted by the scientific community.

When a research area is as young as this one, we sometimes need to go beyond the clinical studies and look at the totality of evidence. In this case:

•    In mice resveratrol exerts its beneficial effects by turning on a specific anti-aging gene called SIRT1 (Cell Metabolism, 15: 675-690, 2012). In humans, resveratrol appears to activate the same genetic pathways as in mice (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 96: 1409-1414, 2011).

•    In obese mice resveratrol improves markers of blood sugar control (Nature, 444: 337-342, 2006). Published clinical studies in diabetic humans also show improvements in blood sugar control (Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2014, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.082024).

So while more and better clinical studies are needed to be absolutely certain that resveratrol helps improve blood sugar control, the evidence supporting that effect is substantial.

What Should You Do?

The ONLY important question for each of you is probably: “Should I wait a decade or two until we are absolutely sure about the health benefits of resveratrol before I take a resveratrol supplement?” That question is ultimately yours to answer. It’s all about benefits and risk.

Benefits – In animal studies resveratrol clearly improves blood sugar control. The human clinical studies published to date are consistent with the animal studies.

Risk – Current data suggest that resveratrol appears to be safe, even at high doses. For example, one recent study indicated that up to 5 gm/day is safe (Cancer Epidemiology BioMarkers & Prevention, volume 16:1246-1262, 2007), but I wouldn’t personally recommend exceeding 100-200 mg/day.

The Bottom Line:

1)     Don’t get too excited about the headlines suggesting that resveratrol might help improve blood sugar control in diabetics. The few human clinical studies that have been published to date are consistent with previous animal studies. That is very promising, but more studies are needed before we can be absolutely confident that resveratrol supplementation is beneficial for diabetics.

2)     Similarly, don’t be discouraged by the headlines suggesting that resveratrol does not help with blood sugar control in non-diabetics. Those results are preliminary as well.

3)     That doesn’t mean that the headlines are just hype. It takes decades to accumulate definitive proof that any kind of food or nutrient offers proven benefits, and the bulk of human clinical research on reveratrol has occurred in the last couple of years. We are exactly where we should expect to be at this point in time.

4)     With something as promising as resveratrol, the real question becomes whether you can afford to wait a decade or two until you know whether the potential benefits have been definitely proven. That question is up to you. On the plus side, current data suggest that resveratrol is highly promising for blood sugar control. In addition, resveratrol appears to be safe, even at high doses, but I wouldn’t personally recommend exceeding 100-200 mg/day.

5)     We already know that weight control, exercise and a healthy diet improve blood sugar control. You should think of resveratrol as something you may wish to add to a healthy lifestyle, not as a substitute for a healthy lifestyle.

6)     If you are diabetic and decide to try a resveratrol supplement, be sure to work with your physician so they can modify your dose of insulin or blood sugar medication as necessary.

7)     Finally, you may be asking whether resveratrol supplements are even necessary. Can’t you just get all the resveratrol you need from a glass or two of red wine? Stay tuned. I’ll have the answer to that question in a couple of weeks.

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 Vitamin D Overhyped?

Are Clouds Gathering For the Sunshine Vitamin?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Clouds Obscuring The SunWe’ve known for years that vitamin D plays an essential role in calcium metabolism and is important for bone health. In fact, the use of vitamin D to prevent and cure rickets is one of the greatest success stories in the field of nutrition.

However, in recent years a number of studies have suggested that adequate vitamin D status was also important in reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, infectious diseases and autoimmune diseases – as well as overall mortality. Suddenly it seemed as if vitamin D could leap over tall buildings in a single bound (I realize that I’m probably dating myself with that analogy).

So when I saw the headlines about a new study (Theodoratou et al, BMJ, 2014;348:g2035 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2035)  that concluded all of those benefits of vitamin D were unconfirmed, I was not surprised. After all there have been many examples of periods in which individual vitamins were reported to have miraculous benefits – only to have most of those benefits debunked by subsequent studies. I fully expected that would be the theme of this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

But when I read the article I found that the study had multiple flaws (more about that latter). I also discovered that the same issue of the British Medical Journal had another, much better designed, study that came to the exact opposite conclusion (Chowdhury et al, BMJ 2014;348:g1903 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1903).

Funny how only the first study made it into the headlines. It’s only the negative news that sells.

Is Vitamin D Overhyped?

The first study was a very large meta-analysis that included 107 systematic reviews, 74 meta-analyses of observation studies (studies that compare population groups) and 87 meta-analyses of randomized, placebo controlled trials. In case you were wondering, the total number of patients enrolled in these studies must have numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

The authors of the study reported that:

  • There was no relationship between vitamin D intake and cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disease, infectious diseases, diabetes and other diseases. In other words, they concluded that most of the recent excitement about vitamin D was just hype.
  • There was also no evidence that vitamin D increased bone density or reduced the risk of fractures and falls in older people – in contrast to many previous studies.

Based on this evidence the authors said “universal conclusions about vitamin Ds benefits cannot be drawn [from current data]” and that vitamin D “might not be as essential as previously thought in maintaining bone mineral density”.

Both of those statements are pretty revolutionary, but a study this large has to be true – right? The answer is a definite maybe. The problem is that many of the studies included in this meta-analysis were poorly designed by today’s standards. Remember the old saying “garbage in, garbage out”.

The Study Is Flawed

My specific criticisms of the study are:

1)     The conclusions about vitamin D and bone density were seriously flawed. The authors acknowledged that previous studies have shown that calcium and vitamin D together increased bone density, but they considered calcium to be a confounding variable and only included clinical trials using vitamin D supplementation alone. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the biochemical role of vitamin D.

The purpose of vitamin D is to maintain constant levels of blood calcium, not to build strong bones.

  • When blood levels of calcium are high, vitamin D lowers it by depositing the calcium in bones.
  • When blood levels of calcium are low, vitamin D raises it by leaching calcium from bone.

That’s why vitamin D and calcium work together. It is utter nonsense to expect vitamin D to increase bone density or prevent fractures unless you make sure that calcium intake is at least adequate.

2)     Most studies of vitamin D supplementation did not stratify the data based on low versus high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D at the beginning of the study. That’s important because you would only expect vitamin D supplementation to be of benefit in people with low levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to begin with. If their 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are already optimal, vitamin D supplementation is unlikely to be of additional benefit.

3)     Finally, the authors did not separate the studies based on whether vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 was used. That’s important because some recent studies have suggested that D3 is more beneficial than D2.

Is Vitamin D Beneficial After All?

SunThe second study came to the exact opposite conclusions. It was also a very large study. It included 73 observational studies (849,412 participants) and 22 randomized, placebo controlled studies (30,716) participants. Here is what the authors of this study concluded.

  • High blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D decreased the risk of heart disease by 35%, cancer by 14% and overall mortality by 35%.
  • Supplementation with vitamin D3 reduced overall mortality by 11%, while supplementation with vitamin D2 increased overall mortality by an insignificant 4%.
  • 65% of the US population can be classified as vitamin D insufficient (blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of below 30 ng/ml) and 4% as severely deficient in vitamin D (blood levels below 10 ng/ml)
  • Vitamin D deficiency contributes to 13% of the deaths in the United States. For comparison the corresponding numbers for other major risk factors are: smoking – 20%, physical inactivity – 11% and alcohol – 9%.
  • About the only point on which the two studies agreed was that there is a need for more, better designed studies to clarify the benefits of vitamin D.

The Bottom Line:

1)     Two studies were published in the April 2014 issue of the British Medical Journal. The first concluded that all of the supposed benefits of vitamin D – including increasing bone density – were not supported by the available data. The second study concluded that adequate intake of vitamin D significantly reduced deaths due to heart disease and cancer and also significantly reduced overall mortality. Somehow, only the first study made it into the headlines. Why does that not surprise me?

2)     The suggestion in the first study that vitamin D may not be essential for strong bones is based on a complete misunderstanding of the role of vitamin D in the body. There are ample clinical studies showing that vitamin D and calcium together are essential for strong bones. Nobody who understands biochemistry would expect vitamin D to increase bone density in the absence of calcium, but the authors only considered studies that excluded calcium in drawing their conclusion that vitamin D did not increase bone density.

3)     The only point of agreement between the two studies is that more and better studies are needed to sort out the benefits of vitamin D and what levels of vitamin D are optimal. I wholeheartedly agree.

4)     My advice is to ignore the headlines telling you that vitamin D is dead. On the other hand, don’t get caught up in the hype and buy megadoses of vitamin D supplements. While the evidence is rock solid that vitamin D and calcium together are essential for strong bones, the jury is still out on some of the other health benefits of vitamin D.

5)     If you are supplementing with vitamin D you should know that the RDAs for vitamin D are 600 IU for ages 1-70 and 800 IU over 70. The safe upper limit has been set at 4,000 IU. You should only go above that on a doctor’s advice.

6)     However, people metabolize vitamin D with different efficiencies, so I strongly recommend that you get your blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D tested and let your doctor help you determine how much vitamin D you should be getting.

7)     Finally, a number of recent studies suggest that vitamin D3 may be more effective than vitamin D2, so I only recommend supplements that contain D3.

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

Do High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

How Much Protein Should We Eat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

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

Do High Protein Diets Cause Cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is This New Information?

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

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

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

What Do Other Experts Say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?

Disease Is Not Inevitable

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Bad GenesMany people seem to have the attitude that if obesity [or cancer, heart disease or diabetes] runs in their family, it is their destiny. They can’t really do anything about it, so why even try?

Most of us in the field of nutrition have felt for years that nothing could be further from the truth. But our belief was based on individual cases, not on solid science. That is no longer the case.

Recent scientific advances have given us solid proof that it is possible to alter our genetic destiny. A family predisposition to diabetes, for example, no longer dooms us to the same fate.

I’m not talking about something like the discredited Blood Type Diet. I’m talking about real science. Let me start by giving you an overview of the latest scientific advances.

Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?

The answer to this question is YES, and that answer lies in a relatively new scientific specialty called nutrigenomics – the interaction between nutrition and genetics. There are three ways in which nutrition and genetics interact:

1)     Your genetic makeup can influence your nutrient requirements.

The best characterized example of this is methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) deficiency.  MTHFR deficiency increases the requirement for folic acid and is associated with neural tube defects and other neurological disorders, dementia, colon cancer & leukemia.

In spite of what some blogs and supplement manufacturers would have you believe, supplementation with around 400 IU of folic acid is usually sufficient to overcome the consequences of MTHFR deficiency. 5-methylene tetrahydrofolate (also sold as methyl folate or 5-methyl folate) offers no advantage in absorption, bioavailability or physiological activity (Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 49: 535-548, 2010; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79: 473-478, 2004).

This is just one example. There are hundreds of other genetic variations that influence nutrient requirements – some known and some yet unknown.

2)     A healthy diet can reduce your genetic predisposition for disease.

This perhaps the one that is easiest to understand. For conceptual purposes let us suppose that your genetic makeup were associated with high levels of inflammation. That would predispose you to heart disease, cancer and many other diseases. However, a diet rich in anti-inflammatory nutrients could reduce your risk of those diseases.

This is just a hypothetical example. I’ll give some specific examples in the paragraphs below.

3)     Diet can actually alter your genes.

This is perhaps the most interesting scientific advance in recent years. We used to think that genes couldn’t be changed. What you inherited was what you got.

Now we know that both DNA and the proteins that coat the DNA can be modified, and those modifications alter how those genes are expressed. More importantly, we now know that those modifications can be inherited.

Perhaps the best characterized chemical modification of both DNA and proteins is something called methylation. Methylation influences gene expression and is, in turn, influenced by nutrients in the diet like folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, choline and the amino acid methionine.

Again this is just the “tip of the iceberg”. We are learning more about how diet can alter our genes every day.

Examples Of How Diet Can Alter Genetic Predisposition

Mature Man - Heart Attack Heart Disease

  • Perhaps the most impressive recent study is one that looked at the effect of diet on 20,000 people who had a genetic predisposition to heart disease (PLOS Medicine, October 2011, doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001106).

These people all had a genetic variant 9p21 that causes a 2 fold increased risk of heart attack. The study showed that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and nuts reduced their risk of heart attack to that of the general population.

  • Another study, the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study (Diabetes Care, 27: 2767, 2004; Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, 24: 136, 2008), looked at genetic variations in the haptoglobin gene that influence cardiovascular risk. The haptoglobin 2-2 genotype increases oxidative damage to the arterial wall, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.

When the authors of this study looked at the effect of vitamin E, they found that it significantly decreased heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths in people with the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype, but not in people with other haptoglobin geneotypes.

  • There was also a study called the ISOHEART study (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82: 1260-1268, 2005; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83: 592-600, 2006) that looked at a particular genetic variation in the estrogen receptor which increases inflammation and decreases levels of HDL. As you might expect, this genotype significantly increases cardiovascular risk.

Soy isoflavones significantly decreased inflammation and increased HDL levels in this population group. But they had no    effect on inflammation or HDL levels in people with other genotypes affecting the estrogen reception.

To put this in perspective, these studies are fundamentally different from other studies you have heard about regarding nutritional interventions and heart disease risks. Those studies were looking at the effect of diet or supplementation in the general population.

These studies are looking at the effect of diet or supplementation in people who were genetically predisposed to heart disease. These studies show that genetic predisposition [to heart disease] does not have to be your destiny. You can change the outcome!

Cancer

  • A healthy diet (characterized by high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grain products and low intakes of refined grain products) compared with the standard American diet (characterized by high intakes of refined grain products, desserts, sweets and processed meats) results in a pattern of gene expression that is associated with lower risk of cancer.  (Nutrition Journal, 2013 12:24).
  • A healthy lifestyle (low fat diet, stress management and exercise) in men with prostate cancer causes downregulation of genes associated with tumor growth (PNAS, 105: 8369-8374).
  • Sulforaphane, a nutrient found in broccoli, turns on genes that suppress cancer.

Diabetes

  • A study reported at the 2013 meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes showed that regular exercise activated genes associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes

Cellular Stress Response

  • A diet rich in antioxidant fruits and vegetables activates the cellular stress response genes that protect us from DNA damage, inflammation and reactive oxygen species (BMC Medicine, 2010 8:54).
  • Resveratrol, a nutrient found in grape skins and red wine, activates genes associated with DNA repair and combating reactive oxygen species while it reduces the activity of genes associated with inflammation, increased blood pressure and cholesterol production.

To put these last three examples (cancer, diabetes and cellular stress response) in perspective, they show that diet and supplementation can alter gene expression – and that those alterations are likely to decrease disease risk.

Obesity

  • Finally, an animal study suggests that maternal obesity may increase the risk of obesity in the offspring by increasing their taste preference for foods with lots of sugar and fats (Endocrinology, 151: 475-464, 2010).

The Bottom Line:

The science of nutrigenomics tells us that diet and genetics interact in some important ways:

1)     Your genetic makeup can influence your requirement for certain nutrients.

    • For example, methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) deficiency increases your requirement for folic acid.
    • Contrary to what many blogs would have you believe, folic acid is just as effective as 5-methylene tetrahydrofolate (also sold as methyl folate or 5-methyl folate) at correcting MTHFR deficiency.

2)     Healthy diet and lifestyle can overcome genetic predisposition to certain diseases. The best established example at present is for people genetically predisposed to heart disease, but preliminary evidence suggests that the risk of other diseases such as diabetes and cancer are altered by your diet.

3)     Diet can actually alter gene expression – for better or worse depending on your diet. Those alterations not only affect your health, but they may affect your children’s health as well.

4)     Nutrigenomics is a young science and many of the individual studies should be considered preliminary. However, the scientific backing is become stronger every day for what many experts in the field have believed for years.

“Your genes do not have to be your destiny. Healthy diet and lifestyle can overcome a genetic predisposition to many diseases.”

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

Does Skipping Breakfast Increase Heart Disease Risk?

Should You Eat Breakfast Every Day?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Mature Man - Heart AttackDoes skipping breakfast actually increase your risk of heart attacks? You’ve probably heard the saying “Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper”.

You’ve probably also heard that skipping breakfast is associated with increased risk of things like:

 

  • obesity
  • high blood pressure
  • and diabetes

If you believe those associations are true, the latest study showing an association between skipping breakfast and heart disease risk just makes sense. After all, obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes all increase the risk of heart disease.

But, how good is the evidence skipping breakfast actually increases the risk of any of those things?

The evidence for the link between skipping breakfast and heart disease risk:

Let’s start with the current study linking breakfast skipping with heart disease (Cahill et al, Circulation, 128: 337-343, 2013) because its study design is similar to the studies linking breakfast skipping to obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. This study surveyed the eating habits of 27,000 men (45+ years old) enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study in 1992 and followed those men for 16 years.

The results were pretty dramatic. After correcting for other factors that might influence heart disease risk, the men who skipped breakfast were 27% more likely to develop heart disease over the next 16 years than the men who ate breakfast on a daily basis.

As impressive as the association between breakfast and heart disease was, there was an even more impressive association that never made it into the headlines.

There was no association between skipping breakfast and eating late in the evening. However, those men who ate late in the evening were 53% more like to develop heart disease than men who did not.

The pros and cons of the study:

The pros:

1)     The strength of this study is that it is large (27,000 participants), long (16 years) and well designed. The results were statistically very significant.

The cons:

1)     This study only shows associations. It does not prove cause and effect. Having said that, it would be really, really hard to design a placebo controlled study for breakfast versus no breakfast. So cause and effect is almost impossible to prove for this type of comparison.

2)     The study did not ask what kind of breakfast the participants were eating. We don’t know whether the breakfasts were a Danish and coffee, an Egg McMuffin and hash browns  or a high protein smoothie with perhaps some fruit or oatmeal– and, believe me, there is a difference among those three breakfasts!

The Bottom Line:

1)     Eating breakfast is probably a good thing. Yes, the evidence that skipping breakfast increases heart disease risk is circumstantial, but it is also substantial. This is a large, well designed study.

2)     Not all breakfasts are equal. You probably already knew that! I recommend a breakfast with fruit, nuts, whole grains in moderation and lean protein sources.

3)     While this particular study only included men, previous studies suggest that the potential health risks of skipping breakfast are equally strong for women.

4)     Finally, while skipping breakfast grabbed all the headlines, the data suggest that eating late at night is an even stronger predictor of heart disease risk.

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

Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?

Put Down That Soda

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 soda-drink-300x181Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease? For today’s “Health Tip” I’m going to paraphrase a quote from your some of your favorite action flicks: “Put down that soda and back away and nobody gets hurt.”

You see, the news about soft drinks keeps getting worse and worse! You’ve probably already heard that soft drink consumption leads to weight gain, pre-diabetes and possibly even diabetes because calories in liquid form do not affect appetite to the same extent as calories in solid form.

Soft Drink Consumption increases the risk of heart attack and stroke in women:

As if that weren’t bad enough, three recent studies suggest that soft drinks consumption is also associated with increased risk of heart attacks and stroke.

The first study looked at sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women (Fung et al, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 89: 1037-1042, 2009).

This study followed 88,520 women enrolled in the Nurses Health Study for 24 years. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (either sodas or non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages such as Hawaiian Punch, lemonade and other non-carbonated fruit drinks) was assessed from food-frequency questionnaires administered 7 times during the 24 years. And the total incidence of coronary events (both fatal and non-fatal) was recorded.

The results were striking. When they compared women who consumed as little as one sugar-sweetened beverage per day with women who consumed those beverages less than once per month, the increased risk of coronary heart disease was 23%. And when they compared women who consumed more than two sugar-sweetened beverage per day with women who consumed those beverages less than once per month, the increased risk of coronary heart disease was a whopping 35%.

Sodas are just as harmful for men:

And, in case you guys thought you were off the hook, a study has just been published showing similar results in men (de Koning et al, Circulation, March 12, 2012, Epub ahead of print). This study was a 22 year follow up of 42,883 men enrolled in the Men’s Health Professional study. The study design and results were very similar to the ones obtained previously in the Nurses Health Study except that this study did not distinguish between subjects consuming one sugar sweetened beverage a day and those consuming more than one each day.

When they compared men who consumed one or more sugar sweetened beverage a day to men who never consumed sugar-sweetened beverages, the increased risk of coronary heart disease was 20%.

Diet sodas are just as bad as regular sodas:

 Finally, you may be saying that this information doesn’t apply to you because you only consume diet sodas or artificially sweetened non-carbonated beverages.

Unfortunately, you may not be off the hook either!

Another study published in January 2012 reported that diet soft drink consumption is also associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease – including strokes (Gardener et al, J. Gen. Intern. Med., DOI: 10.1007/sl11606-011-1968-2). This study followed 2564 men and women enrolled in the Northern Manhattan Study for 10 years.

The people in this study who consumed more than one diet soda or artificially sweetened beverage/day were 43% more likely to have a vascular event (heart attack or stroke) then the people consuming less than one diet beverage/month. This study is in line with previous studies showing that diet soda consumption is associated with increased risk of pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

And, as I have pointed out in my previous “Health Tips”, there is no convincing evidence that diet sodas actually help prevent weight gain. Sure there are several published studies showing that when dietitians supervise the diets of the study participants, you can achieve weight loss by substituting diet beverages for sugar containing beverages.

However, two major studies have shown that when you look at free-living populations, consumption of diet beverages is associated with just as much weight gain as consumption of sugar containing beverages (Dhingra et al, Circulation,116: 480-488, 2007; Fowler et al,

Obesity, 16:1894-1900, 2008). Apparently, without a dietitian looking over our shoulder, we manage to make up for those lost calories somewhere else!

The Bottom Line:

So what’s the bottom line for you?

You should be aware that these studies just look at associations – not cause and effect – and they can be skewed by the characteristics of the study populations. For example, there were some striking inconsistencies between the 3 studies I cited that are likely due to differences in the population groups that they sampled. However, despite some differences from one study to the next, the weight of accumulating evidence seems to suggest that sodas – both sugar containing and diet – are really not good for us.

So it’s back to my original advice: “Just put down that soda and nobody gets hurt.” Water is sounding better and better!

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

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!