Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Creatine Better Than Coffee For Sleep Deprivation?

by

The Effect Of Creatine On The Sleep-Deprived Brain 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

The role of creatine for muscle metabolism is well established. It has been used by athletes for years to optimize their exercise. It is both safe and effective for this purpose.

However, it’s use for optimizing brain function is more controversial. Clinical studies on this topic are conflicting. The problem is 3-fold:

  • Creatine does not cross the blood-brain barrier easily. So, the brain takes up creatine less efficiently than muscle.
  • Some people don’t need extra brain creatine. They make all they need.
  • There appears to be significant individual differences in the uptake of creatine into the brain and/or the effectiveness of creatine at improving brain function.

The authors of the article I am going to review summed up the existing research on creatine and brain function by saying:

  • Most healthy adults do not need extra creatine for brain function. Studies on healthy, non-stressed adults have typically shown no benefit of creatine supplementation.
  • However, there are several conditions that decrease brain creatine levels and/or increase brain energy needs, which creates a need for higher brain creatine levels. These conditions are:
    • Concussions and other forms of traumatic brain injury.
    • Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.
    • Hypoxia (reduced oxygen flow to the brain) caused by atherosclerotic narrowing of the carotid arteries, asthma, and COPD.
    • Depression.
    • Sleep deprivation.
  • Under these conditions, uptake of creatine into the brain appears to be enhanced, and creatine supplementation appears to improve brain function.

The authors of this study focused on sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation differs from the other conditions listed above in that it is episodic rather than chronic. So, rather than using smaller doses daily, they tested the effect of a single, high dose administered during the sleep deprivation.

In a previous study they had shown that a very high dose of creatine was effective at increasing brain creatine levels by 5% and reducing the symptoms of sleep deprivation by 10-25%.

For this study (A Gordji-Nejad et al, Nutrients, 18: 192, 2026) they repeated their experiments using a lower dosage to determine whether the brain benefits of creatine during sleep deprivation are dose dependent.

What Is Creatine And What Does It Do?

confusionI have discussed this topic at depth in an article from a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, so I will give the Cliff Notes version here.

Creatine is a storage form of cellular energy.

  • In muscle the best analogy would be a car battery. When we start the car, the battery provides the initial energy to get the engine going. Then, when we are cruising down the highway the kinetic energy generated by the turning of the driveshaft is stored in the battery, so it is fully charged the next time we need to start the car.
  • In our muscles, creatine is the “battery” that provides the initial energy to get our muscles going. And when we are at rest, we recharge our creatine “battery”, so we are ready the next time we need to spring into action.
  • In our brain, our creatine “battery” provides the extra energy our brain needs when it is under stress due to any of the conditions listed above – including sleep deprivation.

In our car, eventually the battery wears out and needs to be replaced. Here the analogy breaks down. Creatine is constantly being converted to creatinine and flushed out of the body, so we need a constant supply of new creatine to keep our cellular creatine “batteries” charged.

  • Our muscles can’t make creatine, so they rely on creatine made by other tissues in the body, diets high in animal protein, and/or creatine supplements. And because it is dependent on exogenous creatine sources, it is very efficient at taking up creatine from the bloodstream. That is why creatine supplements are so effective at improving muscle function.
  • Our brain normally makes all the creatine it needs, so it is inefficient at taking creatine from the bloodstream. However, when the brain is under stress due to traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative diseases, hypoxia, and sleep deprivation, its need for creatine is increased, and the efficiency of creatine uptake appears to be enhanced. Under these conditions, creatine supplements do appear to improve brain function.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors recruited 29 healthy subjects age 20-40 (average = 29) for the study.

  • 17 were female, 12 were male.
  • None of them reported sleep disorders, psychiatric or neurological conditions, or alcohol or drug abuse.
  • None of them smoked or took medication.

Consumption of caffeine and alcohol were prohibited for 48 hours prior to the study.

They were all well rested prior to the study. They were required to sleep for at least 7 hours every night for the previous two weeks and to record all sleep and awake times. The night before the study they were asked to go to bed by 11 PM and wake up at 7 AM.

The sleep-deprivation occurred over the next 21 hours. During this period the subjects were continuously observed to make sure they didn’t fall asleep. No exercise or cognitively stressful activity was allowed. The subjects were only allowed to drink water and eat non-protein snacks during the deprivation study.

The study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a crossover design. In a crossover study each subject serves as their own control. In the first phase of the study each patient was given 0.09 g of creatine per pound of body weight or a placebo in a double-blind manner (neither the patient nor the investigators knew who got the creatine and who got the placebo). After two weeks at least 7 hours of sleep a night, the deprivation portion of the study was repeated except that what the subjects took was reversed (those who received creatine the first time received the placebo the second time and vice versa).

The subjects were given a battery of tests four times during sleep deprivation. At each occurrence the subjects completed self-assessments for sleepiness and fatigue. They then were given tests to measure the speed and accuracy of seven different measures of mental acuity. The design of the sleep deprivation portion of the study was as follows:

  • Sleep deprivation started at 7 AM.
  • Baseline assessment occurred at 6:30 PM (11.5 hours without sleep).
  • The subjects were given creatine or a placebo at 9 PM (14 hours without sleep).
  • Testing was repeated at 12 PM, 2 AM, and 4 AM (17, 19, and 21 hours without sleep).

The Effect Of Creatine On The Sleep-Deprived Brain

Safe and effective creatine intake is proportional to our body weight. That’s why the authors of this study reported creation dose as grams of creatine per pound of body weight. However, you are not used to seeing it expressed that way, so let me give you a table to help you understand what these numbers mean.

Creatine g/lb to grams per serving
g/lb 120 lb 140 lb 200 lb Comments
0.045g/lb 5 gm 7 gm 9 gm This is the daily intake range you see recommended most often.
0.09 g/lb 10 gm 14 gm 18 gm The amount used in this study. It has been shown to be safe and effective for muscle gain.
0.16 g/lb 19 gm 25 gm 30 gm The amount used in their previous study. Some athletes use this much, but it is not widely studied.

With that in mind, here are the results of the study.

  • Creatine supplementation at this dose was well tolerated. There were no reports of gastrointestinal distress or other adverse physical effects.
  • Creatine supplementation had no significant effect on self-reported sleepiness or fatigue.
  • Creatine improved several measures of cognitive performance during sleep deprivation by 6-12%.
    • The cognitive benefits were most evident for logic, numerical ability, processing speed in language tasks, and psychomotor vigilance.
      • Psychomotor vigilance is how well an individual can maintain attention over time. It is assessed by measuring how long it takes subjects to respond to visual stimuli at random intervals. It is an important cognitive function for activities like driving a car.
  • Women and vegetarians benefitted more than men.

The authors concluded, “Our results show a dose of 0.09g/lb creatine is associated with reduced deterioration in cognitive performance during sleep deprivation. Although the effect is less pronounced than with a high dose of 0.16 g/lb, there is still an improvement of up to 12%…

The decrease in improvement compared to high dose shows that cerebral cellular creatine uptake and the improvement effect during sleep deprivation are dose-dependent.

As the administered dose of 0.09 g/lb is [known to be] safe, future studies could focus on adding additional components or making modifications to increase cellular uptake and enhance the effect. Furthermore, the findings of our study provide a basis for further research to determine the specific dosage for different population groups.”

Is Creatine Better Than Coffee For Sleep Deprivation?

Question MarkLet’s return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article. You didn’t sleep a wink last night. Your brain is fuzzy. Should you reach for a cup of coffee? Or is creatine better than coffee for sleep deprivation?

There are two answers to this question.

The first answer is, “We don’t know”. Coffee has been around forever. Everyone “knows” it helps when we are sleep deprived. But it has never gone through the kind of rigorous testing that creatine was given in this study. And it has never been compared in head-to-head testing with creatine.

The cognitive benefits from creatine were modest, so it is likely that coffee is more effective – but we don’t know for sure.

The second answer is, “It depends”. There are many people who can’t or prefer not to drink coffee.

  • For some people coffee causes jitters, anxiety, and heart palpitations.
  • For others it causes gastrointestinal disturbances.
  • Some people prefer to avoid stimulants of any kind.
  • For many people coffee causes insomnia. And if you have had a sleepless night, the thing you want the most is restful sleep, not more insomnia.

And, if we are sleep deprived, it’s usually not just one cup of coffee. It’s several cups of coffee or one of those “monster drinks” with tons of caffeine. And regular consumption of these high-caffeine drinks is linked to all the issues listed above plus:

  • High blood pressure, cardiac events, severe headaches, and even kidney issues.

If you are someone with any of these concerns, it is useful to know that there is a non-stimulant alternative that can help you think more clearly when you are sleep deprived.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Simply put, this study suggests that creatine may be an alternative to coffee and other caffeinated beverages when you are sleep deprived.

This study shows that a single dose of 10-20 grams of creatine, depending on your body weight, can give you a modest increase in mental clarity if taken while you are severely sleep deprived. While somewhat higher than the dosages most supplement companies recommend, this is well within the dose range that has been shown to be safe and effective for enhancing muscle function.

The authors of the study said that “Future studies could focus on adding additional components or making modifications to increase cellular uptake and enhance the effectiveness of creatine.

For muscle cells, insulin enhances the uptake of creatine. So, if creatine is taken with a meal that is high in carbohydrate, uptake may be increased by up to 60%. We don’t know whether insulin also increases creatine uptake in the brain, but until further research comes along it is worth a try.

Note: Studies also show that combining creatine with a shake that is high in both carbohydrate and protein after a workout optimizes both creatine uptake and muscle repair. In today’s world of low-carbohydrate protein shakes that is a paradigm shift!

In a previous study, the same authors showed that a single dose of 20-30 grams of creatine, depending on body weight, was even more effective at enhancing mental clarity during severe sleep deprivation. That is a dosage that has not been extensively tested.

Many athletes consume creatine dosages in that range with no apparent ill effects. However, athletes aren’t always the best examples of safe supplement use.

Whichever dose of creatine you choose, there are some cautions you should be aware of.

  • Creatinine, the breakdown product of creatine metabolism, puts some stress on the kidneys.
    • While this is not a problem if your kidneys are healthy, you should consult with your health professional about taking creatine if you have any indications of impaired kidney function.
  • Adequate hydration (preferably with water) is important because creatine pulls water with it as it enters your muscle cells.
    • This plumps up your muscles, which is great if you are a body builder.
    • This dehydrates you, which can cause side effects like muscle cramps, headaches, nausea, stomach cramps, and diarrhea.
    • These side effects are usually transitory and can be avoided or reduced by adequate hydration. If symptoms continue despite adequate hydration, you should lower the dose or discontinue creatine supplementation.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at whether a creatine supplement could help prevent the loss of cognitive function associated with severe sleep deprivation. The study showed:

  • Creatine improved several measures of cognitive performance during sleep deprivation.
  • The cognitive benefits were most evident for logic, numerical ability, processing speed in language tasks, and psychomotor vigilance.
  • Women and vegetarians benefitted more than men.
  • The effect was dose dependent.

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Should Women Avoid Soy?

by

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

soyMother’s Day was last Sunday. We love the women in our lives and want to keep them happy and healthy. But what should we tell them about soy? Should women avoid soy? Or is it good for them? Is it something they should be including in their diet?

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion about soy. The key issue is, “What is the truth about soy and breast cancer? Does it increase the risk of breast cancer, or is that just a myth?” If you are a woman, particularly a woman with breast cancer, it is an important question.

Some experts say soy should be avoided at all costs. They say that soy will increase your risk of breast cancer. Other experts say soy is perfectly safe and may even reduce your risk of breast cancer. Who is right?

If you are a breast cancer survivor, the question of whether soy increases or decreases your risk of disease recurrence is even more crucial. You have already endured surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. You never want to go through that again.

Why Is There So Much Confusion About Soy?

soy confusionSoy isoflavones decrease estrogen production, strengthen the immune system, inhibit cell proliferation, and reduce the production of reactive oxygen species. These are all effects that might reduce breast cancer risk.

On the other hand, soy isoflavones also bind to estrogen receptors and exhibit weak estrogenic activity. This effect has the potential to increase breast cancer risk.

Cell culture and animal studies have only confused the issue. Soy isoflavones stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells in a petri dish. Soy isoflavones also stimulate breast cancer growth in a special strain of mice lacking an immune system. However, in studies in both mice and rats with a functioning immune system, soy isoflavones decrease breast cancer risk.

The confusion has been amplified by claims and counterclaims on the internet. There are bloggers who are more interested in the spectacular than they are in accuracy (Today we call this fake news). They have taken the very weak evidence that soy isoflavones could possibly increase breast cancer risk and have blown it all out of proportion.

Their blogs claim that soy definitely increases breast cancer risk and should be avoided at all costs. Their claims have been picked up by other web sites and blogs. Eventually, the claims have been repeated so many times that people started to believe them. A “myth” has been created. I call it a myth because it was never based on convincing scientific evidence.

In the meantime, scientists looked at the cell culture and animal studies and took a more responsible approach. They said “If this is true, it is an important public health issue. We need to do clinical trials in humans to test this hypothesis.”

What Have Previous Clinical Studies Shown?

breast cancerThe question of whether soy consumption increased the risk of developing breast cancer was settled a long time ago. Some studies have shown no effect of soy consumption on breast cancer risk. Others have reported that soy consumption decreased breast cancer risk. A meta-analysis of 18 previous clinical studies found that soy slightly decreased the risk of developing breast cancer (J Natl Cancer Inst, 98: 459-471, 2006). None of those studies found any evidence that soy increased the risk of breast cancer.

What about recurrence of breast cancer in women who are breast cancer survivors? There have been five major clinical studies looking at the effects of soy consumption on breast cancer recurrence in both Chinese and American populations. Once again, 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 for breast cancer survivors.

A meta-analysis of all 5 studies was published in 2013 (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.

What Did The Most Recent Study Show?

Clinical StudyIn earlier clinical studies the protective effect of soy has been greater in Asian populations than in North American populations. This could have been because Asians consume more soy. However, it could be due to other population differences as well.

To better evaluate the effect of soy consumption on breast cancer survivors in the North America, a group of investigators correlated soy consumption with all-cause mortality in breast cancer survivors in the US and Canada (Zhang et al, Cancer, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30615, March 2017).

The data were collected from The Breast Cancer Family Registry, an international research infrastructure established in 1995. The women enrolled in this registry either have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer or have a family history of breast cancer.

This study included 6235 breast cancer survivors from the registry who lived in the San Francisco Bay area and the province of Ontario in Canada. The women represented an ethnically diverse population and had a median age of 51.8 at enrollment. Soy consumption was assessed either at the time of enrollment or immediately following breast cancer diagnosis. The women were followed for 9.4 years, during which time 1224 of them died.

The results were as follows:

  • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
  • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
  • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.
  • The authors concluded “In this large, ethnically diverse cohort of women with breast cancer, higher dietary intake of [soy] was associated with reduced total mortality.”

In an accompanying editorial, Omer Kucuk, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, noted that the United States is the number 1 soy producer in the world and is in a great position to initiate changes in health policy by encouraging soy intake.  He said “We now have evidence that soy foods not only prevent breast cancer but also benefit women who have had breast cancer. Therefore, we can recommend women to consume soy foods because of soy’s many health benefits.”

Should Women Avoid Soy?

soy breast cancer mythNow we can get back to the question I posed at the beginning of this article, “Should women avoid soy?”

The evidence from clinical studies says, “No”. But every clinical study has its limitations. If there were only one or two studies, the question of whether soy increases breast cancer risk might still be in doubt.

However, multiple clinical studies have come to the same conclusion. Either soy has no effect on breast cancer risk and breast cancer recurrence, or it has a protective effect.

Not a single clinical study has found any evidence that soy increases breast cancer risk. It is clear that consumption of soy foods is safe, and may be beneficial, for women with breast cancer. The myth that soy increases breast cancer risk needs to be put to rest.

With the breast cancer myth out of the way, we can focus on the many benefits of soy.

Soy is one of the very few plant proteins that is complete, meaning that is contains all the essential amino acids we need to build muscle and other important proteins like immunoglobulins. It is also high in fiber and is a good source of healthy polyunsaturated fatty acids and essential nutrients like folate, iron, and magnesium. When you include the phytoestrogens found in minimally processed soy products, soy consumption is associated with:

  • Lower LDL cholesterol and a reduced risk of heart disease.
  • Bone health.
  • A strong immune system.
  • A reduction in menopause symptoms.

The Bottom Line

  • It is time to put the myth that soy increases breast cancer risk to rest and focus on the many health benefits of soy. This myth is based on cell culture and animal studies, and those studies were inconclusive.
  • Multiple clinical studies have shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer risk, or that it reduces the risk.
  • Multiple clinical studies have also shown that soy either has no effect on breast cancer recurrence in women who are breast cancer survivors, or that it reduces recurrence.
  • The most recent clinical study is fully consistent with previous studies. It reports:
    • There was a 21% decrease in all-cause mortality for women who had the highest soy consumption compared to those with the lowest soy consumption.
    • The protective effect of soy was strongest for those women who had receptor negative breast cancer. This is significant because receptor-negative breast cancer is associated with poorer survival rates than hormone receptor-positive cases.
    • The protective effect was also greatest (35% reduction in all-cause mortality) for women with the highest soy consumption following breast cancer diagnosis. This suggests that soy may play an important role in breast cancer survival.
  • No clinical studies have provided any evidence to support the claim that soy increases either breast cancer risk or breast cancer recurrence.

For more information on this study and the benefits of soy consumption read the article above.

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

__________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading Biochemistry textbooks for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

by

What Is The Truth About Meat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Vegans will tell you that any meat is bad for you. Keto enthusiasts haven’t found a meat they don’t like. To them grains and most fruits and vegetables are the problem.

But what about those of us who aren’t at either extreme? Which meat, if any, should be part of a healthy diet? And how much of them should we eat?

For years the paradigm had been clear:

  • Fish was best, especially fish rich in omega-3s. They were good for your heart and your brain. And some studies suggested that high intake of omega-3-rich fish might help you live longer.
  • Poultry and other white meats were neutral.
  • Red meat was probably bad for you. It was high in saturated fat and cholesterol, and some studies linked it to an increased risk of heart disease. Plus, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, listed it as a probable carcinogen. [Note: Recent studies have questioned concerns about red meat. I will discuss this below.]
  • Processed meats were considered a “no-no” The IARC listed processed meat as a definite carcinogen for humans based on studies linking it to colon, stomach, lung, and pancreatic cancers. It is also linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

However, most of these studies were done in the United States. And our diet is very different from that of many other countries.

That’s why a recent study (R Iqbal et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 114:1049-1058, 2021) caught my eye. The study was designed to measure the association between unprocessed red meat & poultry and processed meat intake with the risk both mortality and major cardiovascular disease with cancer as a secondary end point. And the study used data from 21 countries around the world except the United States.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe authors used data from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The study is a large-scale (164,007 individuals), prospective (meaning it follows the individuals over time rather than taking measurements from them at a single time) study. The individuals in the study were aged 35-70 years and were followed for an average of 9.5 years.

The individuals came from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

  • The low-income countries included Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.
  • The middle-income countries included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Iran, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey.
  • The high-income countries included Canada, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates. [Note: The United States was not included in the study.]

At the beginning of the study and at 3, 6, and 9 years the following data were collected from everyone enrolled in the study.

  • Demographic information (age, sex, location, education, wealth index, and smoking status).
  • Lifestyle information (diet and physical activity).
  • Health history.
  • Medication use.
  • Cardiovascular events and mortality.

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

The authors compared high intake of processed meats (5 ounces per week, the equivalent of two sausages/week) with zero intake of processed meats. They reported that high intake of processed meats increased the risk of:

  • Mortality by 51%.
  • Major cardiovascular disease by 46%.
  • Non-cardiovascular mortality by 50%
  • Cancer by 84%.
  • Heart attack by 62%.
  • Stroke by 56%.

Furthermore, even as little as 1.5 ounces of processed meat per week significantly increased the risk of mortality.

For red meat and poultry, the authors compared high intake (9 ounces per week) with low intake (2 ounces per week). For both red meat and poultry they did not find any association between high weekly intake and any of the health outcomes.

[I would note however, that many Americans consume 4 ounces of chicken or an 8-ounce steak at dinner – that’s one meal on one day. The corresponding weekly intake would be 28 ounces of chicken or 56 ounces of red meat. That’s significantly higher than the highest weekly intake used in this study.]

The authors concluded, “We observed no significant association between the consumption of unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and health outcomes. And higher intake of processed meat was associated with higher risks of mortality and cardiovascular disease. These findings may indicate that limiting the intake of processed meat should be encouraged.”

In my opinion, there are so many studies linking the consumption of processed meat with heart disease, cancer, and premature death that the last sentence of their conclusion should have said, “These findings unambiguously confirm that limiting the intake of processed meats should be encouraged.”

What Is The Truth About Meat? 

truthRed Meat:

Yes, there is a lot of confusion about red meat. Many studies, like this one, find no adverse health effects associated with red meat consumption. That has led many experts to conclude that the dangers of red meat have been greatly exaggerated.

I think we should dig a little deeper. Most of the studies showing that red meat consumption increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and mortality have been done in this country. So, perhaps we should be asking what is different about red meat consumption in our country.

There are several factors to consider:

  • Cooking Methods: The authors of this article pointed out that we often grill our meat at high temperatures which causes the formation of cancer-causing chemicals, while many of the countries in the PURE database stew their red meat at much lower temperatures.
  • Diet Context: As I have explained in a previous article of Health Tips From the Professor, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are the antidotes to the cancer-causing chemicals formed when we cook red meat. And they bind to cholesterol in the intestine and flush it out of the body. Finally, they dilute the saturated fat in red meat with polyunsaturated fats, which helps create a healthier balance of fats.

In this country we often pair our steaks with French fries or a baked potato loaded with butter and sour cream. However, in low- and middle-income countries red meat is an expensive luxury and is often used as a garnish to dishes containing lots of vegetables and whole grains.

  • Amount Consumed: As a mentioned above, the amount of red meat most Americans consume in a week far exceeds the highest weekly intake of red meat in this study. The highest weekly consumption of red meat in this study is more consistent with using red meat as a garnish than as a main course.

Poultry:

For poultry, there is no confusion. Studies done in this country also find no association between poultry consumption and cardiovascular disease, cancer, or mortality. That may be due to a healthier fat profile and the ways in which poultry is usually cooked.

Processed Meat:

For processed meat, there is also no confusion. Virtually every published study from across the world agrees that it increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, and premature death. And the effect is not trivial. This study suggests that just 2 sausages a week is enough to increase your risk of premature death by 50%! So, the answer to the question, “Will processed meat kill you?” appears to be, “Yes”.

The authors of this article pointed out that the saturated fat and cholesterol in processed meat and red meat were very similar. They didn’t mention it, but the cooking techniques are also similar. So, neither of these explain why processed meat is so bad for us.

However, the amounts of preservatives and food additives in processed and unprocessed meats differ greatly. Based on this, the authors of the study and many other experts postulate that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks of processed meats.

What Does this Mean For You? 

This study agrees with many other studies showing that processed meats are bad for us. The authors recommend limiting your intake of processed meats.

However, their data show that as little as two strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half a large sausage per week significantly increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death. Based on that, my advice would be to avoid processed meats as much as possible.

As I described above, most experts feel that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks associated with processed meats.

Some studies suggest that nitrates in processed meats may be the main culprit. Based on that belief, some food companies are offering nitrate-free processed meats as a healthier option.

However, there still may be some additives in nitrate-free processed meats (read the label carefully), and we have no clinical studies showing that the nitrate-free processed meats in the marketplace are good for us.

Red meat is more confusing. This study and others suggest it poses no health hazards. And many experts are telling you that the warnings about consuming red meat were overblown. They are telling you that red meat is good for you.

However, some studies suggest that red meat increases your risk of heart disease, cancer and premature death. When you examine the data behind the studies, I think that better advice would be that red meat can be good for you or bad for you depending on three factors:

  • Portion size: We should think of red meat as a garnish rather than a main course – 3-4 ounces is a healthy portion size. 8-12 ounces may be too much.
  • Cooking method: Many of the bad things associated with red meat are the result of high temperature cooking, especially over a flame or on a grill. Choose low temperature cooking methods whenever possible.
  • Diet context: Whole fruits, vegetables and whole grains are the antidotes to all the bad things associated with red meat. 3-4 ounces of red meat in a vegetable stir fry or green salad is likely to be much better for you than an 8-ounce steak with French fries.

Also, red meat already has more than enough saturated fat and cholesterol. Adding foods or sauces high in fat and cholesterol may overload the body’s ability to safely process them. But adding vegetables or vegetable oils helps to restore a better balance between good and bad fats.

Finally, this and other studies agree that white meat is healthy. My only advice is:

  • Avoid white meat that has been fried (especially by fast food restaurants that only change their oil every 20,000 miles) or cooked with fatty sauces.
  • Think of the whole diet rather than just the protein source. White meat will be the healthiest as part of a whole food, primarily plant-based diet.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study reported that eating as 5 ounces of processed foods per week increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death by 50%. That is equivalent to two sausages per week!) The authors of the study recommended that you limit your intake of processed meats.

However, the study showed that even as little as 1.5 ounces (2 strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half of a large sausage) per week significantly increases your risk of all three. Based on that data, my recommendation is to consider avoiding processed meat altogether.

The study reported that unprocessed red and white meat are not associated with increased health risks. I put those findings into the context of other published studies on the topic. I discuss my recommendations for unprocessed red and white meat in the article above.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Are GLP-1 Drugs Just A Temporary Fix?

by

Why Does The Weight Come Back?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

It is no secret that obesity has become an epidemic in this country. According to the CDC:

  • The prevalence of obesity topped 40% in 2023.
    • This represents a 3-fold increase over the past 60 years. [Note: Genetics doesn’t change that fast. This is a lifestyle disease.]
    • Severe obesity has increased by 26% in just the last 9 years!

And obesity is deadly:

  • It significantly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and several types of cancer.
  • Severe obesity reduces life expectancy by 10-14 years!

It is no wonder that GLP-1 drugs have been hailed as a medical miracle.

  • Participants in clinical trials of GLP-1 drugs lose 15-20% of their body within 15-18 months.
  • Because GLP-1 drugs affect appetite, they don’t require participants to make any hard lifestyle changes [Hint: This is part of the problem.]

But studies show that most people stay on GLP-1 drugs for 12 months or less.

  • In some cases, that is because minor side effects (nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and stomach pain) become too much of an annoyance over time.
  • In other cases, the cost of GLP-1 drugs becomes too much of a burden over time.
  • And weight loss often plateaus at around 12 months, reducing the incentive to stay on the drug.

It is probably a good thing that most people don’t stay on GLP-1 drugs long term because the risk of serious side effects (severe muscle loss, depression, suicidal thoughts) is cumulative. Those risks increase with long-term drug usage.

But what happens when someone discontinues a GLP-1 drug. Does the weight stay off, or does it come roaring back. In short, are GLP-1 drugs just another “yo-yo” diet fad?

In this article, I will address four questions:

#1: Are GLP-1 drugs just a temporary fix?

#2: Why does the weight come back?

#3: Would supplementation make a difference?

#4: What does this mean for you?

I will answer the first question by reviewing a recently published study. For questions 2 and 3 I will refer to studies I reviewed in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Question 4 will represent my best advice to anyone who wants to lose significant weight and keep it off.

Are GLP-1 Drugs A Temporary Fix?

This study (S West et al, The British Medical Journal, 392:e085304, 2026) was a systematic review of 37 studies with 9,341 participants that looked at weight regain following weight loss with GLP-1 and similar drugs. The average length of weight-loss treatment in these studies was 39 (11-176) weeks followed by an average follow-up period of 32 (4-104) weeks.

The data were compared with data obtained from a previous study by the same authors of weight regain following behavioral (diet and exercise) change weight management programs.

What the authors found was:

  • Weight regain following GLP-1-aided weight loss was almost a pound per month, which is 4 times faster than weight regain following weight loss for patients on behavioral management programs.
    • Based on these numbers, weight was projected to return to the starting point within 1.5 years for the GLP-1-aided weight loss compared to 3.9 years following behavioral change programs.
  • Markers of disease risk (hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and triglycerides) were projected to return to the starting level within 1.4 years for GLP-1-aided weight loss compared to 5 years following behavioral change programs.
  • Weight regain was faster following GLP-1-aided weight loss than following behavioral modification, independent of the extent of initial weight loss.

The authors concluded, “This review found that cessation of WMM (weight management medications) is followed by rapid regain and reversal of beneficial effects on cardiovascular markers. Regain after WMM was faster than after BWMP (behavioral weight management programs). These findings suggest caution in…use of these drugs without a more comprehensive approach to weight management.”

The authors went on to say, “This evidence suggests that despite their success in achieving initial weight loss, these drugs alone may not be sufficient for long term weight control.”

Why Does The Weight Come Back?

Confused DoctorI addressed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is an excerpt from that article:

The miracle of GLP-1 drugs is that they suppress appetite, which makes it much easier to lose weight.

  • Snacks are no longer appealing.
  • Large portion sizes leave you feeling bloated.
  • It’s easy to skip meals because you just aren’t hungry.

You no longer have to struggle to eat less. It just comes naturally. But this miracle is also a snare.

Because GLP-1 is a drug, not a diet plan, it’s dispensed like any other drug.

  • Your doctor gives you a GLP-1 prescription. If you are lucky, they may give you a “one-size-fits-all” handout on how to lose weight while you are using it. For example, in a recent study:
    • Only 20% of patients were referred by their doctor to a dietitian. The other 80% received little or no information on how to change their diet and lifestyle.
  • When you pick up the drug from the pharmacy, you get a package insert listing the side effects but no information on how to change your diet.
  • And GLP-1 drugs are increasingly sold online where you are given even less information about diet and lifestyle change.

The results are predictable:

A recent study (S Hrisakeva et al, Journal of Marketing Research, December 18, 2025) looked at the grocery buying habits of GLP-1 users.

The study found that:

  • The initial change in food purchases was positive.
    • By 6 months of GLP-1 use, grocery spending fell 5.3%, with a notable decrease of snack, sweet, and fast-food purchases.
  • But the improved eating habits were short-lived.
    • After stopping GLP-1 use, 33% of former GLP-1 users reverted to their previous food purchase habits.
    • Even worse, many of them ended up with less healthy food purchases than before they started.
    • For example, spending on candy and chocolate increased, suggesting that their cravings came back stronger than before they started on GLP-1 drugs.

Would Supplementation Help?

MultivitaminsWhenever you significantly decrease caloric intake, you increase the risk of nutritional deficiencies.

Simply put, every bite counts. When you cut calories, you need to select nutrient dense foods. But that is advice no one is giving GLP-1 users. Again, the results are predictable.

In a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, I reviewed a recent study on the nutritional adequacy of the diets of GLP-1 users.

That study found that:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.
  • Their diets were low in fiber (14 grams). This is half the recommended intake of fiber.
  • Their diets were deficient for calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, choline, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin D, and vitamin E.
    • Long term suboptimal nutrient intakes can have health consequences, but these are deficiencies that can easily be prevented by taking a high-quality multivitamin/multimineral supplement.
  • Only 10% were consuming enough protein to prevent the loss of muscle mass associated with GLP-1 use for weight loss, and loss of muscle is a concerning issue.
    • Most seniors are already struggling to maintain muscle mass.
    • Loss of muscle mass decreases basal metabolic rate (the rate at which your body burns calories 24 hours a day). This may help explain the rapid weight gain following discontinuation of GLP-1 drugs.

What Does This Mean For You?

QuestionsGLP-1 drugs may seem like a modern medical miracle. You can effortlessly lose significant weight (15-20% of your starting weight) within a year and a half. But there are two important questions you face.

#1: When you discontinue the GLP-1 drug, what happens next?

  • If you stay on the drug, your cumulative risk of serious side effects increases over time – plus you are saddled with burdensome costs for a lifetime.
  • If you discontinue the drug without a commitment to permanent lifestyle change (both diet and exercise), your weight will come back – along with the weight-associated risk of serious diseases.

So, my recommendations are obvious. Either:

  • Choose programs that include lifestyle change along with GLP-1 drugs, or…
  • Enroll in a lifestyle change program and add GLP-1 for additional weight loss once you have become comfortable with your new lifestyle.

And, of course, you should commit to permanent lifestyle change, so you can successfully maintain your new, healthy weight once you have discontinued the GLP-1 drug,

#2: What should you do while on GLP-1 drugs? There are two major concerns to consider:

  • Whenever you severely restrict caloric intake, you may have trouble achieving the recommended intake of essential vitamins and minerals.
    • This is why it is important to select nutrient-dense foods while on GLP-1 drugs – another way of saying the lifestyle change should go hand in hand with GLP-1 drug use.
    • This is also why a well-designed multivitamin/multimineral supplement is especially important while on GLP-1 drugs.
  • Whenever you lose weight quickly, you tend to lose muscle mass – and GLP-1 drugs seem to increase the rate of muscle loss.
    • Most experts recommend 60-90 grams of protein per day to minimize muscle loss while on GLP-1 drugs. That protein should be spread evenly across meals to maximize absorption and utilization of the protein – which amounts to 20-30 grams of protein per meal. So, my recommendations are:
      • Focus on high-protein foods like lean meats, eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, tofu, and legumes. Once again, you need to make every bite count.
      • Because GLP-1 drugs significantly reduce your appetite, getting all the protein you need high-protein foods will be difficult. This is where protein supplements can play an important role. Choose supplements that are high in protein and low in calories without relying on artificial ingredients.
      • And, of course, don’t forget the exercise component. Remember the simple equation: Adequate protein + exercise = muscle

The Bottom Line

GLP-1 drugs seem like a modern medical miracle. They allow you to effortlessly lose significant weight and reduce the disease risks associated with obesity.

But does that weight stay off once you discontinue using the GLP-1 drugs? The drug companies would like you to think so. But a recent study suggests that it isn’t true.

The study shows that most people regain the weight, and the associated health risks, within a year and a half of discontinuing GLP-1 drugs. In other words, this study suggests that GLP-1 weight loss is no different than the yo-yo diets of the past.

In this article I review the study and discuss why the weight returns, what role supplements may play, and what this means for you if you are considering a GLP-1 drug for weight loss.

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

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

 ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading Biochemistry textbooks for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

by

Eating For A Healthy Planet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Earth DayEarth Day is tomorrow. So, it is time for my annual reminder that what you eat affects a lot more than just your health. It also affects the health of our planet. Once again, it’s time to ask yourself, “Could what you eat save the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment?

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can The Foods You Eat Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Factory FarmWhen they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
    • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
    • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
    • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
    • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
    • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

Food ChoicesWhen they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
    • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.
    • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. 

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.] 

    • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eating For A Healthy Planet

Planetary DietIn the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Did The Commission Recommend About Food Production?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.

2) Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.

3) Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would           be two-fold:

  • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
  • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

The short answer is, “Yes, what we eat can go a long way towards protecting the health of our planet.”

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak on occasion, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Could what you eat save the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

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.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Can Folate Prevent Obesity In Adolescents?

by

When Pigs Fly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

obesity is toxicThe obesity epidemic has reached our children!

  • The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has increased 3-fold in the past 30 years.

According to the CDC:

  • In 2023 almost 20% of US children and adolescents (ages 6-17) were obese.
    • And if you expand the category to overweight AND obese the percentage is over 30%.
  • The medical costs for treating obese children and adolescents in 2023 was $1.3 billion. That’s:
    • $116 higher per person for obese children than children of normal weight.
    • $310 higher per person for severely obese children than children of normal weight.

In the short-term, obesity in children and adolescents affects:

  • Growth
  • Hormone balance.
  • Self-image and psychological wellness.

Longer term, obesity in children and adolescents increases the risk of:

  • Heart Disease.
  • Diabetes and other metabolic disorders.
  • Certain cancers.
  • Premature death.

That’s why recent headlines suggesting that folate decreases the risk of obesity in children and adolescents were so intriguing.

  • We know that around 13% of boys and 40% of girls aged 12-15 have inadequate folate intake.
  • Could something as simple as a folate supplement decrease the risk of your child or teenager becoming obese?

Maybe. But before you rush out and buy folate supplements for your children, perhaps we should examine the study (F Yan et al. BMC Pediatrics, 26: 141, 2026) behind the headlines and see if there is a simpler explanation of the data.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study utilized data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) that is conducted by the CDC on a continuous basis. This particular study utilized data collected from 49,693 Americans of all ages and ethnicities between 2009 and 2018.

For this study, children were classified as ages 6-11 years (4458 individuals) and adolescents as ages 12-19 years (4946 individuals).

Dietary folate intake was calculated from two 24-hour dietary recalls spaced 3-10 days apart.

  • The data only included folates from food sources and did not include any dietary supplements.
  • The first dietary recall interview was conducted in person and the second by phone.
  • Daily folate intake was calculated as folate intake in mcg per 1,000 calories of food (mcg/1,000 calories).
  • Finally, the participants were divided into quartiles: Q1 <143, Q2 143-182, Q3 182-235, Q4 ≥235, all in units of mcg/1,000 calories.

The study correlated folate intake with both overall overweight/obesity and central obesity.

  • Overweight/obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ than the sex- and age-specific 85Th percentile for BMI.
  • Central obesity was defined as a waist circumference ≥ than the sex- and age-specific 90th percentile corrected for height.

Can Folate Prevent Obesity In Adolescents?

folic acidThe data appeared to be convincing. For example:

In the total population of children plus adolescents (9,405 individuals):

  • Folate intake was negatively corelated with obesity.
  • When folate intake was analyzed as a continuous variable, for every unit increase of dietary folate intake:
    • The percentage of overweight/obese children and adolescents decreased by 11%.
    • The percentage of children and adolescents with central obesity decreased by 13%.
  • When folate intake was analyzed by quartiles.
    • When quartile 2 (folate intake of 143-182) was compared to quartile 1 (folate intake <143), overweight/obesity decreased by 26% and central obesity by 23%.
    • When quartile 3 (folate intake of 182-235) was compared to quartile 1, overweight/obesity decreased by 29% and central obesity by 26%.
    • When quartile 4 (folate intake ≥235) was compared to quartile 1, overweight/obesity decreased by 35% and central obesity decreased by 36%.

As you might have guessed from the previous data, the effect of folate on the risk of obesity/overweight and central obesity was non-linear. There was an inflection point around 192 mcg/1,000 calories.

    • When folate intake was below 192 mcg/1,000 calories, an increase of 100 mcg/1,000 calories decreased the risk of overweight/obesity and central obesity by 35%.
    • When folate intake was above 192 mcg/1,000 calories, the effect of additional folate intake was not statistically significant.

When they broke down the data by age and gender:

  • The effect of folate intake on overweight/obesity and central obesity was not significant in children.
  • However, the effect of folate intake on overweight/obesity and central obesity was highly significant in adolescents and the effect was gender specific.
    • When comparing folate intake in the Q4 range (≥235 mcg/1,000 calories) to the Q1 range (<143 mcg/1,000 calories) overweight/obesity:
      • Was reduced by 47% in men and 50% in women.
    • When comparing folate intake in the Q4 range to the Q1 range central obesity:
      • Was reduced by 58% in women, but no statistically significant decrease was seen in men.

The authors concluded, “This cross-sectional study indicates that higher dietary folate is associated with lower odds of overweight/obesity and central obesity in children and adolescents in the United States. The association exhibits non-linear characteristics with potential thresholds of 190 mcg/1,000 calories and 195 mcg/1,000 calories, respectively. It is worth noting that this association is mainly significant in the adolescent population. This study reveals a possible dose-response relationship between dietary folate and obesity in children and adolescents.”

When Pigs Fly

If Pigs Could FlyIt would be easy to accept the conclusions of these authors at face value. After all, the statistical correlation between higher folate intake and the risk of obesity in adolescents was very strong.

And the authors invoked a lot of impressive sounding metabolic mumbo-jumbo to explain how folate could affect appetite and body weight. [I’m qualified to call it mumbo-jumbo because I taught human metabolism to medical students for 40 years.]

You might be tempted to rush out and buy a folate supplement for your teenager, especially if they are starting to get a bit plump. But then, you might think, “Wait. It couldn’t be that simple. It just doesn’t sound plausible that folate intake has anything to do with obesity”.

The 16th century English and Scotts had a phrase for impossible events. They were things that only happened “When pigs fly”. The original version of the saying was, “When pigs fly with their tails forward.” In other words, the pigs were not only flying. They were flying backwards.

What Could Go Wrong?

SkepticAs I said above, the inverse association between folate intake and obesity in adolescents was very strong. What could go wrong? As Mark Twain said years ago, “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.” Let me explain.

This was an association study. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (folate intake) and an outcome (obesity). But, for the results to be reliable they need to be corrected for other variables that affect the same outcome. There are two kinds of variables – known variables and confounding variables.

  • The known variables for this study were age, sex, race, poverty level, physical activity, and total energy intake. They were all corrected for in this study.
  • “Confounding variables” are unknown variables that also affect the outcome of the study. But since they are unknown, they are not corrected for.

Let me give you a simplistic example of a confounding variable. Let’s say you were doing a study of dietary habits, and you found an association between ice cream consumption and mortality. You might conclude that ice cream consumption is bad for you. It increases your risk of dying.

But then you might remember that ice cream consumption increases during the summer. And then you might reason that people swim more during the summer, and there is a correlation between swimming and drowning deaths.

Swimming could be a confounding variable. To make sure that your initial conclusion that ice cream increases the risk of dying was correct, you would need to correct your data for swimming deaths during the summer and see if you still found a correlation between ice cream consumption and mortality.

In this study there was an inverse correlation between folate consumption and energy intake (calories consumed per day). The authors focused on the decreased energy intake associated with high folate intake. They postulated several mechanisms to explain this correlation, but their arguments were weak.

They should have been focusing on the other end of the spectrum. Adolescents in the lowest quartile of folate intake were consuming 10% more calories than those in the top quartile, yet their folate intake was 65% less.

The authors should have been asking, “How do you consume 10% more calories and end up with 65% less folate?” The answer is obvious.

  • The adolescents in the lowest quartile must be consuming a lot more highly processed foods – otherwise know as junk and convenience foods.

So, let’s ask what else we know about the situation:

  • Adolescents like to eat junk food.
  • There is strong correlation between consumption of highly processed foods and obesity.
  • The mechanisms underlying the correlation between highly processed foods and obesity have been well defined, and they have nothing to do with folate intake.
  • Highly processed food consumption was an obvious confounding variable, but the authors never asked what foods the adolescents in each folate quartile were eating.

This is sounding a lot like the correlation between ice cream consumption and death. The pigs are flying.

So, if you want your teens to be slim and healing, don’t reach for a folate supplement. Instead, try to convince your teens to cut back on their junk food consumption.

The Bottom Line

A recent study found a strong inverse association between folate intake and obesity in adolescents. For example:

  • When the highest folate intake was compared to the lowest, the risk of overweight and obesity was decreased by 35%.

However, you can’t believe every published study. In this case, the authors made a critical mistake in interpreting their data. The actual interpretation of their data should have been much different.

For more details about this study, what the study should have concluded, and what the study means for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

 

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

 

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

Is It Too Late To Save Your Mind?

by

What Does A Brain Healthy Diet Look Like?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Memory loss due to Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease with the medical icon of a tree in the shape of a human head and brain losing leaves.

Age-related cognitive decline is increasing at an alarming rate. For example:

  • Newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease in Americans over 65 reached 6.5 million in 2022.
  • That’s expected to double by 2060.

We have known for years that a whole food, primarily plant-based diet significantly reduces the risk of cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s.

But in our 20s and 30s we tend to ignore that advice. We feel immortal. Aging is something that affects our grandparents – not us.

When we reach our 40s and 50s reality kicks in. Some of our parents, aunts, and uncles start to show symptoms of cognitive decline. Some of our grandparents are suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s. Maybe we aren’t immortal.

We start to think about changing to a healthier diet and lifestyle. But then the troubling thoughts creep in. “Is it too late? Should I have made those changes in my 20s? Has that ship already sailed?”

A recent study (Y Song et al, Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 2023) was designed to answer that question

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors used data from the New York University Women’s Health Study. They studied 5116 women (average age = 46) who enrolled in the study between 1985 and 1991 and were followed for an average of 33 years (average age at the end of the study = 79).

At the beginning of the study, each participant filled out a questionnaire about demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, income, education, and marital status), physical activity, reproductive history, cancer history, and medication use. They also filled out a food frequency questionnaire.

Using the foods reported in the food frequency questionnaires, the scientist rated each woman with respect to adherence to the DASH diet. The women were then separated into quartiles based on their adherence to the DASH diet.

The participants filled out follow-up questionnaires every 3-5 years. Those who did not return the questionnaires were contacted by phone. The last two follow-up questionnaires included a survey of subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) such as:

  • Recent changes in the ability to remember things.
  • Difficulty remembering recent events.
  • Difficulty remembering a short list of items, such as a shopping list.
  • Difficulty understanding or following spoken instructions.
  • Difficulty following a group conversation or a plot in a TV program.
  • Difficulty navigating familiar streets.

Previous studies have shown that the SCCs survey is an accurate predictor of future dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Finally, the scientists looked at the correlation between adherence to the DASH diet at age 46 with the number of subjective cognitive complaints at age 79.

Is It Too Late To Save Your Mind?

This is what the authors reported:

  • There was an inverse association between adherence to foods in the DASH diet (which was called “DASH adherence” by the authors of this study) at age 46 and subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) at age 79.
  • Women in the highest quartile of DASH adherence at age 46 had a 17% reduction in 2 or more SCCs at age 79.
  • Every quartile increase in DASH adherence increased the risk of 2 or more SCCs by 7%.

The most frequently reported SCCs were:

  • Recent changes in the ability to remember things (40%).
  • Difficulty remembering a short list of items (19%).
  • Difficulty remembering recent events (17%).

When they looked at the effect of different foods on SCCs (subjective cognitive complaints):

  • Consumption of sweets, red meat, and processed meats were associated with an increased risk of SCCs, with sweets having the largest effect.
  • Consumption of fruits, vegetables excluding potatoes, legumes and nuts were associated with a decreased risk of SCCs at age 79, with fruits having the largest effect.

There were two other findings of interest:

  • The effect of DASH adherence was stronger for Black women than for White women.
  • The protective effect of DASH adherence was stronger in women with no previous history of cancer.

The authors concluded, “We found that a higher level of adherence to the DASH diet in mid-life was associated with lower SCCs later in life among women. These findings suggest that improvements in diet quality in mid-life…may have a role in maintaining an optimal subjective cognition among women…”

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Questioning WomanLet me start by putting this study into perspective:

  • The strength of this study is that it has the longest follow-up period (33 years) and most diverse population of any study on this topic.
  • It is consistent with several previous studies with shorter follow-up periods, including the Nurses Health Study which also looked at the effect of DASH adherence at mid-life on SCCs later in life.
  • Several studies have shown that the Mediterranean diet protects against cognitive decline. And one recent study showed that mid-life adherence to the Mediterranean diet also offers similar protection against late-life cognitive decline in men.
    • This suggests that any whole food, primarily plant-based eating pattern, is likely to offer similar benefits. That is important because most of us find it easier to focus on foods rather than rigid diets.
  • Three studies that just compared DASH adherence and SCCs when subjects were already in their 60s to 90s, found no protective effect of DASH adherence.
    • This suggests that if we wait until old age and are already starting to experience mental decline, switching to a healthier diet may not be as beneficial for protecting our mind as we would like it to be. However, I would never advise anyone to just throw up their hands and say, “I might as well eat what I like and die happy.” That’s because:
      • Healthy dietary patterns have a multitude of health benefits. Cognitive benefits are just the tip of the iceberg.
      • Statistics report averages, and none of us are average. Some people will experience much better cognitive benefits than others by switching to a healthier diet, even if they wait until their “golden years” to do so.
  • There aren’t any clinical studies looking at adherence to a healthy diet in our 20s or 30s and cognitive outcomes in our 70s. The time span is just too great for clinical studies.
    • So, while we can confidently say, “It’s not too late to save your mind” by switching to a healthier diet pattern like DASH or Mediterranean in middle age, there are no clinical studies showing we might get even better results if we started eating healthy in our 20s or 30s. However, logic tells us that is a likely outcome.
  • This and most studies on this topic have been done with women. That’s because two thirds of Alzheimer’s patients are women.
    • However, the few studies that have been done with men have reported similar results. So, guys, this affects us too.
  • Finally, the fact that DASH adherence was more effective in women who have not had a cancer diagnosis is interesting.
    • In my opinion this is likely because many cancer treatments leave residual “brain fog” and increase the risk of cognitive decline as we age. As someone who spent his life in cancer research, I consider a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle vitally important in helping the body recover from the ravages of cancer treatment.

What Does A Brain-Healthy Diet Look Like? 

According to the most recent US News & World Health ratings of the best diets in various categories, the top 4 diets for brain health are:

  • MIND diet (The MIND diet combines the best of the Mediterranean and DASH diets with an emphasis on brain healthy foods such as berries.)
  • Mediterranean diet.
  • Flexitarian diet (a flexible version of a semi-vegetarian diet).
  • DASH diet.

My Comments:

  • All four diets are whole food, primarily plant-based diets.
  • Although the MIND diet was specifically designed for brain health, it does not perform significantly better than the Mediterranean and DASH diets in slowing cognitive decline.

Of course, most people prefer to think in terms of foods rather than diets. In terms of brain-healthy foods, a recent Harvard Health Review suggests these are the foods we should emphasize for brain health:

  • Green Leafy Vegetables: Kale, spinach, broccoli, and collards are rich in brain-healthy nutrients like vitamin K, lutein, folate, and beta-carotene.
  • Fatty Fish: Salmon, trout, sardines, and mackerel provide omega-3 fatty acids, which are crucial for brain function and for reducing dementia risk.
  • Berries: Blueberries, strawberries, and blackberries contain antioxidants that have been shown to delay cognitive decline.
  • Nuts and Seeds: Walnuts are high in omega-3 fatty acids (ALA), while others provide vitamin E.
  • Healthy Fats: Olive oil is recommended as the primary cooking fat.
  • Whole Grains and Legumes: Oats, quinoa, beans, and lentils provide a steady, slow release of glucose for brain energy. Plus, their fiber supports the growth of friendly bacteria that produce brain-healthy nutrients (This is sometimes referred to as the gut-brain axis).
  • Other Foods: Avocados (monounsaturated fats), beets (nitrates for blood flow), and cocoa (flavonoids) are beneficial.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study showed that adherence to a healthy eating pattern like the DASH diet at middle age can help protect our brain from cognitive decline 30 years later.

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Can You Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease By 90%?

by

The Effect Of Ultra-Processed Foods On Heart Disease Risk
 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

strong heartHeart disease is a killer. It continues to be the leading cause of death – both worldwide and in industrialized countries like the United States and the European Union. When we look at heart disease trends, it is a good news – bad news situation.

  • The good news is that heart disease deaths are continuing to decline in adults over 70.
    • The decline among senior citizens is attributed to improved treatment of heart disease and more seniors following heart-healthy diets.
  • The bad news is that heart disease deaths are starting to increase in younger adults, something I reported in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From the Professor.”
    • The reason for the rise in heart disease deaths in young people is less clear. However, the obesity epidemic, junk and convenience foods, and the popularity of fad diets all likely play a role.

Everyone has a magic diet to reduce the risk of heart disease. The American Heart Association tells us to avoid fats, especially saturated fats. Vegans tell us to avoid animal protein. Paleo and Keto enthusiasts tell us carbs are the problem.

But what if we eliminated junk and convenience food AND switched to a really healthy diet? How much would that reduce heart disease risk? A recent study (Y Willett et al, The American Journal of Medicine, in press, 2026) looked at the first part of that question. It looked at the effect of ultra-processed food (what we call junk and convenience foods) consumption on the risk of developing heart disease.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe scientists analyzed data from 4787 participants in the most recently published (2021 to 2023) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The average age of participants in the survey was 55 years, with 56% of them being women.

All the participants in this study had completed a dietary survey of everything they ate over the last two days. They also reported whether they had ever experienced a heart attack or stroke.

Ultra-processed foods were defined as foods that are industrially modified and loaded with added fats, sugars, starches, salts, and chemical additives.

The percentage of ultra-processed foods in their diet was calculated, and the participants were divided into quartiles based on the percentage of ultra-processed foods they consumed.

Participants with the highest quartile of ultra-processed food consumption were compared to those in the lowest quartile with respect to the risk of cardiovascular disease (self-reported heart attack or stroke). The data were corrected for age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and income.

The Effect Of Ultra-Processed Foods On Heart Disease Risk

Fast Food DangersThe results were striking:

  • The participants in the highest quartile for ultra-processed food consumption had a 47% higher risk of heart disease compared to those in the lowest quartile for ultra-processed food consumption.

The authors concluded, “Adults who consumed the highest amount of ultra-processed foods had a statistically significant 47% increased risk of heart disease. Large scale randomized trials are needed, but in the meantime, health care providers should advise patients to decrease consumption of ultra-processed foods in addition to adopting other therapeutic lifestyle changes and adjunctive drug therapies of proven benefit.”

The authors recognized the difficulty of making those changes in a world where ultra-processed foods are ubiquitous and cheap.

However, they drew parallels to tobacco use in this country. They said, “Just as it took decades for the dangers of smoking to become widely accepted, reducing reliance on ultra-processed foods may take time. This is partly due to the influence of large multinational companies that dominate the food market. In addition, many people face limited access to healthier food options.”

They went on to say, “Addressing ultra-processed foods isn’t just about individual choices – it’s about creating environments where the healthy option is the easy option.”

Can You Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease By 90%?

The short answer is, “probably not”. But you can reduce the risk of heart disease by a lot – and probably by a lot more than 47%.

That’s because this study did not look at what the participants were replacing the ultra-processed foods with. Some participants may have replaced them with whole food, primarily plant-based diets. Others may have replaced ultra-processed foods with whole food, meat-based diets high in saturated fats.

So, let’s look at the other side of the equation – how much you can reduce your risk of heart disease by eating a healthier diet. In a recent issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, I reviewed a meta-analysis published in 2022 that looked at 99 clinical studies with tens of thousands of participants that measured the associations between foods or food groups and heart disease risk.

That study reported that:

  • Processed Meat: A single serving of processed meat increased heart disease risk by 27% to 44%.
  • Red Meat: Unprocessed red meat increased heart disease risk by as much as 27% – but only at ≥3 servings per day. The results with lower intakes were inconsistent – some studies showed increased risk, but others did not.
  • Poultry, Eggs, and Dairy Foods: They did not appear to affect heart disease risk.
  • Fish: Two to four servings per week of fatty fish decreased heart disease risk by around 12%.
  • Fruit: Two servings per day of fruit reduced heart disease risk by 21-32%.Vegan Foods
  • Vegetables: Two servings of vegetables per day reduced heart disease risk by 18-21%.
  • Legumes (beans and peas): Four servings per week reduced the risk of heart disease by around 14%.
  • Nuts: One serving (a handful) per day reduced the risk of heart disease by around 25%. 
  • Whole Grains: Two servings of whole grains per day reduced the risk of heart disease by 25%-34%.
  • Overall: When heart-healthy foods were consumed as part of the Mediterranean diet heart disease risk was reduced by 47%. Similar overall reductions in heart disease risk are likely with other heart-healthy diets like DASH, MIND, Flexitarian (flexible semi-vegetarian), and vegan diets.

In summary:

  • The first study shows that eliminating ultra-processed foods (junk and convenience foods) from your diet can decrease heart disease risk by 47% – but doesn’t tell us what the ultra-processed foods were replaced with. And it would take a much larger study to determine which food swaps were most effective at reducing heart disease risk.
  • The second study was a meta-analysis that told us that eating more fish and plant foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet can decrease your risk of heart disease by 47% – but doesn’t tell us what those healthy foods were replacing. And many of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis were conducted when ultra-processed food consumption was much less than it is today.

It would be tempting to add 47% plus 47% and conclude that eliminating ultra-processed food consumption and replacing ultra-processed foods with heart-healthy foods could decrease your risk of heart disease by 94%. But it’s not that simple. There are too many unanswered questions from these studies.

But it is safe to say that if we eliminated ultra-processed foods AND replaced them with heart-healthy foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet, we should be able to reduce our heart disease risk by more than 47% – perhaps much more.

What Do These Studies Mean For You?

There are two important lessons from these studies:

#1: Eliminating ultra-processed foods from your diet will significantly decrease your risk of heart disease.

And it isn’t just heart disease. Other recent studies have shown that eliminating ultra-processed foods from your diet helps you:

  • Control your weight (It is perhaps the most important lifestyle change to make if you want to maintain GLP-1-aided weight loss).
  • Reduce your risk of cancer.
  • Reduce your risk of diabetes.
  • Reduce your risk of inflammatory diseases.
  • Reduce anxiety and depression.
  • Increase your healthspan (your healthy years).

In short, ultra-processed foods are killers.

#2: Replacing ultra-processed foods with heart-healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and fish) in the context of a healthy diet (Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, Flexitarian, and vegan, for example) is likely to decrease your risk of heart disease even more.

  • And if your diet consists of mostly heart-healthy foods, you can add moderate amounts of heart-neutral foods (poultry, eggs, and dairy).
  • And the latest evidence suggests that you can even add small amounts of red meat in the context of a heart-healthy diet (As I have said in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, plant foods contain the antidotes to all the bad things about red meat.)

Finally, you might ask why I emphasize both heart-healthy foods and heart-healthy diets. There are two reasons:

  • Most of us think in terms of foods rather than diets.
  • The food industry is only too happy to provide us with ultra-processed foods for “heart-healthy” diets like the vegan and Mediterranean diet.

The Bottom Line

Two recent studies have shown how each of us can dramatically reduce our risk of heart disease.

  • The first study showed that eliminating ultra-processed foods from our diet can significantly decrease our heart disease risk – but didn’t tell us what the ultra-processed foods were replaced with.
  • The second study showed that eating more heart-healthy foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet can significantly decrease our risk of heart disease – but didn’t tell us what those healthy foods were replacing.

Taken together, those studies show us a clear path for dramatically decreasing our heart disease risk.

For more details about these studies and what they mean for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

Is A Little Alcohol Good For You?

by

How Were We Lead Astray?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

You have probably heard that moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than complete abstinence from alcohol. It is certainly a popular viewpoint.

It is also a scientific paradigm. By that I mean:

  • It is supported by multiple clinical studies.
  • Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support this paradigm.
  • It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.
  • It is the recommendation of most health professionals.
  • It has been repeated so often from so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

But is it a myth? You may have been surprised if you saw the headlines saying, “Having an alcoholic drink or two per day is not healthier than abstaining.”

Today I will review the study (J Zhao et al, JAMA Network Open, 6(3): e236185, 2023) behind the headlines and tell you what it means for you.

But first, I want to explain to you how the scientific method works. That’s because this study is a perfect example of the scientific method in action.

How Were We Lead Astray?

I have described the scientific method in detail in my books “Slaying The Food Myths” and “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, which you will find here.

Today, I will just give you a brief synopsis of the scientific method.

  • Most scientific studies are designed to disprove existing scientific paradigms. This is such a study.
    • In the scientific world, there is no glory in being the 10th person to prove that a scientific paradigm is correct. The glory comes from being the first person to disprove a scientific paradigm and create a new paradigm in the process.
    • This constant testing of existing paradigms is one of the most important strengths of the scientific method.
  • There is no perfect study. Every study has its flaws.
  • “Confounding variables” are flaws that can be the Achilles Heel of any association study.

Now let me explain the significance of these statements in the context of the current study:

  • All the studies supporting the current paradigm were association studies. Association studies measure the association between a selected variable and an outcome. For these studies, the selected variable was alcohol consumption, and the outcome was increased mortality.
  • Association studies try to statistically correct for other variables known to affect the outcome. For example, diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer increase the risk of premature death. These are known variables that would be corrected for in any well-designed study of alcohol consumption and mortality.
  • “Confounding variables” are unknown variables that also affect the outcome of the study. But since they are unknown, they are not corrected for.

Let me give you a simplistic example of a confounding variable. Let’s say you were doing a study of dietary habits, and you found an association between ice cream consumption and mortality. You might conclude that ice cream consumption is bad for you. It increases your risk of dying.

But then you might remember that ice cream consumption increases during the summer. And then you might reason that people swim more during the summer, and there is a correlation between swimming and drowning deaths.

Swimming could be a confounding variable. To make sure that your initial conclusion that ice cream increases the risk of dying was correct, you would need to correct your data for swimming deaths during the summer and see if you still found a correlation between ice cream consumption and mortality.

Could The Current Paradigm Be Incorrect?

SkepticYou might be thinking, “What does this have to do with studies on the correlation between alcohol consumption and increased mortality?” Let me explain.

The baseline group for these comparisons was the abstainers – the group consuming no alcohol. Previous studies have compared the mortality risk associated with various amounts of alcohol consumption with the mortality risk of the abstainer group. This sounds like a reasonable approach.

But the investigators challenging the current paradigm noted that the “abstainer group” in previous studies included both lifetime abstainers and former drinkers who had become abstainers. They hypothesized that the “former drinkers” group may have become abstainers because of health issues related to excess alcohol consumption.

In short, they hypothesized that the “former drinkers” group was a confounding variable that biased the results of the previous studies. They hypothesized that the “lifetime abstainers” group was a more appropriate baseline group for this kind of study. They then set out to prove their hypothesis.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators searched the literature and found 107 studies with 4.8 million participants published between 1980 and July 21, 2021, that:

  • Assessed the correlation between alcohol consumption and mortality.
  • Had data that allowed the investigators to separate lifetime abstainers from former drinkers who had become abstainers.

The investigators divided alcohol consumption into low, moderate, high, and very high categories based on the ounces of alcohol consumed per day. Since ounces of alcohol is not an easy measure for most of us, I have converted ounces/day to drinks/day based on the CDC definition of a drink (a 12-ounce beer, 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of a distilled spirit like gin or vodka). And to make it even simpler, I have rounded to the nearest whole number. With that said, here are the classifications.

  • Low alcohol intake = 1-2 drinks/day.
  • Moderate alcohol intake = 2-3 drinks/day.
  • High alcohol intake = 3-4 drinks/day.
  • Very high alcohol intake = >4 drinks/day.

The risk of death associated with each of these intake levels was compared the risk of death of their preferred baseline group, the “lifetime abstainers”.

Finally, the data were corrected for other variables known to influence the correlation between alcohol consumption and mortality, namely age, sex, heart health, social status, race, diet, exercise, BMI, and smoking status. [These are known confounding variables and had been adjusted for in most previous studies.]

Is A Little Alcohol Good For You?

Red WineWhen the investigators compared the mortality risk of former drinkers who had become abstainers with lifetime abstainers:

  • The former drinkers were 31% more likely to die, and this difference was highly significant.
  • This is consistent with their hypothesis that the “former drinkers” group was a confounding variable that may have biased the conclusions of previous studies.

When they compared the mortality risk of various levels of alcohol consumption with lifetime abstainers instead of all abstainers, they found:

  • The risk of mortality associated with low (1-2 drinks/day) and moderate (2-3 drinks/day) alcohol intake was statistically identical to the risk of mortality for lifetime abstainers.
  • The high alcohol intake group (3-4 drinks/day) was 24% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.
  • The very high alcohol intake group (>4 drinks/day) was 39% more likely to die than the lifetime abstainers.

In short, when lifetime abstainers were used as the baseline group, low to moderate alcohol intake did not reduce the risk of dying, as previous studies had suggested. This study suggests the idea that low to moderate alcohol consumption is good for us is not accurate. It is a myth.

Finally, there was a significant gender difference in the effect of alcohol consumption on mortality.

For women:

  • Even moderate alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Only low alcohol consumption posed no increase in mortality.
  • The increased risk of mortality for women was significantly higher than for men with every level of alcohol consumption.

The authors concluded, “In this…meta-analysis, daily low or moderate alcohol intake was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality risk, while increased risk was evident at higher consumption levels, starting at lower levels for women than for men.”

Of course, this isn’t the end of the story. The scientific method will continue. Old paradigms don’t die easily. Other investigators will challenge the conclusions of this study. Stay tuned. I will give you updates as future studies are published.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

QuestionsIf you like to imbibe, there are two important takeaways from this study.

The bad news is that you can no longer claim that a drink or two a day is healthier than total abstinence from alcohol.

The good news is that this and every study preceding it have found that a drink or two a day is no less healthy than total abstinence. The studies found no increase in mortality associated with low to moderate alcohol intake.

[However, low to moderate alcohol intake may increase your risk of specific diseases. For example, many studies suggest that even low alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.]

This study also agrees with previous studies that high alcohol intake increases your risk of death, and women are more susceptible to adverse effects of alcohol intake than men.

So, while this study challenges the existing paradigm that low to moderate alcohol intake is beneficial, it does not change the current recommendations on alcohol intake by most health organizations.

For example, the current CDC guidelines are:

  • Adults of legal drinking age should limit alcohol intake to 2 drinks or less per day for men and one drink or less per day for women.
  • Adults who do not drink alcohol should not start. [The current study strengthens this recommendation because it takes away the excuse that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than abstinence.]
  • Drinking less is better than drinking more.

The CDC guidelines also note that the risk of some cancers increases even at very low levels of alcohol consumption.

Finally, the CDC recommends that some people never consume alcohol, including:

  • Women who are pregnant or might become pregnant.
  • Anyone younger than 21.
  • Anyone with medical conditions or medications that interact with alcohol.
  • Anyone recovering from an alcohol use disorder or who has trouble controlling the amount they drink.

The Bottom Line

A recent study is a perfect example of the scientific method in action. Scientists are constantly challenging the existing scientific paradigms, and this is an important strength of the scientific method.

A group of scientists recently published a study challenging the paradigm that low to moderate alcohol intake is healthier than total abstinence from alcohol.

They hypothesized that previous studies supporting this paradigm had a common methodological flaw, corrected for the flaw, and reanalyzed the data from 104 studies with a total of 4.8 million participants.

The revised data showed no health benefit of low to moderate alcohol consumption compared to total abstinence. When you look at the data more closely, the current paradigm may be a myth.

  • This is a major change to the existing paradigm because it removes the justification for low to moderate alcohol consumption.

However, the revised data did not differ from previous studies in the following ways:

  • There is no health risk associated with low to moderate alcohol intake compared to total abstinence.
  • High alcohol intake (>3 drinks/day) is associated with increased mortality.
  • Women are more sensitive to the adverse effects of alcohol than men.

So, this study does not change current guidelines for alcohol consumption.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and the CDC guidelines on alcohol consumption read the article above.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading Biochemistry textbooks for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

 

 

 

What Your Doctor Didn’t Tell You About GLP-1 Drugs

by

Will You Get Scurvy If You Use A GLP-1 Drug?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

GLP-1 drugs have revolutionized the weight loss industry. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years.

Currently, there are around 33 million Americans (12% of the adult population) on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

Let me be clear. These drugs work. For people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes or severe obesity-related health issues, they can be a godsend. But like any “quick fix” weight loss drug they are overprescribed.

And when you have millions of people taking a drug, you need to take a serious look at side effects. I have covered these in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

In that article I emphasized two side effects that I thought had not received sufficient attention:

  • The first is depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
    • These are symptoms that many patients may not associate with the drug, especially if they already have these tendencies.
    • And the consequences can be life threatening. There have already been reports of suicides of people on GLP-1 medications.
  • The second is loss of muscle mass.
    • This is a particular concern for seniors because they struggle to maintain muscle mass as they age.
    • And this is a silent symptom. Most seniors don’t realize they are losing muscle mass until it significantly affects their quality of life.

However, since I wrote that article these side effects have received more attention. Your doctor may have warned you about them.

But there is another concern about GLP-1 drug use that your doctor has probably not told you about.

What Your Doctor Didn’t Tell You About GLP-1 Drugs

Closeup portrait clueless senior health care professional doctor with stethoscope, has no answer, doesn’t know right diagnosis standing in hospital hallway isolated clinic office windows background.

The miracle of GLP-1 drugs is that they suppress appetite, which makes it much easier to lose weight.

  • Snacks are no longer appealing.
  • Large portion sizes leave you feeling bloated.
  • It’s tempting to skip meals because you just aren’t hungry.

You no longer have to struggle to eat less. It just comes naturally. But this miracle is also a snare. The issue becomes not how much you eat, but what you eat. The issue becomes not how many calories you eat, but how many nutrients you eat. And your doctor probably hasn’t talked to you about that.

Weight loss diets often result in nutritional insufficiencies. However, GLP-1-aided weight loss is worse.

That’s because GLP-1 is a drug, not a diet plan. It’s dispensed like any other drug.

  • Your doctor gives you a GLP-1 prescription. If you are lucky, they may give you a “one-size-fits-all” handout on how to lose weight while you are using it. For example, in a recent study:
    • Only 51% of patients received information from their doctor on how to manage side effects of GLP-1.
    • Only 20% were referred to a dietitian. The other 80% received no information on how to change their diet and lifestyle.
  • When you pick up the drug from the pharmacy, you get a package insert listing the side effects but no information on how to change your diet.

The results are predictable:

  • As I discussed in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, a recent study found that the diets of the GLP-1 users were deficient in fiber, healthy fats, 10 essential vitamins and minerals and did not contain enough protein to prevent loss of muscle mass.

It’s All About Nutrient Density

healthy foodsYears ago, when I was researching the adequacy of the American diet I was surprised to discover that the USDA statistics showed that the diets of teenage women were suboptimal for many nutrients, while the diets of teenage boys were suboptimal for only a few.

You might ask, “What was the difference?”

  • It wasn’t that teenage boys ate a better diet.
  • If you have raised a teenage boy, you probably already know the answer. They have bigger appetites.

The message is clear, even with a lousy diet you can meet the recommended intake of most nutrients if you eat enough calories.

So, the analogy I will use is that going on GLP-1 drugs is like going from the caloric intake of a teenage boy to that of a teenage girl. Your diet will become nutritionally insufficient unless you change it.

This is where the concept of nutrient density comes in. You need to change your focus from how many calories there are in each serving of food you eat to how many nutrients there are in each serving of food you eat. You need to make every bite count.

And, just in case you were wondering where to find high nutrient density, low calorie foods:

  • Whole, unprocessed foods with no added fat or sugar are high in nutrient density and low in calories.
  • On the other hand, highly processed foods are low in nutrient density and high in calories.

The problem is that highly processed foods account for 60-70% of the calories in the typical American diet. So, if you are like most Americans GLP-1 use will result in nutritional insufficiencies unless you change your diets to focus on nutrient dense foods.

And the bonus is that that same focus on nutrient dense foods will help you keep the weight off once you quit the GLP-1 drug.

But your doctor probably hasn’t told you this.

Will You Get Scurvy If You Use A GLP-1 Drug?

Question MarkThe short answer is, “No”. It’s highly unlikely that you will ever develop scurvy while on GLP-1 drugs. You would need to have a truly horrible diet and never take multivitamins to develop a nutritional deficiency disease like scurvy.

Headlines like that are simply meant to draw you in, so you will read the article. But there are real concerns about the long-term effects of nutritional insufficiencies. For example:

  • Long term inadequacies of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D increase the risk of osteoporosis.
  • Long term inadequacies of healthy fats, magnesium, vitamin D, and antioxidants may increase the risk of heart disease.
  • Long term inadequacies of antioxidants and phytonutrients can accelerate cellular aging.
  • Long term muscle loss due to inadequate protein intake leads to frailty and metabolic diseases as we age.

You get the point. GLP-1 drugs are not a panacea for weight loss. Unless you switch to a whole food, nutrient dense diet you may end up leaner and sicker – not healthier.

What Does This Mean For You?

The take-home message is clear. GLP-1 drugs may seem like a weight loss miracle. Your appetite decreases. You eat less. And the pounds just melt away. But the health benefits of losing weight with GLP-1 drugs may be a mirage rather than a miracle.

That is because what you eat is critical. If you just eat less of what you were eating before, you may end up leaner and sicker.

Forget calories. Instead, focus on the nutrient density of the foods you are eating. And that means eating whole, unprocessed foods that are low in fat and added sugar.

But the ads don’t tell you that. The drug labels won’t tell you that. And chances are that your doctor won’t tell you that either.

The Bottom Line

GLP-1 drugs may seem like a weight loss miracle. Your appetite decreases. You eat less. And the pounds just melt away. But the health benefits of losing weight with GLP-1 drugs may be a mirage rather than a miracle.

That’s because what you eat while you are on GLP-1 drugs may be critical to your long-term health. And your doctor probably didn’t tell you about that when they were prescribing GLP-1.

For more details about the dangers of GLP-1 drugs, read the article above.

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

 ____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

 

Health Tips From The Professor