Dr. Steve Chaney, Author at Health Tips From The Professor

Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

March 9, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The statistics for type 2 diabetes are alarming. In the United States:

38.1 million adults (15% of the adult population) had diabetes in 2021, with 95% of them having type 2 diabetes.

- 8.7 million of those adults were unaware they had diabetes.

- If current trends continue, by 2030 the number of adults with diabetes is projected to increase by 54% to around 55 million.

Another 96 million Americans (33% of the population) have pre-diabetes. Unless they change their diet and lifestyle, most of them are destined to progress to type 2 diabetes in the next few years.

Diabetes is the eight leading cause of death in this country.

The costs associated with diabetes in the United States are currently around $410 billion and are projected to increase to around $622 billion by 2030.

The statistics are not much different worldwide:

Type 2 diabetes currently affects more than 500 million people worldwide and is expected to double by 2050.

Diabetes is also the 8^th leading cause of death worldwide.

This is a major concern because diabetes dramatically increases the risk of:

Heart disease and stroke.
Certain types of cancer.
Painful neuropathies.
Vision loss and blindness.
Cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease.

Just to name a few. Diabetes affects your quality of life, and it can shorten your lifespan by several years.

So, you are probably wondering what you can do to decrease your risk of developing type 2 diabetes. There are lots of fad diets (low carb, low fat, low glycemic, high fiber, Paleo, Keto, etc.), but the weight of evidence is that your best bet for decreasing the risk of developing diabetes is a healthy diet that:

Is primarily plant-based.
Consists mostly of unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
Emphasizes healthy fats such as monounsaturated and omega-3 fats.
Includes lots of fruits and vegetables.
Emphasizes whole rather than refined grains.
Includes plant protein sources like beans, nuts, and seeds.
Has a low caloric density (which it will if you follow the guidelines above), so you can lose weight slowly and naturally.

But what about meat? Here the data are less clear. Several studies have suggested that eating red and processed meat increases your risk of type-2 diabetes. Studies on poultry are mixed with some studies suggesting they increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and other studies suggesting they have no effect.

Unfortunately, the data from the previous studies were inconsistent, in part because the methods used to collect and analyze the data varied widely from study to study. In addition, the studies were primarily performed in the United States and Europe, so it was unclear whether the correlation between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes was universal, or whether it was restricted to western countries.

With this in mind, the authors of the current study (C Li et al, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 12: 619-630, 2024) decided to perform a much more comprehensive study by combining studies from all across the world that used similar methodologies.

How Was This Study Done?

This study was a meta-analysis of data obtained from the InterConnect project. The InterConnect project is registry of more than 200 studies from around the world. The investigators chose 31 studies with a total of 1,966,444 individuals from 20 countries for this meta-analysis based on the following criteria:

Participants in the studies were adults between 40 and 60 years old.

Participants were excluded from the study if they already had type 2 diabetes.

The diets of participants in the studies were assessed by having the participants fill out standardized dietary assessment forms at the beginning of the study.

Participants were followed for an average of 10 years (7-15 years) to see how many developed a newly diagnosed case of type 2 diabetes. During this time 10,271 participants in these studies developed type 2 diabetes.

The correlation between 3 types of meat (processed meat, red meat, and poultry) and type 2 diabetes was adjusted for other factors that affect the risk of diabetes (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, drinking, physical activity, obesity, and family history of type 2 diabetes)

Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

The results of this meta-analysis were:

There was a log-linear (greater than linear) dose-response correlation without any obvious threshold or ceiling effect with the risk of developing type-2 diabetes for all three meats tested in this study.

For processed meat each 50-gram increase (equivalent to 4 slices of smoked ham) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 15%.

For unprocessed red meat each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of steak) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 10%.

For poultry each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of chicken) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 8%. However, after correcting for other diet and lifestyle factors that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, the effect of poultry on diabetes risk was non-significant.

When they looked at the effect of replacing one type of meat with another:

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of unprocessed red meat decreased the risk of diabetes by 7%.

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of poultry decreased the risk of diabetes by 10%.

I should note that previous studies have shown that replacing either processed meat or unprocessed red meat with vegetable protein foods (beans, nuts, and seeds) significantly decreases the risk of developing diabetes.

When they looked at different regions of the world:

The effect of both processed and unprocessed red meat on type 2 diabetes risk was seen in America, Europe, Western Pacific regions, and east Asia.

However, no effect of either unprocessed or processed red meat on type 2 diabetes risk was seen in the Eastern Mediterranean and South Asia.

The authors concluded, “The consumption of meat, particularly processed and unprocessed red meat, is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes across populations. These findings highlight the importance of reducing meat consumption for public health and should inform dietary guidelines.”

Why Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

This study supports and strengthens previous studies suggesting that we should add red and processed meats to the list of risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes. However, unless you are a vegan, the idea of giving up all red and processed meat is probably a non-starter.

Instead, let’s ask why red and processed meats increase diabetes risk. Is it the meat itself, or something else that triggers the increase in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Is it:

#1: Guilt By Association: Diets high in meats are also high in saturated fats, which increase the risk of diabetes.

#2: Guilt By Omission: Diets high in meats are often low in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds – all healthy foods that lower diabetes risk.

#3: Guilt By Addition: Processed meats contain additives that can increase the risk of developing diabetes. For example, nitrates or nitrites are often added as preservatives. But they can be converted in the gut to N-nitroso compounds which increase inflammation, which in turn increases the risk of developing diabetes.

#4: Guilt By Cooking: High temperature grilling and frying creates compounds that create oxidative stress, which can increase the risk of developing diabetes.

#5: Guilt By Microbiome: The microbiome (gut bacteria) of heavy meat eaters is very different from the microbiome of people who eat a more plant-based diet. If a meat eater consumes a steak, their gut bacteria convert L-carnitine in the meat to a toxic compound called trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). However, if you were able to convince a vegan to eat the same steak, that wouldn’t happen.

#6: Guilt By Diet Context: The fact that there was no association between red and processed meat and diabetes in Mediterranean and South Asian regions gives us an important clue. The bad effects of red and processed meats are influenced by the context of the overall diet. What do the cuisines of the Mediterranean and South Asian regions have in common? They are both primarily whole food, plant-based cuisines.

I have discussed each of these mechanisms in more detail in an article in a recent edition of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

I also discussed ways to reduce the risk of each of these mechanisms, but if you don’t want to read the article,here is a spoiler alert:

Plant foods are the antidotes for the bad things associated with red and processed meats.

We should think of meat as a garnish for a primarily plant-based meal rather than a main course with a baked potato or fries as a garnish.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effects various meats on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes worldwide. The study found:

For processed meat each 50-gram increase (equivalent to 4 slices of smoked ham) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 15%.

For unprocessed red meat each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of steak) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 10%.

The effect of poultry on diabetes risk was non-significant.

When they looked at the effect of replacing one type of meat with another:

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of unprocessed red meat decreased the risk of diabetes by 7%.

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of poultry decreased the risk of diabetes by 10%.

I should note that previous studies have shown that replacing either processed meat or unprocessed red meat with vegetable protein foods (beans, nuts, and seeds) significantly decreases the risk of developing diabetes.

For more details on this study, why meats increase diabetes risk, and what this 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 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 53 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.

Do Eggs Prevent Cognitive Decline?

March 3, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Eggs Brain Food?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

For much of the past 10 or 20 years, eggs have villainized. We were told that their high cholesterol levels would clog our arteries and increase our risk of heart attack and stroke.

We were told to eat egg whites, egg substitutes (even though egg substitutes were a witch’s brew of chemicals), or avoid eggs altogether.

But in recent years, the ground has shifted.

Cholesterol is no longer viewed as the demon it once was. It is now thought of as more of a bit player in a cast of dozens of factors contributing to increased risk of heart disease and stroke.

And when it comes to increased risk of heart disease, the AHA (American Heart Association) position on egg consumption and heart disease risk has shifted dramatically. They now recommend:

“Healthy adults can eat up to one whole egg per day as part of a heart-healthy diet.”

Diet context is very important. The AHA recommends:

- “Eggs should not be paired with high-saturated fat foods like bacon, sausage, or butter. Instead, they should be poached, soft-boiled, or cooked in healthy fats like olive oil.”

- I would add that recent studies have shown that if you are consuming a whole-food, primarily plant-based diet, consuming one or two eggs per day actually decreases your risk of heart disease.

Your body’s ability to regulate cholesterol levels is also important. For that reason, the AHA recommends:

- “Individuals with diabetes, high blood cholesterol, or existing heart disease should be more cautious…limiting yolk consumption to 4 per week…[I would add obesity to this list].”

For more information on the studies behind these recommendations, go to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and put eggs in the search box.

Are Eggs Brain Food?

There are lots of reasons to think of eggs as brain food. The authors of the study I am about to share observed:

“Eggs are a good source of protein (6.29 gram/medium egg), which has been linked to improved memory and reaction time in healthy young adults and reduced risk of cognitive impairment in older adults.”

“Egg protein is a good source of the essential amino acid tryptophan (77 mg per egg), which is converted to the neurotransmitter serotonin, involved in decision-making and memory.”

“Egg yolks are a good source of choline (150 mg per egg), which is a precursor to acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter involved in memory and learning. The authors went on to say, “Choline intake between 187 mg and 399 mg per day has consistently been associated with improved cognitive performance for both healthy younger and older adults.

“Egg yolks are also a good source of phospholipids (3.3 gm per egg), which are an important part of nerve membranes. Phospholipids modulate neurotransmitter receptors and have been linked to enhanced reaction time in healthy middle-aged men.”

“Egg yolks are a good source of DHA (between 25 to 50 mg DHA for commercially produced eggs and 100-150 mg of DHA for pasture-raised eggs) which has been associated with a lower risk of dementia.”

In short, there are lots of reasons to think that eggs might be good for the brain and might reduce the risk of age-related cognitive decline.

So, the authors of this study (N Sultan et al, Journal of Nutrition, Health, and Aging, 29, 100696, 2025) decided to conduct a systematic review of existing studies to evaluate the association between whole egg consumption and cognitive decline in healthy adults.

How Was The Study Done?

The authors set out to create a systematic review of studies looking at the effect of egg consumption on cognitive decline in older adults. This was not an easy undertaking because:

Most published studies in this area have looked at the effect of diets (e.g. MIND or Mediterranean diets) on cognitive decline rather than the effect of individual foods.

There are many ways to measure cognitive function, and no two studies used the same measures of cognitive function.

The authors utilized the top 5 databases of clinical studies and identified 10 studies with a total of >38,000 participants that investigated the effect of whole egg consumption on cognitive outcomes in healthy, older adults (average age = 68, 50% female).

Because the studies used different measures of cognitive function, the outcomes were divided into the following cognitive domains:

Global cognitive functioning.
Language functioning.
Verbal learning.
Memory.
Processing speed.
Decision-making.
Attention.
Executive function.
Risk-taking.
Reaction time.
Visuospacial ability.
Orientation.
Cognitive flexibility.
Interoception.

From these individual domains an overall cognitive function score was derived.

Do Eggs Prevent Cognitive Decline?

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.

This is what the authors reported:

Two studies reported a reduced risk of dementia or cognitive impairment associated with moderate egg consumption (0.5-1 egg per day).

One study reported increased risk at high intake levels (> 1 egg per day).

Several studies showed improvements in memory, verbal fluency, and/or processing speed with moderate, but not high, egg intake.

The authors concluded, “This systematic review identified preliminary observational evidence that moderate habitual egg consumption may be associated with better cognitive performance, particularly in memory and verbal fluency domains, and reduced risk of cognitive impairment in adults without chronic disease…Further rigorous studies are required to determine whether egg consumption contributes to cognitive resilience and to clarify dose-response relationships. These efforts will help determine whether eggs can be recommended as part of evidence-based dietary strategies to support cognitive function in aging populations.”

As the authors said, this is not a definitive study. It is a preliminary study that lays the groundwork for future definitive studies. As someone who had dozens of publicly funded grants during my research career, I can tell you that publications like this are important, because they can be used to support requests for public funding of future research projects on that topic.

What kind of future research projects would be definitive? The authors said:

“Further rigorous studies are required to determine whether egg consumption contributes to cognitive resilience [as we age] and to clarify dose-response relationships.” Ideally these studies would:

- Be designed to test the dose-response relationship.

- Use similar measurement of cognitive function, so the study results would be easy to compare.

- Look at diet context. For example, do eggs have the same cognitive benefits in whole food, primarily plant-based diets and diets that are high in saturated fats and processed foods?

- Look at the effect of health status. Cholesterol build up can block arteries leading to the brain. Studies on heart health have shown eggs may not be beneficial for people who already have elevated cholesterol, diabetes, and arterial disease.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Here are my thoughts:

As I outlined above, there are lots of reasons to think of eggs as brain food.

Moderate egg consumption may help protect against cognitive decline as we age. The current data are suggestive, but not definitive.

The American Heart Association now says that moderate egg consumption can be part of a heart-healthy diet. So, the major reason for avoiding eggs has been removed.

Egg consumption is likely to be most beneficial as part of a whole food, primarily plant-based diet. When I grew up Alabama a normal breakfast was eggs cooked in butter, sausage, grits and “red-eye gravy” (gravy made from ham fat). To say that it was probably not a brain-healthy way to eat eggs would be an understatement.

If you are already struggling with high cholesterol, diabetes and arterial disease, you should probably consult your doctor before increasing your egg consumption.

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.

My Comment:

Based on their nutrient content and studies like this one, I would add eggs (consumed in moderation) to the list.

The Bottom Line

There are lots of reasons to think of eggs as brain food. A recent study suggests that moderate egg consumption may help slow cognitive decline as we age.

For more information on this study and what a brain-healthy diet looks like, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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 Margarine More Heart-Healthy Than Butter?

February 24, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The Checkered History Of Margarine

Many of you may have seen the recent headlines proclaiming that a recent study has shown that margarine is healthier than butter.

Some of you may be saying, “I don’t believe it.”

Others may be saying, “Of course. Hasn’t that always been true.”

So, to clear up the confusion, let me share a brief history of margarine.

Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French chemist in response to a request from Napoleon III to create a poor man’s butter substitute. Napoleon’s intentions weren’t entirely altruistic. He also wanted a cheaper butter substitute for his armies.

Margarine initially encountered a strong headwind in this country. The dairy lobby influenced congress and state legislatures to pass numerous laws designed to increase the cost and reduce the desirability of margarine.

In the 1950s the ground started to shift. Scientists and the medical community started to recognize that saturated fats were a major contributor to heart disease. Suddenly, butter became a villain, something to avoid.

- But that was a problem. Butter was preferred spread for bread and toast. It was used for cooking. It was ubiquitous. You may even remember the popular “I like bread and butter” song. What was a person to do?

At that time margarine was made by partially hydrogenating vegetable oils (usually corn oil because it was the cheapest). The hydrogenation converted some of the unsaturated fats in vegetable oils to saturated fats so that margarine would not be in liquid form at room temperature. However, the total amount of saturated fat in margarine was less than in butter, and the ratio of polyunsaturated fat to saturated fats was more heart-healthy. Margarine took on a new luster. It was now the healthier alternative to butter.

- Once margarine attained the “healthier” status, most of the anti-margarine laws were quickly abolished, and margarine quickly outpaced butter as the spread of choice.

In the 1980s the ground shifted again. A French study found the margarine increased the risk of heart disease more than butter. Further studies showed that the hydrogenation process created a novel type of fat called trans fats. By the 1990s it was widely accepted that trans fats increased the risk of heart disease even more than saturated fats.

- Margarine became the villain, and butter was considered the more natural, healthier spread. By 2000 sales of butter once more surpassed those of margarine.

In 2018 the ground shifted once again. After almost 20 years of deliberation, the FDA banned trans fats from the American food supply as of 2018. Margarine no longer contained trans fats.

Today’s study (C Weber et al, Public Health Nutrition, doi:10.1017/S1368980021004511) asks whether the reformulated, trans-fat-free margarines are once again a more heart-healthy alternative to butter.

Is Margarine More Heart-Healthy Than Butter?

The study analyzed the fat composition of 53 margarine tub or squeeze products, 18 margarine stick products, 12 margarine-butter blend products and compared them with the fat composition of butter. The results are shown below:

There was no detectable trans fat in any of the margarine products. So, based on saturated fat content and the ratio of unsaturated fats to saturated fats, the margarine products were all more heart-healthy than butter. This is what the paper concluded.

	Mean % of Total Fat In:
	Margarine Tub or Tube	Margarine Sticks	Margarine- Butter Blends	Butter
SFA*	29%	38%	38%	60%
MUFA*	36%	34%	43%	26%
PUFA*	33%	29%	13%	4%
*SFA = Saturated fats, MUFA = Monounsaturated fats, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fats

But let’s look a bit deeper. First, we should look at the fat sources.

The saturated fat in the margarine products comes from either palm or coconut oil. There are claims that these plant saturated fats may be healthier than saturated fats from animal sources. But there are no long-term studies to back up those claims, So, I will simply consider them equivalent to any other saturated fat for this review.

Next, we should look at the labels.

The labels of most butter products are simple. Butter is sweet cream and salt. Unsalted butter is sweet cream and natural flavoring (usually lactic acid). This is the way that butter has been made for hundreds of years.

Margarine products are manufactured foods. They didn’t come from a cow. Their labels are significantly longer. And you should read the labels carefully.

Some margarine products are made with natural ingredients.

However, many margarine products contain preservatives and artificial flavors.

So, choosing between margarine products and butter is not as simple as looking at saturated fat content alone.

But what if you didn’t have to choose between margarine and butter? What if there were other options to consider?

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Once you decide to look beyond margarine and butter you will find lots of healthy options. For example:

If you have ever eaten at a fine Italian or Greek restaurant, you may have had your bread served with olive oil to dip it in. Of course, this may be a better option for lunch and dinner than for breakfast. (I don’t think jam would pair well with olive oil.)

Nut butters are an excellent choice any time of day. Peanut and almond butters are the most popular, but there are many other nut butters to choose from.

Avocado is another excellent choice.

This just scratches the surface. There are healthier options for almost every palate.

If you look at the fat composition of my top four suggestions, you can readily see why they are healthier choices than either margarine or butter. They are much lower in saturated fat and high in heart healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

	Mean % of Total Fat In:
	Olive Oil	Almond Butter	Peanut Butter	Avocado
SFA*	14%	9%	22%	16%
MUFA*	74%	64%	53%	71%
PUFA*	12%	27%	25%	13%
*SFA = Saturated fats, MUFA = Monounsaturated fats, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fats

But that is just part of the story:

Nut butters are also a good source of protein. And both nut butters and avocados provide nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber you don’t find in margarine or butter.

There are also labels to consider:

Avocados are whole foods and don’t require labels. There are no other ingredients. What you see is what you get.

Olive oil is a bit more complicated. It is often blended with cheaper oils to reduce the cost, and that doesn’t always show up on the label. My best advice is to get extra virgin olive oil from a brand you trust.

With nut butters, you should read the label. For example, the ingredient label for almond butter should list almonds as the sole ingredient. Peanut butter should just list peanuts. However, some brands add other oils, sugar, emulsifying agents, etc. These are the brands you should leave on the shelf.

Our “go-to” spread is almond butter. I like it with cinnamon sprinkled on top, although sliced bananas and cinnamon is another excellent choice.

As for butter, we still like it on baked sweet potatoes and corn on the cob. We freeze our butter and cut off a slice whenever we need it. A stick of butter lasts us many months.

The Bottom Line

Now that trans fats have been removed from margarine products a recent study revisited the question as to whether margarine or butter was the healthier choice. On the basis of their saturated fat content, the study concluded that margarine products were healthier than butter.

However, that is just part of the story. When you look at the labels:

The labels of most butter products are simple. Butter is sweet cream and salt. Unsalted butter is sweet cream and natural flavoring (usually lactic acid). This is the way that butter has been made for hundreds of years.

Margarine products are manufactured foods. They didn’t come from a cow. Their labels are significantly longer. And you should read the labels carefully.

So, choosing between margarine products and butter is not as simple as looking at saturated fat content alone. But what if you didn’t have to choose between margarine and butter? What if there were other options to consider?

Once you decide to look beyond margarine and butter you will find lots of healthy options. I discuss my top 4 choices above.

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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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.

Are Polyphenols Good For Your Heart?

February 17, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Are Polyphenols And Why Do We Care?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Polyphenol-rich foods have taken on a hero status. If we believe the headlines, they:

Reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Enhance gut health.

Reduce inflammation and blood sugar levels.

Fight oxidative stress, which may slow the aging process.

One could write a book on the accuracy of these claims. However, in this article I am just going to focus on the correlation between polyphenol intake and heart disease.

Several recent reviews have suggested that consumption of polyphenol-rich foods is associated with a reduced risk of heart disease.

However, each of those studies has limitations because:

Most of the diet recalls used in these studies relied on food databases that included only a few polyphenols in their database.

Most of the studies did not measure polyphenol levels in blood or urine. That’s important because absorption of polyphenols from the digestive track is often poor.

The study (Y Li et al, BMC Medicine, 23:645, 2025) I will review in today’s issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” is a significant improvement over previous studies because it relies on a database with over 500 polyphenols for its diet analysis and it measures polyphenol metabolites in the urine to confirm the data obtained from the dietary recalls.

But first let’s discuss what polyphenols are and why they are important.

What Are Polyphenols And Why Do We Care?

Simply put, a phenol is a ring of carbon atoms with at least one OH group attached. Polyphenols consist of multiple ring structures. Resveratrol, shown on the left, is an example of a polyphenol structure.

However, that downplays the complexity of polyphenols. There are over 8,000 polyphenols structures found in plants and over 500 in common foods. And each of these structures has unique chemical and biological properties.

However, there are also some commonalities.

In fruits and vegetables, polyphenols are most commonly found in the skins or peels and protect them from UV light, pests, and disease pathogens.

In our bodies polyphenols:

Improve blood flow and reduce blood pressure.

Lower LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Improve insulin sensitivity.

Are antioxidants that neutralize free radicals and reduce inflammation.

Finally, most polyphenols are colored, which is why we are told to eat a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables.

How Was This Study Done?

The study included 3110 participants from the TwinsUK registry who completed the EPIC-Norfolk Food Frequency Questionnaire. The participants were predominantly female (96.7%) and white (99%), with an average age of 52 years and an average BMI of 25.4%.

The TwinsUK registry aspect of the study was not important. Twin information was not utilized in the data analysis.

However, the EPIC-Norfolk Food Frequency Question was important. The EPIC Food Frequency database is particularly robust, and it is designed to be country specific. The EPIC-Norfolk version was designed to include 130 commonly eaten foods in the Norfolk area of England where the study was centered.

The polyphenol content of the foods in the EPIC-Norfolk Food Frequency Questionnaire was calculated using the most recent version of the Phenol-Explorer database which measures the amounts of 500 different polyphenols in 400 foods.

The investigators then developed a polyphenol-rich dietary score, PPS, based on the relative intake of the top 20 polyphenol-rich foods in the English diet.

To be clear, in the dietary portion of the study, the investigators measured:

- The amount of 500 individual polyphenols in each participant’s diet.

- And the overall polyphenol dietary score (PPS) of each participant.

The investigators also measured cardiovascular risk factors (blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol) for each participant.

These data were used to calculate an ASCVD risk score and a HeartScore for each participant. These are two of the leading risk estimators for heart disease.

Finally, the investigators measured the content of polyphenol metabolites in the urine of a subset of 200 participants chosen at random.

These data were meant to correct for absorption of polyphenols from the intestine and confirm associations seen from the dietary data.

Are Polyphenols Good For The Heart?

Prescription for good health overhead with stethoscope, healthy fresh food and exercise equipment, with copy space.

Here is what the study showed:

Participants with higher PPS scores (a diet rich in polyphenol-containing foods) had significantly lower risk of heart disease by both the ASCVD risk score and the HeartScore.

When the investigators looked at individual classes of polyphenols, high intake of flavonoids and phenolic acids appeared to be particularly beneficial, as did a high intake of the stilbenoid, resveratrol.

Measurement of polyphenol metabolites in the urine confirmed this association.

Consuming a diverse array of polyphenol-rich foods (a high PPS score) was a better predictor of heart health than eating any individual food or class of polyphenols alone.

The authors concluded, “Longitudinal data indicate that higher adherence to polyphenol-rich diets is associated with lower long-term cardiovascular risk in predominately middle-aged women.

The PPS dietary score, reflecting adherence to polyphenol-rich diets, showed the strongest association with CVD risk compared to individual polyphenol intakes or specific polyphenol-rich food sources.

The cardioprotective effects of flavonoids and phenolic acids, estimated from the EPIC-Norfolk FFQ, were further confirmed through urinary metabolite analysis within the same polyphenol classes.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study is consistent with several previous studies showing that high intact of polyphenol-rich foods correlates with a reduced risk of heart disease. However, this study is important because it is the strongest study to date because:

It uses a very robust database for estimating both the total polyphenol content of foods and the amount of 500 different polyphenols in each food.

It includes an analysis of polyphenol metabolites in the urine to account for differences in absorption of polyphenols from the gut and to confirm the asssociations between polyphenol intake and heart disease risk based on dietary data.

But you are probably wondering, “How do I use this information I don’t know the polyphenol content of the foods I eat.”

There are two ways you could think about the data.

#1: You could ask, “What should I eat to get plenty of flavonoids, phenolic acids, and resveratrol in my diet?” That’s a fairly easy question to answer.

The top food sources of favonoids are berries (blueberries, strawberries), tea (green and black), dark chocolate/cocoa, red wine, citrus fruits (oranges, lemons), leafy greens, onions, and soybeans.

The top food sources of phenolic acids are coffee, berries (especially chokeberries and blueberries), herbs/spices (cloves, peppermint), cocoa, and whole grains.

The top food sources of resveratrol are red grapes (especially the skin), blueberries, raspberries, mulberries, peanuts, dark chocolate, and red wine.

#2: You could ask, “What would a polyphenol-rich diet look like for me?”

You should start with the oft-repeated recommendation to eat a variety of highly colored fruits and vegetables.

Then add foods like tea, coffee, dark chocolate, and others from the list above.

My final two recommendations are:

Don’t focus on just one or two polyphenol-rich foods. Remember that the study showed that eating a wide variety of polyphenol-rich foods was more beneficial than individual foods or polyphenols.

This applies to whole foods only. The dyes used to add color to processed foods don’t count.

The Bottom Line

Several previous studies have shown that high intact of polyphenol-rich foods correlates with a reduced risk of heart disease. However, those studies all had limitations. In this issue of Health Tips From the Professor I discuss the strongest study on this subject to date. The study showed:

Participants with higher PPS scores (a diet rich in polyphenol-containing foods) had significantly lower risk of heart disease by both the ASCVD risk score and the HeartScore.

When the investigators looked at individual classes of polyphenols, high intake of flavonoids and phenolic acids appeared to be particularly beneficial, as did a high intake of the stilbenoid, resveratrol.

Measurement of polyphenol metabolites in the urine confirmed this association.

Consuming a diverse array of polyphenol-rich foods (a high PPS score) was a better predictor of heart health than eating any individual food or class of polyphenols alone.

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.

___________________________________________________________________________

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

Eating Of The Green

February 21, 2026February 17, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Nitrates Are Good For You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You may be one of the millions of Americans who are celebrated St. Patrick’s Day today. If so, you may have sung the famous Irish folk song “The Wearing of the Green”. If you are Irish, that song has special meaning for you. However, when I hear that song, I think of “Eating of the Green.”

And when I think of eating green, I don’t mean that everything we eat should be green. I am thinking of whole fruits and vegetables in a variety of colors. We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our health. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated with a lower risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, inflammatory diseases, and much more.

For today’s health tip, I am going to focus on heart health and an unexpected explanation for how fruits and vegetables reduce our risk of heart disease.

Why Nitrates Are Good For You

We have assumed that whole fruits and vegetables lower our risk of heart disease because they are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. All of that is true. But could there be more?

Recent research has suggested that the nitrates found naturally in fruits and vegetables may also play a role in protecting our hearts. Here is what recent research shows:

The nitrates from fruits and vegetables are converted to nitrite by bacteria in our mouth and intestines.

- Fruits and vegetables account for 80% of the nitrate in our diet. The rest comes from a variety of sources including the nitrate added as a preservative to processed meats.

- Although all fruits and vegetables contain nitrates, the best sources are green leafy vegetables and beetroot. [Beet greens are delicious and also a good source of nitrate, but beetroot is the part of the beet we usually consume.]

Nitrite is absorbed from our intestine and converted to nitric oxide by a variety of enzymes in our tissues.

Both reactions require antioxidants like vitamin C, which are also found in fruits and vegetables.

Nitric oxide has several heart healthy benefits. For example:

It helps reduce inflammation in the lining of blood vessels. Inflammation stimulates atherosclerosis, blood clot formation, and is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

It relaxes the smooth muscle cells that surround our blood vessels. This makes the blood vessels more flexible and helps reduce blood pressure.

It prevents smooth muscle cells from proliferating, which prevents them from invading and constricting our arteries. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of atherosclerosis.

It prevents platelet aggregation. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke due to blood clots that block the flow of blood to our heart or brain.

It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.

However, few studies have asked whether this reduction in blood pressure translates into improved cardiovascular outcomes. This study (CP Bondonno et al, European Journal of Epidemiology, 36: 813-825, 2021) was designed to answer that question.

How Was This Study Done?

This study made use of data from the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Program. That program enrolled 53,150 participants from Copenhagen and Aarhus between 1993 and 1997 and followed them for an average of 21 years. None of the participants had a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease at the beginning of the study.

Other characteristics of the participants at the time they were enrolled in the study were:

46% male

Average age = 56

BMI = 26 (20% overweight)

Average systolic blood pressure = 140 mg Hg

Average diastolic blood pressure = 84 mg Hg

At the beginning of the study, participants filled out a 192-item food frequency questionnaire that assessed their average intake of various food and beverage items over the previous 12 months. The vegetable nitrate content of their diets was analyzed using a comprehensive database of the nitrate content of 178 vegetables. For those vegetables not consumed raw, the nitrate content was reduced by 50% to account for the nitrate loss during cooking.

Blood pressure was measured at the beginning of the study. Data on the incidence (first diagnosis) of heart disease during the study was obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry. Data were collected on diagnosis of the following heart health parameters:

Cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the circulatory system).

Ischemic heart disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the heart). The symptoms of ischemic heart disease range from angina to myocardial infarction (heart attack).

Ischemic stroke (lack of sufficient blood flow to the brain).

Hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in brain).

Heart failure.

Peripheral artery disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the extremities).

Is Nitrate From Vegetables Good For Your Heart?

Intake of nitrate from vegetables ranged from 18 mg/day (<1/3 serving of nitrate-rich vegetables per day) to 168 mg (almost 3 servings of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). The participants were grouped into quintiles based on their vegetable nitrate intake. When the group with the highest vegetable nitrate intake was compared to the group with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:

Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 2.58 mg Hg (1.8%).

Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 1.38 mg Hg (1.6%).

Risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.

Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.

Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.

Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.

Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.

Risk of hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) was not significantly reduced.

Two other observations were of interest:

Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion. However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.

Only about 21.9% of the improvement in heart health could be explained by the decrease in blood pressure. This is not surprising when you consider the other beneficial effects of nitric oxide described above.

The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Are Nitrates Good For You Or Bad For You?

You are probably thinking, “Wait a minute. I thought nitrates and nitrites were supposed to be bad for me. Which is it? Are nitrates good for me or bad for me?”

It turns out that nitrates and nitrites are kind of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They can be either good or bad. It depends on the food they are in and your overall diet.

Remember the beginning of this article when I said that the conversion of nitrates to nitric oxide depended on the presence of antioxidants? Vegetables are great sources of antioxidants. So, when we get our nitrate from vegetables, most of it is converted to nitric oxide. And, as I discussed above, nitric oxide is good for us.

However, when nitrates and nitrites are added to processed meats as a preservative, the story is much different. Processed meats have zero antioxidants. And the protein in the meats is broken down to amino acids in our intestine. The amino acids combine with nitrate to form nitrosamines, which are cancer-causing chemicals. Nitrosamines are bad for us.

Of course, we don’t eat individual foods by themselves. We eat them in the context of a meal. If you eat small amounts of nitrate-preserved processed meats in the context of a meal with antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, some of the nitrate will be converted to nitric oxide rather than nitrosamines. The processed meat won’t be as bad for you.

Eating Of The Green

Your mother was right. You should eat your fruits and vegetables!

The USDA recommends at least 3 servings of vegetables and 2 servings of fruit a day.

Based on this study, at least one of those servings should be nitrate-rich vegetables like green leafy vegetables and beets.

If you don’t like any of those, radishes, turnips, watercress, Bok choy, Chinese cabbage, kohlrabi, chicory leaf, onion, and fresh garlic are also excellent sources of nitrate.

The good news is that you may not need to eat green leafy vegetables and beets with every meal. If this study is correct, one serving per day may have heart health benefits. That means you can enjoy a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables as you try to meet the USDA recommendations.

Finally, if you don’t like any of those foods, you may be asking, “Can’t I just take a nitrate supplement?”

For blood pressure, there are dozens of clinical trials, and the answer seems to be yes – especially when the nitrate comes from vegetable sources and the supplement also contains an antioxidant like vitamin C.

For heart health benefits, the answer is likely to be yes, but clinical trials to confirm that would take decades. Double blind, placebo-controlled trials of that duration are not feasible, so we will never know for sure.

Moreover, you would not be getting all the other health benefits of a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables. Supplementation has its benefits, but it is not meant to replace a healthy diet.

The Bottom Line

We have known for years that fruits and vegetables are good for our hearts. We have assumed that it was because whole fruits and vegetables are low in saturated fats and provide heart-healthy nutrients, phytonutrients, and fiber. But could there be more?

It is well established that nitrates from fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure. More importantly, they can help slow the gradual increase in blood pressure as we age.

However, few studies have asked whether this reduction in blood pressure translates into improved cardiovascular outcomes. A recent study was designed to answer that question.

When the study compared people with the highest vegetable nitrate intake to people with the lowest vegetable nitrate intake:

Blood pressure was significantly reduced.

The risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 14%.

Risk of ischemic heart disease (angina and heart attack) was reduced by 13%.

Risk of ischemic stroke (stroke caused by lack of blood flow to the brain) was reduced by 14%.

Risk of heart failure was reduced by 17%.

Risk of peripheral artery disease was reduced by 31%.

Blood pressure and risk of peripheral artery disease decreased with increasing vegetable nitrate intake in a relatively linear fashion.

However, the other parameters of heart disease plateaued at a modest intake of vegetable nitrate intake (around one cup of nitrate-rich vegetables per day). This suggests that as little as one serving of nitrate-rich vegetables a day is enough to provide some heart health benefits.

The authors concluded, “Consumption of at least ~60 mg/day of vegetable nitrate (~ one serving of green leafy vegetables or beets) may mitigate risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Of course, you may have heard that nitrates and nitrites are bad for you. I discuss that in the article above.

For more details about 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

Give Your Heart A Valentine

February 10, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Can You Give Your Heart A Valentine?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Valentine’s Day is just around the corner. You have probably already selected Valentine Day cards and gifts for those nearest and dearest to you. But what about your heart. It’s your most trusted companion. Doesn’t it deserve a valentine?

The best Valentine’s gift you could give your heart would be a heart healthy diet. But what is a heart-healthy diet?

You may remember the nursery rhyme, “Jack Sprat could eat no fat. His wife could eat no lean…” You may know people who fit these extremes. And in terms of diets these extremes might represent the vegan and keto diets in today’s world.

The nursery rhyme assures us that, “…between them they licked the platter clean.” But were their diets equally heart-healthy? Which of them would have been more likely to live a long and healthy life, free of heart disease?

If you search Mr. Google – even with AI assist – you might be confused. That’s because AI bases its recommendations on the quantity of posts, not the accuracy of posts. And lots of media influencers recommend both diets, and just about every popular diet in between for heart health.

But what does good science say on the topic of heart healthy diets? Fortunately, a recent comprehensive review and meta-analysis (G. Riccardi et al, Cardiovascular Research, 118: 1118-1204, 2022) has answered that question.

How Was The Study Done?

The investigators reviewed 99 clinical studies with tens of thousands of participants that looked at the associations between foods or food groups and heart disease risk.

Most of the studies were “prospective cohort” studies in which:

Populations are divided into groups (cohorts) based on the foods they consume…

…and followed for a number of years (this is where the term “prospective” comes from)…

…and at the end of the study, the association between food and heart outcomes is measured.

However, the review also included several major randomized controlled clinical trials, including:

The DASH diet study.
The Lyon Diet Heart study.
The PREDIMED study.

Give Your Heart A Valentine

What is a heart-healthy diet? Here are the findings of the study. Most will sound very familiar. But you will note some subtle differences based on recent data.

The overall summary was that for a healthy adult population:

Low consumption of salt and foods of animal origin…

…and increased intake of plant foods…

…are associated with reduced heart disease risk.

Of course, we have known that for years. It’s when they broke the data down further that it became more interesting.

Foods Of Animal Origin:

Processed meats increase heart disease risk. A single serving of processed meat is associated with a 27% to 44% increased risk of heart disease. This is not new.

Unprocessed red meat is also associated with increased risk of heart disease, but this association is not as consistent as for processed meats. The authors noted that some of this may be due to differences in saturated fat content or cooking methods of the red meats included in individual studies.

But this analysis also showed that the effect of red meat on heart disease risk may be dose dependent. For example:

- The studies they reviewed suggested that consuming ≥3 servings per day of red meat is associated with a 27% increased risk of heart disease. However, consuming <3 servings per week may not increase risk, especially when consumed in the context of an otherwise heart-healthy diet.

White meat such as poultry does not appear to affect heart disease risk. This has been predicted by earlier reports, but this analysis strengthens those predictions.

Fish consumption decreases heart disease risk. This is not new. But this review added precision about recommended fish intake (2-4 servings/week) and a couple of caveats:

- The heart benefits of fish may be due to their omega-3 content and may not apply equally to fish with lower omega-3 content.

- The authors also expressed concerns about the sustainability of high-omega-3 fish populations. I would also add that our oceans are increasingly polluted, so contamination is another concern.

Egg consumption up to one egg/day does not appear to increase heart disease risk. This is consistent with the current American Heart Association recommendations.

However, the authors noted that the effect of eggs on serum cholesterol, and hence heart disease risk depends on several factors.

- Genetics, obesity, and diabetes can make it more difficult to regulate serum cholesterol levels. For these individuals, eggs may need to be eaten only sparingly.

- Diets low in saturated fat and high in fiber from plant foods help the body regulate serum cholesterol. Several studies suggest that eggs may decrease heart disease risk in the context of this type of a heart-healthy diet.

Dairy: Neither low-fat nor high-fat dairy foods appear to influence heart disease risk. This is different from the standard recommendation to consume low-fat dairy foods. But it is in line with the trend of recent research studies on dairy and heart disease.

Once again, there were a couple of caveats:

- There is increasing evidence that fermented dairy foods may decrease heart disease risk which may explain why certain high-fat cheeses and other high-fat fermented dairy foods appear to have a neutral or slightly beneficial effect on heart disease risk.

- As with eggs, the effect of high-fat dairy foods on heart disease risk may be influenced by genetics and diet context.

Foods Of Plant Origin: The effects of plant foods on heart health have been known for some time, and the most recent studies included in this analysis have not changed those conclusions.

Fruits and Vegetables consistently reduce heart disease risk in multiple studies. In each case, the optimal intake appears to be about 2 servings of each per day which provides an 18-21% risk reduction for vegetables and a 21-32% risk reduction for fruits.

Legumes (beans and peas) also consistently reduce heart disease risk in multiple studies. At the optimal intake of around 4 servings per week the risk reduction is around 14%.

Nuts also consistently reduce heart disease risk. At the optimal intake of around one serving (a handful) per day, the risk reduction is around 25%.

Cereals (grains) were divided into 3 categories:

- Refined carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (e.g., white rice, white bread) are associated with increased heart disease risk in multiple studies probably due to their effect on blood sugar levels. And the increased risk is significant (Around 66% higher risk for every 2 servings).

- Refined carbohydrates with a low glycemic index (e.g., pasta, corn tortillas) show an inconsistent effect on heart disease risk.

- Whole grains are consistently associated with a lower heart disease risk. Two servings of whole grains per day are associated with a 25%-34% decreased risk.

Miscellaneous Foods:

Soft Drinks are associated with increased heart disease risk. One serving per day increases the risk by around 15-22% and recent evidence suggests that artificially sweetened soft drinks offer no heart health benefits compared to sugar sweetened soft drinks.

Coffee and Tea are both associated with decreased heart disease risk. For coffee the optimal benefit may occur at around 3 cups/day. Higher levels may have an adverse effect on heart disease risk.

Summary of Heart Health Recommendations

If you think that was a lot of information, the authors provided a numerical summary of their recommendations for a heart-healthy diet. They are:

Two servings per day of vegetables, fresh fruits, and whole grains.

One serving per day of nuts and seeds, low-glycemic index refined cereals, extra-virgin olive oil or non-tropical vegetable oils, and yogurt.

Four servings per week of legumes and fish.

No more than 3 servings per week of white meat, eggs, cheese, and milk.

No more than 2 servings per week of high-glycemic index refined starchy foods, red meat, and butter.

Only occasional consumption of processed meats.

How Can You Give Your Heart A Valentine?

Of course, nobody wants to follow a “diet by the numbers”. If you are like most of us, you want flexibility and you want to be able to eat some of your favorite foods. So, let me put these recommendations into a more “user friendly” form.

If you want to give your heart a valentine:

Whole, unprocessed or minimally processed, plant foods are your heart’s best friends.

Your heart-healthy foundation should be fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, healthy plant oils, and legumes.

- Your heart-healthy foundation can also include fermented dairy foods and low-glycemic index refined grains.

- Your “go-to” beverages should be water, tea (both caffeinated and herbal teas), and coffee. You should avoid soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages.

Once you have achieved a heart-healthy foundation you can add a few servings per week of white meat, eggs, cheese, and dairy, even high-fat dairy.

- If you have good adherence to the heart-healthy foundation described above and no genetic or health issues that increase your risk of heart disease, you can probably eat more of these foods.

- Conversely, if your adherence to the heart-healthy foundation is poor and/or you are at high risk of heart disease, you may wish to consume less of these foods.

If you have good adherence to the heart-healthy foundation, you can also add up to 1-2 servings of high-glycemic index refined carbohydrates, red meat, or butter per week. With red meat, you may want to consider it as a garnish that adds flavor to a plant-based meal rather than the centerpiece of the meal.

- You should eat processed meats seldom or never.

This would be the best Valentine’s gift you could possibly give your heart.

The Bottom Line

For those of you who might want to give your heart a valentine, a new comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 99 clinical studies with tens of thousands of participants has updated the correlation between foods and heart disease risk.

Many of the recommendations based on this analysis are identical to previous recommendations for a heart-healthy diet.

But there are some subtle changes to those recommendations based on the latest data.

For more details about this study and what a heart-healthy diet might look like 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.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Is Melatonin Safe?

February 3, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is Peer Review?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Recent headlines claim that long-term melatonin use may be risky. Specifically, the headlines claim that long term melatonin use may increase the risk of:

Heart failure by 90%.

Hospitalization for heart failure by almost 3.5-fold.

All-cause mortality by 2-fold.

Those statistics are frightening. But as Mark Twain said, “There are lies. There are damn lies, and then there are statistics.”

So, as someone who uses a melatonin supplement regularly, the claims about heart failure risk made me want to check out the study behind the headlines.

I set out to answer two questions:

Are the claims about melatonin use and heart failure risk true?

Are they significant?

How Was The Study Done?

Here is what we know about the study:

The authors used a global data network of healthcare providers called the TriNetX Global Research Network and selected all patient records in the network of adults >18 who had a clinical diagnosis of insomnia.

They compared insomnia patients that had been prescribed melatonin for at least a year with non-melatonin users. Patients on heart failure drugs were excluded from the analysis.

Outcomes (new diagnosis of heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality) were assessed 5 years after the patients were first prescribed melatonin.

A small subset of the two groups (414 in each group) were compared with respect to things like:

- Demographics (things like age, sex, socioeconomic status, and income level).

- Other diagnosed diseases.

- Other medication use.

- Healthcare utilization.

- Blood and urine lab results.

- Vitals (things like weight, height, blood pressure, heart rate, etc.

I said, “Here is what we know about the study” because this was not a published clinical study. It was a poster presented at a scientific meeting.

That means that a lot of details about design of the experiments and how the data were analyzed are missing. It also means the study has not gone through the peer review process that is required for publication in a scientific journal.

To help you understand why that is important, let me explain the peer review process.

What Is Peer Review?

Poster presentations at scientific meetings, like this one, have a couple of purposes:

They give graduate students and post-doctorate fellows a chance to learn how to present and defend their research. It also gives them a chance to form relationships with the leaders in their field who may become their next step up the career ladder.

They foster discussions with other experts in the field who may spot flaws or offer helpful suggestions for improving the research before submitting it for publication.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to get the research to the point where it is ready to be submitted to a high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific journal (It is still “publish or perish” in the academic world).

This is an area in which I have extensive experience, having published over 100 articles in peer reviewed journals during my career at the University of North Carolina. I was also a reviewer for hundreds of articles during my time at UNC.

Once the manuscript has been submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, they send it to two or three peers (other experts in the same area of research). Some of the peers are your friends. Others are your competitors. In either case, their goal is to make sure the paper adheres to the highest scientific standards. They review the paper for:

Hypothesis to be tested: They ask, “Is the hypothesis credible and clearly stated?”

Experimental Design: They ask, “Are the experiments designed in such a way that they adequately test the hypothesis?”

Data Collection: They ask, “Was enough data gathered to test the hypothesis?” and “Were there gaps in the data that need to be filled?”

Statistical Analysis: They ask, “Was the statistical analysis of the data sufficient to test the hypothesis?” and “Were there any important controls missing from the data collected or the statistical analysis?”

Conclusions: They ask, “Are the conclusions of the authors adequately supported by the data collected and the statistical analysis?”

If the reviewers find defects in any of these areas, they have 3 options. They can:

Ask the authors to rewrite and resubmit the manuscript.

Ask the authors to perform additional experiments or use a more rigorous statistical method before resubmitting the manuscript.

Reject the manuscript.

Hopefully, this description helps you understand the power of the peer review process and why the lack of peer review for this study is significant.

I am not saying the claims in this poster presentation are inaccurate. I’m saying the headlines about them may be premature because the study has yet to be peer-reviewed.

What Did This Study Show?

The abstract said that long-term (≥1 year) melatonin users had:

An 89% higher risk of developing heart failure.

A 3.44-fold higher risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

A 2.09-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality.

The authors concluded, “In a large, multinational real-world cohort rigorously matched on >40 baseline variables, long-term melatonin supplementation in insomnia was associated with an 89% higher hazard of incident heart failure, a three-fold increase in heart failure–related hospitalizations, and a doubling of all-cause mortality over 5 years. These findings challenge the perception of melatonin as a benign chronic therapy and underscore the need for randomized trials to clarify its cardiovascular safety profile.”

Is Melatonin Safe?

At the beginning of this article I said I wanted to answer two questions:

Are the claims about melatonin use and heart failure risk true?

Are they significant?

The first question (Are the claims about melatonin use and heart failure risk true?) is difficult to answer.

This is an abstract instead of a publication. That means I have no access to the data, statistical methods, and controls that went into the Author’s conclusions. So, I have no basis for analyzing the accuracy of the authors’ statements.

This has not gone through peer review. The conclusions of the authors may be modified or may be rejected based on peer review.

There are several questions I and others who have discussed this study would like to see answered. For example:

How can hospitalizations for heart failure be greater than the number of people with heart failure? Normally, between 20-80% (average = 45%) of people with congestive heart failure end up in the hospital. The discrepancy between hospitalizations and heart failure patients in this study suggests that:

- Some hospitalizations were for another reason and were mischaracterized as being due to heart failure…or…

- The same individual(s) were hospitalized multiple times during the 5-year follow-up.

- In either case hospitalizations for heart failure would be overcounted.

How did they accurately distinguish between melatonin users and non-users since their study drew on data from both England and the United States?

- In England, melatonin is only available by prescription, so the distinction is clear.

- But in the United States a prescription is not required. Melatonin is infrequently prescribed. Most melatonin users obtain their melatonin over the counter and are not recorded in any database.

Were the controls sufficient?

- The author’s conclusion states the data were “…matched on >40 baseline variables…”, but the Methods section states that only a small subset (414) of melatonin users were matched for those variables. That is less than 5% of the melatonin users in the study.

Are the data on the relationship between melatonin use and all-cause mortality accurate?

- Again, the increase in all-cause mortality was greater than the number of melatonin users.

- That suggests that the increase in all-cause mortality may be due to some characteristics of severe insomniacs who choose to take melatonin rather than to melatonin itself.

These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered during the peer review process and might alter the conclusions or prevent the study from being published.

So, the answer to the first question (Are the claims about melatonin use and heart failure risk true?) is, “We don’t know. The study has not gone through the peer review process and is unpublished.

Relative Risk Versus Absolute Risk

The answer to the second question (Are the claims about melatonin use and heart failure risk significant) is much clearer. It has to do with the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

Simply put:

Relative risk is the change in risk caused by an intervention (melatonin in this case) relative to the risk without the intervention.

- Relative risk is generally used in describing the results of clinical studies because it gives much larger numbers and is, therefore, more newsworthy. It is more likely to generate the headlines you see and grab your attention.

Absolute risk is the actual change in risk that you experience.

- This is the risk that matters to you.

With those simple definitions, let’s review the claims of this study:

The study said that long-term melatonin use increased the risk of heart failure by 90%. That sounds horrible, but it is an increase in relative risk!

- To calculate the absolute increase in the risk of heart failure, you need to first ask what the baseline risk is in non-melatonin users. In this study it was 2.7%.

- With that information, we can do some simple math. A 90% increase would increase the risk to 4.6%. 4.6% – 2.7% = 1.9%.

- That means the absolute increase in risk caused by long-term melatonin use is less than 2%.

The study said that long-term melatonin use increases the risk of hospitalization 3.44-fold.

- On average, 45% of heart failure patients are hospitalized. Since the risk of heart failure in this study was 2.7%, that means the baseline for hospitalization should be 45% of 2.7% or around 1.2%.

- A 3.44-fold increase would increase that to 4.2% which means that the absolute risk of being hospitalized if you are a heart failure patient is around 3% (4.2% – 1,2%).

Finally, if the increase in all-cause mortality is solely caused by melatonin use (which is unclear), melatonin use increases mortality risk from 4.3% to 7.8%, for an absolute increase in risk of 3.5%.

In short, if the claims about melatonin use and heart failure are true (which is uncertain) the absolute increase in risk is very small for the average, healthy adult.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

If you are an average, healthy adult you probably do not need to be concerned about the headlines linking melatonin use with heart failure.

It is not yet clear whether the claims are accurate.

And, if they are accurate, your increased risk is very small.

There are, however, some caveats.

If you suffer from severe, chronic insomnia you should consult your healthcare provider first.

- Your insomnia may be caused by an underlying health condition.

- Your healthcare provider may suggest more effective treatments. Some of these treatments may have more side effects than melatonin use, but it always useful to know what your choices are.

If you have been diagnosed with heart failure, you should avoid melatonin.

Finally, even though this study is very preliminary, there are also some individuals who may wish to consult with their healthcare provider before taking melatonin. These include people with conditions that increase the risk of heart failure such as coronary heart disease, heart attacks, diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure.

The Bottom Line

Recent headlines have suggested that long-term melatonin use substantially increases the risk of heart failure, hospitalizations due to heart failure, and premature death.

However, these headlines were based on an abstract of a poster presented at a scientific meeting. That means:

There is not adequate information available to analyze the data behind the claims.

The study has not yet gone through the peer review process, so we don’t know whether the claims are accurate.

Based on my evaluation of the available information, my analysis is:

If you are an average, healthy adult you probably do not need to be concerned about the headlines linking melatonin use with heart failure.

It is not yet clear whether the claims are accurate.

And, if they are accurate, your increased risk is actually very small.

For more information on the study and who should consult with their healthcare provider before using melatonin, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

Is The New Food Guide Pyramid Healthy?

January 27, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Brief History Of USDA Food Guides

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Unless you have cut yourself off from all outside media, you already know the USDA has just released new “Dietary Guidelines For Americans” and a new, upside down, food pyramid.

Both the AMA and AHA have endorsed the new guidelines with some reservations. But like everything else in today’s world they have become both political and controversial.

Some experts are saying, “The new guidelines are fantastic. They will make Americans much healthier. It’s about time the government caught up with the latest scientific advances.

Others are saying, “The new guidelines are terrible. They will set medicine back 20 years.”

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I will explore that middle ground and discuss the pros and cons of the new dietary guidelines and food guide pyramid in this article.

But first we should start with something everyone can agree with, “What we are doing now isn’t working!” For example:

The percentage of Americans who are overweight or obese is approaching 70%.

The United States spends more on healthcare per person than any other country in the world. But we…

- Rank 48^th in life expectancy. We not only rank below every developed country, but we also rank below many 3^rd world countries.

- - And we are losing ground. In 1990, we ranked 35^th in life expectancy.

- Rank 69^th in health span (healthy life expectancy).

- - Again, we are losing ground. Our ranking was 42^nd in 1990.

- Rank dead last (183^rd out of 183) in health span as a percentage of life expectancy.

In short, we are falling behind the rest of the world in terms of lifespan, health span, and percentage of healthy years.

And our deteriorating health is costly.

90% of our health care spending is for preventable diseases

A Brief History Of USDA Food Guides

The USDA introduced the first food guide pyramid in 1992 based on the best nutrition science of the time. You probably remember the mantra:

2-3 servings of dairy, preferably low fat.

2-3 servings in the protein category (lean meats, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts).

2-4 servings of fruits and 3-5 servings of vegetables.

6-11 servings of grains (bread, cereals, rice, and pasta).

Fats, oils, and sweets were at the top of the pyramid with the caption, “Use Sparingly”.

This pyramid and the accompanying dietary guidelines were publicized so much that practically everyone knew them by heart.

Ten years later the USDA did a nutrition survey to see if their guidelines had changed American’s eating behavior. The answer was a clear, “No”. Only 5% of Americans ate according to the food guide pyramid.

The Geniuses at the USDA concluded that the food guide pyramid must be too difficult for the average American, so they introduced a simpler version, My Pyramid in 2005.

Guess what! Only 5% of Americans followed those recommendations, so they went to the super simple My Plate. By now you have probably guessed that only 5% of Americans followed the My Plate recommendations.

It turns out Americans weren’t confused by the recommendations. The recommendations were just too different from the way they were used to eating.

So, one change you will see in the new food guide pyramid is it includes some of Americans favorite foods, such as red meat, butter, and full fat dairy. Is that sacrilege or is it smart? Only time will tell.

With that in mind, let’s discuss the new “Dietary Guidelines For Americans”.

#1: Eat Real Food

This is one recommendation that virtually everyone agrees with. The average American is getting 55% of their calories from highly processed foods. And the health consequences of that much processed food are devastating. Consumption of highly processed foods is linked to higher risk of:

Obesity.
Type 2 diabetes.
Heart attack.
Stroke.
Some cancers.
Depression and anxiety.
Dementia
Premature death.

If you are wondering how we got to this point, the answer is simple. It stems from the desire of Americans to eat a healthier diet without giving up their favorite foods and the willingness of Big Food Inc (the food industry) to give us exactly what we want. For example:

Some people want to eat a more plant-based diet, but don’t want to give up their favorite meats. Big Food Inc is only too happy to oblige. They mix some fat, salt, and a witch’s brew of chemicals to give us phony baloney, faken bacon, and everyone’s favorite, tofurkey.

Some people are convinced keto diets are healthy, but don’t want to give their favorite sweets. Again, Big Food Inc is only too happy to oblige. They mix up a witch’s brew of chemicals to give us keto cookies and keto pastries.

I’m being facetious, but you get my point.

Some representatives of Big Food Inc claim that the health risks of processed foods are unproven. They are lying!

If you would like to read my reviews of major studies showing the health risks of highly processed foods, just go to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and put “processed foods” in the search box.

#2: Prioritize Protein Foods at Every Meal

This is one of the more controversial recommendations of the new food guide pyramid. The new USDA dietary guidelines increase the protein recommendation by 50-100% compared to previous versions…

From 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight to…

Between 0.54 and 0.72 grams of protein per pound of body weight.

[Note: If these numbers seem different from what you have seen, that is because the official recommendations are in grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. Since most Americans have no idea what their body weight is in kilograms, those numbers are useless.]

The main criticisms about the new protein recommendations are:

#1: “There isn’t solid evidence that most people need this much protein.”

My response is that anyone who makes that claim hasn’t kept up with the last two decades of protein research.

The old 0.36/pound standard is probably OK for the average middle-aged couch potato, but higher protein intakes are needed for people who are:

Active, especially if they are trying to increase muscle mass, strength, or endurance.

Over 50 and are trying to maintain muscle mass, strength, and mobility.

Trying to lose weight without losing muscle, especially if they are using GLP-1 drugs.

Trying to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases.

In short, almost everyone except the couch potatoes will benefit from higher protein intakes. And, yes, the latest science shows that it is best to get at least 20 grams of protein with each meal.

You can find more information about the science behind increased protein recommendations by going to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and putting “protein” in the search box.

#2: “The new guidelines don’t steer people towards plant proteins”. This is a subtle distinction. The new USDA dietary guidelines include plant protein sources. But they do not recommend that they replace some of the animal proteins in the diet, as did previous versions. This allows people to choose between animal and plant proteins based on their preferences.

Those of you who have been following my “Health Tips From the Professor” blog know that I am an advocate of primarily plant-based diets. I am fully in the “replace some animal protein with vegetable protein” camp.

But I acknowledge that is not the way most Americans eat. Perhaps it is time to make dietary recommendations that align more closely with the way people eat if we want to get above 5% acceptance.

It would also be difficult to meet the new protein guidelines with plant protein alone unless you add commercially available plant protein supplements.

#3: “Higher protein intakes may be harmful for some people”. Recent research has shown that this concern is overblown for most Americans. However, there are some people who should probably check with their doctor before they increase their protein intake.

People who have been diagnosed with kidney disease.

People with genetic conditions or diseases that predispose to kidney disease. One example would be poorly controlled diabetes. [Note: I do not mean to imply that higher protein intake is likely to cause kidney disease in these situations. I included this category because people in these situations may have undiagnosed kidney disease.]

In most of these cases, you have probably been warned by your doctor to be careful about excess protein intake. But if you are uncertain about your risk for kidney disease, it never hurts to check with your doctor before increasing your protein intake.

What About Red Meat?

The new dietary guidelines have been criticized for emphasizing red meat. That criticism is inaccurate. It’s a “tempest in a teapot”.

In fact, red meat is pictured in both the original and the most recent versions of the food guide pyramid. And red meat is mentioned as one source of protein in both the original and the latest versions of dietary guidelines. It is given no special emphasis over other protein sources in either version of the dietary guidelines.

However, I would like to share my perspective on red meat.

Diet context matters. As I have said in previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans are the antidotes to all the bad aspects of red meat.” And if you look at the new food guide pyramid, red meat and other proteins are in the same neighborhood as fruits and vegetables.

Amount matters. Think of red meat as a garnish – for example, 2-3 ounces of red meat as part of a steak salad or stir fry with lots of veggies rather than an 8-ounce steak with fries.

#3: Consume Dairy

The new dietary guidelines differ from previous versions in both the amount and kind of dairy foods consumed. For example:

The old guidelines recommended 2-3 servings of dairy foods per day.

- The new guidelines recommend 3 servings per day as part of a 2,000-calorie dietary pattern.

- Since most Americans consume 3,600 to 3,800 calories per day that recommendation translates to at least 5 servings per day.

The old guidelines recommended choosing low fat dairy foods.

- The new guidelines say, “When consuming dairy, include full-fat dairy with no added sugars.”

Since the full-fat dairy recommendation is the most controversial change, I will address it first.

Let me start by saying that I have been a traditionalist with respect to dairy foods. I have recommended low-fat dairy foods for years. But a good scientist must be willing to change their recommendations based on the latest research findings.

And new findings have clearly challenged our perspective on full-fat dairy foods. Several large, well-designed studies over the past decade have shown that full-fat dairy foods are just as healthy as low-fat dairy foods. I will make two comments about these studies.

I suspect that the studies may be skewed because much of the data on full-fat dairy comes from countries where most of full-fat dairy foods are fermented – and we know that fermented dairy foods are very healthy.

- Admittedly, I have no data to back up my suspicion, but I recommend fermented dairy foods as part of your dairy intake. That’s a recommendation everyone can agree with!

One recent study has suggested that diet context is important. Specifically, the study suggests that the benefits of full-fat dairy foods are greatest in the context of a healthy, primarily plant-based diet.

- Similar observations have been made for egg consumption. That suggests that full-fat dairy and eggs provide some important nutrients that may be missing in a vegetarian diet. But in a diet that is already high in saturated fat and cholesterol, the “bad” effects of full-fat dairy and eggs may outweigh the benefits.

You can find more information about full-fat dairy by going to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and putting “dairy” in the search box.

As for the amount of dairy foods you should consume, I wouldn’t get hung up on the number of servings per day. I interpret the new guidelines as saying, “Don’t be afraid of dairy. It can be an important part of your diet.”

However, the servings of dairy products are more frequently determined by lactose intolerance or sensitivity to milk protein than by dietary guidelines. Many people, including myself, can only consume small, occasional servings of dairy without experiencing digestive distress.

#4: Eat Vegetables & Fruits Throughout The Day

The dietary guidelines say, “Eat a variety of colorful, nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits. Specifically, the recommendation is:

3 servings/day of vegetables and 2 servings/day of fruits each day.

- Once again, the number of servings are based on a 2,000-calorie diet.

- When you take into account the actual caloric intake of Americans, the recommendations become 3-5 servings/day of vegetables and 2-4 servings/day of fruits.

These recommendations are not controversial. They are universally accepted.

#5: Incorporate Healthy Fats

The new dietary guidelines are:

“Healthy fats are plentiful in many whole foods, such as meats, poultry, eggs, omega-3 rich seafood, nuts, seeds, full-fat dairy, olives, and avocados.”

- This recommendation is not controversial.

“When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options can include butter or beef tallow.”

- This is the most controversial portion of the new dietary guidelines. The usual comment is something like, “How dare they include butter and lard as healthy fats!”

I’m not a fan of lard but let me make a couple of observations about butter.

Butter is a whole food. Its ingredient list is typically cream, milk, and salt. If you buy the unsalted version, the ingredient list is even shorter. Margarine and butter substitutes have much longer ingredient lists, often including some questionable ingredients.

The frequency of butter use is important. Let me share a personal example. We eat a whole food, primarily plant-based diet. We substitute almond butter for butter on toast and muffins. But there are certain foods like potatoes, winter squash, and corn on the cob that just aren’t the same without real butter. We buy 4 sticks of butter at a time, cut it into pats of butter, and freeze it. Four sticks of butter lasts us a year.

Finally, the critics who say that the new guidelines should not include foods that are high in saturated fat are ignoring the fact that the guidelines say, “Saturated fat consumption should not exceed 10% of total daily calories.” This statement has remained constant since the first food guide pyramid in 1992.

So, the new guidelines are not recommending that we eat more saturated fat as many critics have claimed. They are saying, “A little bit of saturated fat is OK in the context of a whole food diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

#6: Focus On Whole Grains

The new dietary guidelines are:

“Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains.”

“Significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed, refined carbohydrates.”

These guidelines are unchanged from previous versions of the guidelines.

What is new is that the guidelines now recommend only 2-4 servings of whole grains per day. That’s a big change from the 6-11 servings per day recommended in the original food guide pyramid.

If the 6-11 servings per day were whole grains, the new recommendation would represent a significant decrease in fiber intake. But that’s not how most Americans eat.

Since most of the grains in a typical American’s diet are highly processed and refined, reducing the recommended intake to 2-4 servings per day is a step in the right direction.

#7: Limit Highly Processed Foods, Added Sugars, & Refined Carbohydrates

I call this, “Avoid the bad stuff”. Specifically:

Avoid highly processed foods with added sugar and sodium.

Limit foods and beverages that include artificial flavors, colors, preservatives, and sweeteners

Avoid sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.

These recommendations are accepted by almost everyone except the food industry.

However, I should point out that there is also a slight difference in emphasis from previous versions of the USDA dietary guidelines:

The new guidelines are more restrictive for added sugars than previous versions of the dietary guidelines. For example, they say:

- One meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugars.

- Children under the age of 10 should not be given foods with added sugars (previous versions of the dietary guidelines recommend avoiding added sugars for children under the age of 2).

Given the wealth of evidence that added sugars are linked to increased risk of obesity and chronic diseases, these stricter restrictions on added sugars make good sense – especially because the USDA dietary guidelines form the basis for school lunch programs.

But these guidelines are very different from how the average American eats. I’m not sure how many Americans will follow them.

#8: Limit Alcoholic Beverages

The guidelines:

Say, “Consume less alcohol for better overall health”.

List people who should completely avoid alcohol.

The only controversy about this recommendation is that it is less specific than the previous guidelines that recommended no more than 1 alcoholic drink/day for women and no more than 2/day for men.

I recognize the desire for specificity. But alcohol tolerance depends on several factors such as body weight, genetics, and medication usage.

What Does This Mean For You?

The USDA just released a new version of the Food Guide Pyramid and accompanying “Dietary Guidelines For Americans”, and they are very different from previous versions. What do these changes mean for you?

While the AMA and AHA have both endorsed the new guidelines, they have been controversial. In the article above, I have summarized the pros and cons of every recommendation. There are lots of recommendations, so it was a long article.

To help you make sense of the article let me summarize the recommendations and criticisms by dividing the recommendations into 4 categories:

#1: Recommendations that are accepted by almost everyone except the food industry. These are non-controversial.

Eat real food

Eat vegetables and fruits throughout the day.

Focus on whole grains.

Limit highly processed foods, added sugar, and refined carbohydrates.

#2: Changes in recommendations that reflect recent scientific advances. Critics of these changes simply haven’t kept up with scientific publications over the past couple of decades.

Increasing the daily protein recommendations.

Including full-fat dairy as a healthy dairy food.

#3: Tempests in a teapot: There is a kernel of truth in these criticisms, but the changes are much more modest than the critics would have you believe.

Including red meat in the protein recommendations.

Including some saturated fats in the “healthy fats” category.

Not including specific limits on alcohol consumption, as the previous version had done.

#4: What I would have liked to have seen:

More emphasis on plant proteins.

Elimination of lard from the “healthy fat” category.

Inclusion of high-quality vegetable oils in the “healthy fats” category.

The Bottom Line

The USDA just released a new version of the Food Guide Pyramid and accompanying “Dietary Guidelines For Americans”.

While the AMA and AHA have both endorsed the new guidelines, they have been controversial.

In this article I describe the pros and cons of each dietary guideline and divide them into ones for which:

They are clearly an improvement over the previous guideline.

They are accepted by almost everyone.

The criticism is a “tempest in a teapot”.

The criticism is at least partially accurate.

For more information on the pros and cons of the new “Dietary Guidelines For Americans” and how these guidelines apply to 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

For the past 55 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 Creatine Good For The Brain?

January 20, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Creatine And Energy Metabolism

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Creatine has developed a reputation as the “go to” supplement for athletes.

In a recent survey of NCAA Division I athletes, 48% of male athletes use creatine on a regular basis.

Over 80% of professional athletes in power sports like football use it.

But you may have seen recent reports that creatine is also good for the brain. You may be wondering:

Are those reports true?

If you are not an athlete, should you be taking creatine for a healthy brain?

If so, how much should you be taking?

Is regular creatine use safe?

I will review a couple of recent studies and answer these questions below. But first, it is time for my favorite topic: Metabolism 101. This week’s Metabolism 101 topic is, “Creatine And Energy Metabolism”.

Metabolism 101: Creatine And Energy Metabolism

Energy Metabolism: Before discussing the role of creatine in the body, I should start at the beginning by describing the basics of energy metabolism in our body. As you have probably heard, ATP is the energy currency of the cell.

Our cells generate energy in two ways:

Anaerobic (without oxygen) metabolism can generate ATP quickly but can only sustain high-intensity work for a few minutes.

Aerobic (with oxygen) metabolism requires oxygen and organelles called mitochondria to generate ATP. Aerobic metabolism can provide enough ATP to sustain moderate to low intensity work for hours.

Our cells don’t store ATP. They use it as fast as it is produced to:

Synthesize protein and many other components of the cell.
Synthesize DNA and fuel cell division.
Repair and regenerate cell membranes and cellular organelles.
Pump nutrients in and out of the cells and transport them to where they are needed within the cell.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of cellular reactions require ATP.

The Role Of Creatine In Cellular Energy Metabolism: Let’s start with the basics:

We can think of creatine as an energy bank.

When the cell has plenty of ATP, it makes a deposit into its energy bank by converting creatine into creatine-phosphate.

When the cell needs energy quickly it makes a withdrawal from its energy by converting creatine phosphate to creatine and generating ATP.

Creatine is found primarily in high energy tissues (muscle, brain, and testes) – No, I’m not going to talk about creatine and fertility today.

Every time the creatine-creatine-phosphate cycle occurs in high energy tissues, a small amount of creatine is converted to creatinine and filtered through the kidneys. There are two important consequences of this fact:

#1: The faster the phosphocreatine/creatine cycle turns, the more rapidly creatine will be converted to creatinine and drained from the body.

#2: Our body needs to constantly replenish its creatine stores. It does this in two ways:

Creatine is synthesized by the liver, kidneys, and pancreas. But it is not stored there. It is released into the bloodstream for use by high energy tissues. It is also synthesized by the brain. But creatine synthesized in the brain can only be used by the brain. It is not released into the bloodstream.

Creatine can come from muscle-containing foods – primarily red meat, chicken, and fish. Plant foods provide no creatine.

Creatine can also come from supplements – the topic of this article.

High-energy tissues have transporters that allow them to take up creatine from the bloodstream.

Creatine plays slightly different roles in muscle and brain.

Creatine Supplementation For Optimizing Muscle Function

Creatine in the muscle is primarily used for high-intensity short duration exercise. In muscle you can think of creatine as being used to “jump-start” high intensity exercise.

It takes a few seconds for anaerobic metabolism to go into overdrive. Creatine-phosphate stores fill that gap.

Muscle creatine-phosphate stores can fuel high-intensity exercise for 8-15 seconds (average = 10 seconds).

Creatine supplementation is well accepted for sports requiring short, intense bursts of power, speed, and strength, such as football, basketball, hockey, soccer, wrestling, bodybuilding, and sprinting. It is supported by dozens of published clinical studies.

The rationale is not hard to understand.

Muscle normally contains enough creatine-phosphate to support around 10 seconds of high-intensity exercise.

Creatine-phosphate supplementation increases muscle creatine stores by 20-40%. That supports another 2-4 seconds of exercise.

That may not sound like much. But anaerobic metabolism does not kick in until creatine-phosphate stores are exhausted, so the total amount of high-intensity power attained during each rep of a workout is increased by 2-4 seconds.

Over a period of weeks or months that extra 2-4 seconds of high intensity exercise during each rep of training translates into real gains in lean muscle mass, muscle strength, and exercise performance.

Of course, creatine supplementation provides little benefit for athletes involved in endurance sports.

Here are some other notable points about creatine supplementation for athletes:

Creatine supplementation benefits most athletes involved in high-intensity sports, but it appears to be particularly useful for vegans and vegetarians who may not be getting creatine from their diet.

Clinical studies and real-life experience have shown that creatine is safe when used properly. (I will discuss mild side effects and cautions below).

The doses used most frequently are:

- Around 20 grams/day for quick results. For optimal absorption, it is best to divide it into 4 daily servings of 5 grams.

- Around 5 grams/day for maintenance and for general use.

- The eventual amount of muscle creatine is the same with 20- and 5-gram doses. The only difference is the speed at which optimal creatine levels are attained.

Creatine is best utilized when taken with food or smoothies containing both carbohydrate and protein.

Adequate hydration is important (more about that below).

Creatine Supplementation And Brain Health

Brain is different from muscle in that it depends on aerobic metabolism and is always using ATP at a high rate. Brain accounts for 20% of our body’s energy demand. In brain we can think of creatine as a buffer or reserve.

Brain creatine-phosphate stores are used in situations where the brain needs to increase its energy use over baseline (more about that below).

The initial excitement about creatine supplementation optimizing brain health came from mouse studies. However, we need to remember that mice aren’t humans. In this case the difference is clear.

Creatine supplementation increases brain creatine levels by 50% in mice, but only around 5-10% on average in humans.

So, it is not clear whether the results obtained with mice also apply to humans. The results of clinical trials with humans are mixed. They are promising, but not definitive.

Is Creatine Good For The Brain?

To answer that question I will share two recent reports with you as examples of where the creatine and brain health hypothesis stands at present.

Study #1: Creatine Supplementation And Alzheimer’s Disease.

This study (AN Smith et al, Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 11270101, 2025) was designed to test the hypothesis that creatine supplementation might be beneficial for Alzheimer’s patients. It was a pilot study – designed to determine whether there was enough evidence to justify a larger clinical trial.

How Was This Study Done? Twenty participants, 60-90 years old (average = 73), were enrolled in this study. They had been previously diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and had been taking Alzheimer’s medication for at least 30 days. Each participant had a partner (spouse, family member, or friend) to support them and aid in accurate participation and reporting.

Participants consumed 20 grams of creatine, split into two 10-gram doses for 8 weeks.

- Participants and their partners were given compliance trackers with two boxes to be checked each day to measure adherence to the supplementation protocol. Adherence was 90%.

Blood creatine levels were measured at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks as another measure of adherence.

Two measures of cognitive health were administered at baseline and at 8 weeks.

- MMSE (a 30-item cognitive test).

- The NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery, which measures attention, category switching, episodic memory, working memory, speed of processing, written language, and auditory language.

Brain creatine levels were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic imaging.

What Did The Study Show?

Participants and their partners reported 13 incidences of mild side effects, which included cramping/muscle pain, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, facial flushing, and sleep disturbances.

Blood creatine levels increased 23-fold in 4 weeks and remained elevated at 8 weeks.

Brain creatine levels increased by 11% at 8 weeks.

When assessed with the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery, creatine supplementation (20 grams/day) improved:

- Total cognition by 4%.

- Fluid cognition by 7%.

- List sorting working memory by 11%.

- Oral reading recognition by 5%.

- Attention by 7%.

There were no significant changes in the 5 other cognition categories in the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery.

The authors concluded, “Our study provides the first evidence in humans that creatine supplementation is feasible and may increase brain creatine and offer cognitive benefits to patients with Alzheimer’s Disease.”

These results are preliminary and suggest that future efficacy trials comparing creatine to placebo are needed to generate evidence that can be compared to other Alzheimer’s Disease clinical trials.”

“Should creatine provide benefit, the public health implications may be substantial given Alzheimer’s Disease cases are anticipated to rise and creatine is cost-effective with a good safety profile.”

Why Did I Include This Study? You may be wondering why I included such a preliminary study in my review. The answer is simple: It provides a graphical view of individual variability.

Every study mentions individual variability, but because this study has only 20 participants, the authors were able to graphically show the response of every individual in the study. And the results were informative.

In terms of brain creatine levels:

- Some individuals had increases in the 25-30% range.

- Others had increases of around 2-5%.

Similar variability was seen with each individual measure of cognition.

However, the most interesting result was that several measures of cognition were highly correlated with the changes in brain creatine levels. This suggests that the limiting factor in the brain health benefits of creatine may be the ability of creatine supplementation to influence brain creatine levels.

Study #2: Creatine Supplementation And Brain Health.

This study (H Roschel et al, Nutrients, 13, 586, 2021) is a review of 16 studies looking at the effect of creatine supplementation on various aspects of brain health.

All the studies were small.
They used different measures of cognitive health.
Most of the studies were short (2-15 days).
They used different measures of brain creatine levels (Creatine levels vary according to the region of the brain that is scanned).

While emphasizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies of published studies, the authors said:

“Creatine supplementation may positively influence some aspects of cognition under stressful conditions such as:

- Hypoxia (reduced oxygen flow to the brain caused by chronic conditions like atherosclerotic narrowing of the carotid arteries, asthma, and COPD.

- Sleep deprivation, especially when combined with exercise.”

They also discussed the theory that creatine supplementation may be beneficial for conditions associated with reduced brain creatinine levels such as:

- Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive decline in general, mild traumatic brain injury, and depression.

They put particular emphasis on the potential benefits of creatine supplementation for mild traumatic brain injury, saying:

“Collectively, despite limited data, creatine supplementation seems potentially beneficial in reducing severity of or enhancing recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), warranting further studies on its role not only as a post-injury therapy but also as a neuroprotective agent in populations at high risk of mTBI”

“Encouraging supplementation to reduce damage from or enhance recovery from mTBI…would ordinarily be considered premature. However, in this instance, given the devastating effects of mTBI, combined with the large body of safety and efficacy creatine supplementation data, encouraging supplementation for populations who are at high risk for mTBI might be considered more prudent.”

Finally, the authors concluded,

“There is a potential for creatine supplementation to improve cognitive processing, especially in conditions characterized by brain creatine deficits, which could be induced by acute stressors (e.g., exercise, sleep deprivation) or chronic, pathologic conditions (e.g., mTBI, cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease, depression).”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

If you are interested in creatine to support any kind of high intensity, short duration activity, the data are clear. Creatine supplementation in the 5-20 gm/day range with adequate hydration is both safe and effective.

Creatine offers little benefit for endurance events. But if you engage in any kind of high intensity training to build muscle mass in preparation for endurance events, creatine is likely to be of benefit.

However, we are at the early stages of understanding the effects of creatine supplementation on brain health and cognitive function. Most of the results are promising, but preliminary.

Here is a brief summary:

The effectiveness of creatine supplementation at increasing brain creatine levels and improving brain function is highly variable.

- For some individuals, creatine supplementation results in a 25-30% increase in brain creatine levels. Those individuals are likely to experience brain health benefits.

- For other individuals, creatine supplementation results in 2-5% increase in brain creatine levels. These individuals may not experience noticeable brain health benefits.

These reason for this variability in the effect of creatine supplementation is unknown at present.

This reminds me of my last decade (2002-2012) of cancer research at the University of North Carolina. At the beginning of the decade, here were certain cancer drugs that were considered unproven because their effectiveness was variable. They appeared to help some cancer patients, but were ineffective for others.

The we started to look at the genetic mutations that caused individual cancers. By the end of the decade we had discovered those drugs were amazingly effective for cancers with certain genetic backgrounds. Those drugs went from being “duds” to being “stars”.

Creatine supplementation for brain health is where those cancer drugs were in 2002. Until we can predict which individuals will experience a significant increase in brain creatine levels with supplementation, clinical studies will continue to be inconsistent, and the scientific community will continue to consider creatine supplementation for brain health to be “unproven”.

But the good news is that, with adequate hydration, creatine supplementation is safe. So, you can take it for its muscle benefits. And, if you also experience brain health benefits, consider it an added benefit.

And there are certain situations where even the medical profession often recommends creatine supplementation for brain health. For example:

Studies suggest that creatine supplementation may improve brain function for people with sleep deprivation, mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive decline, conditions that restrict blood flow to the brain, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression.

- For example, it is often recommended for mild traumatic brain injury because the health consequences of untreated traumatic brain injury are severe and the risks of creatine supplementation are low.

Finally, the optimal dosage and duration of creatine supplementation for brain health benefits is unknown.

Most studies use 20 grams/day divided into two or three smaller doses.

But the effect of body weight on dosage recommendations has not been studied. People in the sports medicine field tell me that female gymnasts use significantly less creatine than male football players. If your body weight is low, you might want to aim for 10-15 grams/day.

Creatine Supplementation Cautions

While the safety of creatine supplementation is well established, 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.

- Even if your kidneys are perfectly healthy, creatine supplementation may increase blood creatinine levels. If your health professional is using creatinine levels to measure kidney health, you should let them know that you are supplementing with creatine.

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

However, we are at the early stages of understanding the effects of creatine supplementation on brain health and cognitive function. Most of the results are promising, but preliminary.

I discussed two studies on creatine supplementation and brain health in this article. Here is a brief summary of their findings:

Creatine supplementation may improve brain function for people with sleep deprivation, mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive decline, conditions that restrict blood flow to the brain, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression).

- Although the effectiveness of creatine supplementation on brain function is uncertain at present, many experts recommend it if you fall into one of the categories listed above because creatine supplementation has been shown to be safe by decades of sports medicine studies.

The effectiveness of creatine supplementation at increasing brain creatine levels and improving brain function is highly variable.

- For some individuals, creatine supplementation results in a 25-30% increase in brain creatine levels. Those individuals are likely to experience brain health benefits.

- For other individuals, creatine supplementation results in 2-5% increase in brain creatine levels. These individuals may not experience noticeable brain health benefits.

But the good news is that, with adequate hydration, creatine supplementation is safe. So, you can take it for its muscle benefits. And, if you also experience brain health benefits, consider it an added benefit.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and cautions about using creatine supplements, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

Which Diets Were Best In 2025?

January 13, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Which Diet Should You Choose For Good Health?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Many of you started 2026 with goals of losing weight and/or improving your health. In many cases, that involved choosing a new diet.

And for many of you the “bloom” has already gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically January 1^st.

Perhaps the diet isn’t working as well as advertised…

Perhaps the diet is too restrictive. You are finding it hard to stick with…

Perhaps you are always hungry or constantly fighting food cravings…

Perhaps you are starting to wonder whether there is a better diet than the one you chose January 1^st…

Perhaps you are wondering whether the diet you chose is the wrong one for you…

If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. For 15 consecutive years US News & World Report has invited a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combined the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories.

They did not rank diets this year but said that little has changed since their last rankings in 2025.

If you are still searching for your ideal diet, I will summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2026”. For the full report, click on this link.

How Was This Report Created?

US News & World Report recruited panel of 69 nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes, and heart disease to review the most popular diets. This year they reviewed 38 diets in 21 different categories based on the most common reasons for choosing a specific diet.

Of course, fad diets come and go. Each year they drop diets that are no longer popular and add ones that are either new or have recently surged in popularity.

The panel rated diets based on:

Nutritional Completeness: The best diets include a variety of nutrient-dense foods that provide essential carbohydrates, protein, healthy fats, vitamins, and minerals.

Health Benefits and Risks: These diets are evidenced-based, promote health benefits, reduce disease risks, and focus on high-fiber, nutrient-rich, and antioxidant-packed foods.

Proven and Sustainable: These diets are supported by a large body of evidence that they protect against chronic disease and promote a long, healthy life. These diets also provide clear guidelines on what to eat more of and what to eat less of while allowing flexibility to suit personal preferences, including flavors, cultural cuisines and budget. Because these diets are adaptable, they are more sustainable in the long run and less likely to promote a rigid eating approach.

US News & World Report converted the experts’ ratings to scores 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). They then used these scores to construct 21 categories of Best Diets rankings. I have included the following 8 categories in this Health Tips Blog.

Best Diets Overall ranks diets on several different parameters, including whether all food groups are included in the diet, the availability of the foods needed to be on the diet and the use of additional vitamins or supplements.

They considered if the diet was evidence-based and adaptable to meet cultural, religious, or other personal preferences.

In addition, the criteria also included evaluation of the prep and planning time required for the diet and the effectiveness of the diet for someone who wants to get and stay healthy.

Best Plant-Based Diets used the same approach as Best Diets Overall to rank the plans emphasizing minimally processed foods from plants that were included in this year’s ratings.

Best Healthy Weight-Loss Diet ratings were generated by combining the safety of the weight loss program and the likelihood of the plan to result in successful long-term weight loss and maintenance of weight loss.

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets were scored on their effectiveness for someone who wants to lose weight in three months or less.

Best Diabetes Diet ratings were calculated equally from the effectiveness of the diet for someone who wants to lower risk factors for diabetes, the nutritional quality of the diet, and research evidence-based support for the diet.

Best Heart-Healthy Diet ratings were calculated equally from the effectiveness of the diet for someone who wants to lower risk factors for hypertension and other forms of heart disease, the nutritional quality of the diet, and evidence-based support for the diet.

Best Diets for Inflammation were diets of whole, minimally processed foods like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, healthy fats, nuts, seeds, beans, fatty fish and lean proteins that have been shown to decrease inflammation.

Easiest Diets to Follow represents panelists’ averaged scores for the relevant lifestyle questions, including whether all food groups are included and if the recommended foods are readily available at the average supermarket.

Which Diets Were Worst In 2025?

I did not include the worst diets in each category I listed below, but the US News & World Report article gave clear guidelines on what to avoid when choosing a healthy diet. In their words:

Avoid processed foods and sugary snacks: Sure, they taste great, but these can leave you with energy crashes and cravings that lead to overeating.

Watch out for “diet” foods: Just because something says “low-fat” or “diet” doesn’t mean it’s healthy. These foods often have added sugars or artificial ingredients. It is worth checking the label.

Skip extreme restrictions: Cutting out entire food groups or drastically slashing calories might work short term, but it’s hard to stick with and usually leads to burnout or regaining weight.

Focus on progress, not perfection: The best weight-loss strategies are about balance and flexibility, not rigid rules. Life happens, so it’s better to aim for consistency over time than to stick to an overly strict plan you can’t keep up with.

Focus on lifestyle change, not a quick fix: Healthy weight loss isn’t about quick fixes. It’s about building a lifestyle you enjoy and change sustain. Small changes, like adding more veggies to your meals or choosing water rather than sodas, may not seem like much, but they add up to lasting results over time.

Consistency over time beats perfection: An occasional slice of cake or pizza with friends won’t ruin your progress.

Which Diets Were Best In 2025?

Are you ready? If this were an awards program, I would be saying “Envelop please” and would open the envelop slowly to build suspense.

However, I am not going to do that. Below I have listed the top 5 diets in each of the 8 categories I have chosen (If your favorite diet is not on the list and you would like to see where it is ranked, you will need to subscribe to US News & World Report).

Finally, I have excluded commercial diets from this review. I have focused on whole food diets based on foods you can easily find in your local grocery store or farmer’s market.

Best Diets Overall

The best overall diets were:

#1: Mediterranean Diet. The Mediterranean diet has been ranked #1 for 10 consecutive years.

#2: DASH Diet (This diet was designed to keep blood pressure under control, but you can also think of it as an Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.)

#3: Flexitarian Diet (A flexible semi-vegetarian diet).

#4: MIND Diet (A combination of the Mediterranean and DASH diets with foods selected that support brain health).

#5: The Mayo Clinic Diet (A 12-week program based on evidence-based behavioral science to establish life-long healthy eating habits).

Best Plant-Based Diets

The top diets in this category were:

#1: Flexitarian Diet.

#2: Mediterranean Diet.

#3: Vegan Diet (a plant-based diet that eliminates all animal products).

#4: MIND Diet

#5: Ornish Diet (A low-fat, plant-based diet designed by Dr. Dean Ornish as part of a heart-healthy lifestyle program that has successfully reversed atherosclerotic buildup in some patients).

Best Healthy Weight-Loss Diets

The top diets in this category are proven. They are associated with lower weight and a reduced risk of chronic diseases in long-term clinical studies. The top diets are:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Volumetrics Diet (A diet based on the caloric density (calories per serving) of foods).

#3: Mayo Clinic Diet (A diet designed to establish lifelong healthy eating habits).

#4: Flexitarian Diet.

#5: DASH Diet.

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets

Once again, the report emphasized the dangers of quick weight loss diets. If you choose one of these diets to achieve a quick weight loss goal, the authors recommend you use these diets as a stepping stone toward a healthier lifestyle rather than a final solution.

Here are the rapid weight loss ratings:

#1: Keto Diet (A very low carb, high fat diet designed to produce ketosis in your body).

#2: South Beach Diet (A low carb, high protein approach to weight loss).

#3 Atkins Diet (The grandfather of the keto diet).

#4: Volumetrics Diet.

#5: Keyto Diet (A low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet).

Best Diabetes Diets

The key criteria for the best diabetes diets were that they were well-balanced, healthy diets that were designed to keep glucose levels within the normal range throughout the day.

They are whole food diets that cut back on added sugars and refined carbs. The top diets in this category are:

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: MIND Diet

#4: DASH Diet.

#5: Mayo Clinic Diet.

#7: Vegan Diet.

Best Heart-Healthy Diets

The top diets in this category were:

#1: DASH Diet

#2: Mediterranean Diet

#3: MIND Diet.

#4: Vegan Diet.

#5: Flexitarian Diet.

#6: TLC Diet. (The TLC (Therapeutic Lifestyle Change) diet was designed by the NIH to lower LDL cholesterol levels naturally.

Best Diets for Inflammation

The top diets in this category are:

#1: Mediterranean Diet.

#2: Dr. Weil’s Anti-Inflammatory Diet.

#3: Flexitarian Diet.

#4: DASH Diet.

#5: MIND Diet.

#7: Vegan Diet.

Easiest Diets to Follow

The authors of this report considered easy diets to be ones that:

Fit into your lifestyle, letting you enjoy indulgences while still being wholesome and nutritious – whether you’re eating out or at home. They focus on building long-term habits, not quick fixes, making them easier to stick with daily.

Focus on filling, tasty meals instead of strict restrictions.

They only listed four diets that were healthy, based on whole foods that were readily available, offered easy to follow recipes, and fit the criteria listed above.

#1: Mediterranean Diet (For those who enjoy Mediterranean foods).

#2: Flexitarian Diet (For those who enjoy flexible, semi-vegetarian meals).

#3: DASH Diet (For those who prefer American foods).

#4: MIND Diet (For those who could go either Mediterranean or American and are concerned with brain health).

Which Diet Should You Choose For Weight Loss?

1) If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do.

In previous year’s evaluations both vegan and keto diets ranked near the top of the rapid weight loss category. Keto and vegan diets are both very restrictive, but they are polar opposites in terms of the foods they allow and restrict.

- The keto diet is a meat heavy, very low carb diet. It restricts fruits, some vegetables, grains, and most legumes.

- The vegan diet is a very low-fat diet that eliminates meat, dairy, eggs, and animal fats.

Whole food, very low carb diets like Atkins and keto are good for rapid weight loss, but they rank near the bottom of the list for every healthy diet category.

- If you choose to lose weight on the Atkins or keto diets, switch to a healthier diet once you reach your desired weight loss.

2) If you are looking for healthy weight loss or just a healthy diet, the Mediterranean diet tops the list year after year, followed closely by the DASH, MIND, and flexitarian diets.

They are all whole food, primarily plant-based diets, that are backed by dozens of clinical studies showing that they are associated with a healthy weight and low risk of chronic disease long term.

Of course, GLP-1 drugs are the “elephant in the room” when we talk about weight loss. GLP-1 drugs work, but:

They are associated with concerning side effects such as:

- Anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. This is particularly concerning for anyone who has a tendency for anxiety or depression.

- Muscle loss. This is particularly concerning for seniors who are already prone to age-related muscle loss.

- Rarer side effects include increased risk of pancreatitis, kidney problems, and some cancers.

Unless they are coupled with dietary and lifestyle changes, their effects are temporary. The weight comes roaring back as soon as they are discontinued.

- This is a concern because of their expense and side effects. Long-term use of these drugs:

- - Increases the cost of healthcare which increases health insurance costs for all of us (a topic which is in the news lately).

- - Increase the risk of side effects.

Which Diet Should You Choose For Good Health?

With rapid weight loss out of the way, let’s get back to the question, “Which Diet Should You Choose For Good Health?”

The Mediterranean diet tops the list year after year, followed closely by the DASH, MIND, and Flexitarian diets. But how do you choose between them? My recommendations are:

1) Choose a diet that fits your needs. That is one of the things I like best about the US News & World Report ratings. The diets are categorized. If your main concern is diabetes, choose one of the top diets in that category. If your main concern is heart health… You get the point.

2) Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss. If that is your goal, you will notice that primarily plant-based diets top these lists. Meat-based, low carb diets like Atkins and keto are near the bottom of the lists.

3) Choose diets that are easy to follow. The less-restrictive primarily plant-based diets top this list – diets like Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, and flexitarian. They are also at or near the top of almost every diet category.

4) Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences. For example, if you don’t like fish and olive oil, you will probably do much better with the DASH or Flexitarian diet than with the Mediterranean diet.

4) Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

On the minus side, none of the diets include America’s favorite foods such as sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. These foods should go on your “No-No” list. Sweets should be occasional treats and only as part of a healthy meal. Meat, especially red meat, should become a garnish rather than a main course.

On the plus side, primarily plant-based diets offer a cornucopia of delicious plant foods you probably didn’t even know existed. Plus, for any of the top-rated plant-based diets, there are websites and books full of mouth-watering recipes. Be adventurous.

The Bottom Line

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January. If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories according to individual health goals. In the article above I summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2025”.

There are probably two questions at the top of your list.

#1: Which diets are best for weight loss? Here are 2 general principles:

If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do. The Keto diet tops this list but ranks near the bottom of the healthy diet categories.

If you are looking for healthy, long-term weight loss the Mediterranean diets tops the list followed by the Volumetrics, Mayo Clinic, Flexitarian, and DASH diets.

#2: Which diet should you choose for good health? Once again, the Mediterranean diet tops the list followed by the DASH, Flexitarian, MIND, and Mayo Clinic diets. The Vegan diet is the top 10 of most healthy diet lists, while the keto diet is near the bottom.

For more details on 2026 US News & World Report on Best Diets and my advice on how to choose a healthy diet that is best 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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

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