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

Do Women Get Enough Omega-3 During Pregnancy?

May 5, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Should Pregnant Women Take Omega-3 Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Long Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids, Especially DHA, Are Essential For Normal Brain Development

Long chain omega-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, have been shown to be very important during pregnancy, especially during the third trimester when DHA accumulates in the fetal brain at a very high rate. It is during that third trimester that the fetus forms the majority of brain cells that they will have for an entire lifetime.

Inadequate intake of long chain omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation has been shown to be associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes. These include poor developmental milestones, problem solving, language development and increased hyperactivity in the children (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

The Current Recommendation is 200 mg DHA/day During Pregnancy & Lactation.

In order to support brain development in the fetus, some experts have recommend intake of 300 mg per day of DHA during pregnancy. The best dietary sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids such as DHA are fish and fish oil supplements. However, because of concerns about seafood contamination with heavy metals and PCBs (both of which are neurotoxins), the FDA recommended in 2004 that pregnant women limit seafood consumption to two servings a week, which amounts to about 200 mg/day of DHA – and this has been subsequently adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union as the amount of DHA recommended during pregnancy and lactation (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

Even that recommendation for DHA from seafood could be overly generous. A recent study using the EPA risk assessment protocol concluded that some farmed salmon were so contaminated with PCBs that they should be eaten no more than once a year (Hites et al, Science, 303: 226-229, 2004).

Most Pregnant & Lactating Women In The US Are Probably Not Getting The Recommended Amount of DHA In Their Diet

Many pregnant women avoid seafood because of concerns about mercury and PCBs. Unfortunately, the other food sources of omega-3 fatty acids in the American diet, even many omega-3 fortified foods and supplements, are primarily composed of the short chain omega-3 fatty acid linolenic acid (also called alpha-linolenic acid or ALA), and only 1-4% of linolenic acid is converted to DHA in the body (Coletta et al, Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 3, 163-171, 2010).

Consequently, experts have been concerned for some time that American and Canadian women may not be getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but it was not clear how serious an issue this was.

Do Women Get Enough Omega-3 During Pregnancy?

A group of scientists decided to test the adequacy of DHA intake by comparing DHA intake with the recommended 200 mg/day in a group of 600 pregnant and lactating women enrolled in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study (Jia et al, Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism, 40: 1-8, 2015). The average age of the women in this study was 31.6. They were primarily Caucasian and married. 92% of them breastfed their infants. Most of them were taking a multivitamin or prenatal supplement on a daily basis. Approximately 1/3 of them were also taking a long chain omega-3 supplement.

The majority of women had completed college and had annual household incomes in excess of $100,000/year. In short, this was a very affluent, well-educated group of women. This is the kind of group one might consider most likely to be getting enough DHA from their diet.

DHA intake was based on 24 hour food recalls and supplement intake questionnaires collected in face-to-face interviews 2-3 times during pregnancy and again 3 months after delivery. The DHA content of the diet was determined from these data using well established methods.

The results were both dramatic and concerning.

Only 27% of pregnant women and only 25% of postpartum women who were breastfeeding met the recommendation of 200 mg of DHA/day. In short, nearly three-quarters of the women in the study were not getting enough (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation.

When the women who were taking DHA-containing supplements were excluded from the data analysis, only 13% of pregnant and lactating women were getting enough DHA from their diet. In short, nearly 90% of the women relying on diet alone were not getting enough DHA.

Taking a DHA-containing supplement increased the likelihood of achieving the recommended 200 mg DHA/day by 10.6 fold during pregnancy and 11.1 fold during breastfeeding.

Not surprisingly, seafood, fish and seaweed products were the major contributors to the total dietary DHA intake.

The authors concluded “Our results suggest that the majority of participants in the cohort were not meeting the EU recommendations for DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but taking a supplement significantly improved the likelihood that they would meet the recommendations.”

The Bottom Line

Long chain omega-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, are essential for normal brain development. Inadequate DHA intake during pregnancy and lactation is associated with poor developmental milestones, problem solving, language development and increased hyperactivity in the children.

There is no established Daily Value for omega-3 fatty acids. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the European Union recommend 200 mg DHA/day during pregnancy and lactation.

This recommendation is based partly on the amount of DHA needed for brain development and partly on the FDA warning that pregnant women should not consume more than 2 servings of fish/week due to heavy metal and PCB contamination.

This recommendation can be met by 1-2 six ounce servings/week of fish or a fish oil supplement containing 550 – 600 mg of omega-3 fatty acids.

Many pregnant women avoid fish because of concerns about contamination with heavy metals and PCBs, both of which are neurotoxins. Therefore, the major source of omega-3s in the American and Canadian diets are short chain omega-3 fatty acids that are only inefficiently (1-4%) converted to DHA.

Consequently, experts have been concerned for some time that American and Canadian women may not be getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, but it was not clear how serious an issue this was.

A recent study done with a group of 600 women enrolled in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study found that:

Only 27% of pregnant women and only 25% of postpartum women who were breastfeeding met the recommendation of 200 mg of DHA/day. In short, nearly three-quarters of the women in the study were not getting enough (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation.

When the women who were taking DHA-containing supplements were excluded from the data analysis, only 13% of pregnant and lactating women were getting enough DHA from their diet. . In short, nearly 90% of the women relying on diet alone were not getting enough DHA.

Taking a DHA-containing supplement increased the likelihood of achieving the recommended 200 mg DHA/day by 10.6 fold during pregnancy and 11.1 fold during breastfeeding.

This was a very affluent, well-educated group of women. If any women anywhere are getting enough DHA during pregnancy and lactation, this should have been the group that was.

The authors concluded “Our results suggest that the majority of participants in the cohort were not meeting the EU recommendations for (DHA) omega-3 during pregnancy and lactation, but taking a supplement significantly improved the likelihood that they would meet the recommendations.”

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

Do Blood Pressure Medications Cause Memory Loss?

April 28, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High blood pressure has been called a silent killer. This is because it is possible to go for years with high blood pressure and not even know it. Even worse, the consequences of untreated high blood pressure can be catastrophic – stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure, kidney failure – the list goes on and on. But, what about when high blood pressure is treated? Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss?

Because of that, the standard medical recommendation for years has been to:

Have your blood pressure tested frequently (at least once a year if your blood pressure is in the normal range and more frequently if it is elevated).

If your blood pressure is elevated, get on a blood pressure medication and try to keep your blood pressure as close to normal as possible.

But, is this always the best advice? Maybe not, particularly when we consider the confusing effects of blood pressure on cognitive function.

We have known for years that untreated high blood pressure in middle aged individuals significantly increases the probability that they will suffer cognitive decline in their later years (for example, R. F. Gottesman et al, JAMA Neurology, 71: 1218-1227, 2014).

Conversely, when we look at the elderly as a group we find that those with the lowest blood pressure actually have a higher risk of cognitive decline than those with the highest blood pressure (for example, B. Sabayan et al, Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 60: 2014-2019, 2012).

How can we reconcile such conflicting data on the correlation between blood pressure and cognitive decline in the elderly? Could it possibly be that it was the blood pressure drugs rather than blood pressure itself that was causing cognitive decline in the elderly?

Do Blood Pressure Medications Cause Memory Loss?

A group of scientists in Italy set up a clinical study to determine whether blood pressure or use of blood pressure drugs better correlated with cognitive decline in elderly patients who already have some degree of cognitive impairment (E. Mossello et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.8164).

They enrolled 172 patients from 2 outpatient memory clinics in the study. The average age of the participants was 79 and all of them had some degree of cognitive impairment (68% with dementia and 32% with mild cognitive impairment). 70% of the study participants were on blood pressure drugs. Their blood pressure was measured on a daily basis, and they were tested for cognitive function at the beginning of the study and 9 months later.

The results of the study concerning:

Those with the lowest blood pressure had the highest rate of cognitive decline over the 9 month period. These results were similar to several previous clinical trials with the elderly.

The association between low blood pressure and cognitive decline was only seen in those subjects on blood pressure medications. Low blood pressure did not increase the risk of cognitive decline in unmedicated subjects.

There are, of course, some significant limitations to this study:

It is a small study of short duration.

It is the first study of its kind. It needs to be repeated.

It was done in an elderly population who already suffered from cognitive decline. We don’t yet know to what extent these conclusions will apply to younger people and to people without cognitive impairment.

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

However, this study does raise a huge red flag that needs to be evaluated very carefully. It raises the issue of whether aggressive drug treatment to bring blood pressure under control may, under some conditions, cause more problems than it cures. It is not unlike the study a few years ago showing that aggressive treatment to lower blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics actually increased the death rate (C. J. Currie et al, The Lancet, 375: 481-489, 2010).

It turns out that increased risk of cognitive decline is just one of several risks associated with aggressive drug treatment to lower blood pressure. Because of that realization an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

Do blood pressure medications cause memory loss? It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

Is There Another Option?

The answer is a resounding yes, and we have known about it for years. It is called the DASH (Dietary Approaches To Stop Hypertension) diet. It is recommended by the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute, the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the US Guidelines for Treatment of High Blood Pressure). Coupled with a few simple lifestyle changes it has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure, without the side effects of the drugs.

You can find the details of the DASH diet here (http://dashdiet.org/), but in simple terms, it is low in fat, high in fresh fruits and vegetable, fiber and low fat dairy products. The recommended lifestyle changes are weight control, restricted sodium intake and exercise.

Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

The Bottom Line

High blood pressure is a silent killer because people often don’t know they have it. If left untreated it can cause stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure and kidney failure.

However, a recent study suggested that aggressive drug treatment to treat high blood pressure in the elderly can increase the rate of cognitive decline.

Because of this and other risks associated with aggressive drug treatment for high blood pressure, especially in the elderly, an expert panel recently recommended that the threshold for the use of blood pressure drugs be raised from 130/90 to 140/90 for adults under 60 and to 150/90 for adults over 60.

It’s not that high blood pressure has suddenly become healthier. Rather, the experts realized that the risks of aggressive drug treatment to lower moderately elevated blood pressure outweighed the benefits. The cure was worse than the disease!

Fortunately, there is another option, namely the DASH diet. The DASH diet, along with a few simple lifestyle modifications, has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing high blood pressure without the side effects of high blood pressure medications. Both the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute recommend that the DASH diet and lifestyle changes be tried first, before considering use of blood pressure medications.

Although not all experts agree, I personally recommend that you also make sure that you are getting the DV for calcium, magnesium and vitamin D from food and supplements and consider supplementing with long chain omega-3 fatty acids and polyphenols – especially resveratrol and related polyphenols from grape skins and seeds.

Finally, high blood pressure is dangerous. Don’t ignore it. Get your blood pressure tested regularly. If it is elevated, talk with your doctor about the best combination of diet, and lifestyle change and whether medications are absolutely necessary to keep your blood pressure under control.

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.

What Causes Back Pain?

April 21, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Natural Remedies for Back Pain

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT –The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

What Causes Back Pain?

Exploring the Overlooked Muscular Causes:

Your back is a symphony of overlapping, interconnected, groups of muscles, tendons, and nerves. Each muscle merges into a tendon, which then crosses over a joint and inserts into a bone. When the muscle contracts it will pull on the tendon and the joint moves.

Your spine has 7 cervical vertebrae, 12 thoracic vertebrae, and 5 lumbar vertebrae, each separated by a gelatinous disk that acts as a cushion to separate the bones and protect them from wear. Muscles span your entire spine, in some cases originating on the vertebrae and connecting each vertebra to the next, in some cases the muscles originate on the ribs and insert into the vertebrae in order to move your spine in the infinite number of angles, and in other cases the muscles originate on your vertebrae and insert into moveable bones such as your shoulder blade, pulling it in various directions.

In order to move in the opposite direction, the contracted muscle needs to relax to remove the strain from the bone, and the muscle on the opposite side contracts to pull the bone in the opposite direction. If the muscle that needs to release is in a spasm it can’t relax, and you have the muscles pulling in two opposite directions – and you have back pain.

The answer to what causes back pain is so broad that it needs to be broken down into four categories:

(1) Why a Muscular Component Can Be What Causes Back Pain

Back pain is commonly caused by repetitively straining the muscles that insert into the vertebrae and ribs. The list of muscles that insert into the bones of your back is long, with each muscle potentially causing pain when it is in spasm and pulling on the bone. Your back is a system of overlapping muscles, so many times when you are treating a muscle for one thing, you are also treating the source of a totally different problem.

This commonly happens when you are treating a thigh muscle that causes knee pain, but is also a key muscle that causes back pain, groin pain, and sciatica.

Natural Remedies for Back Pain

Treating the muscle is one of the natural remedies for back pain. For this muscle treatment I suggest you use a 12″x 1 1/2″ length of PVC pipe and slide (don’t roll) from the top of your thigh to just above your knee. The main area of treatment is shown in this picture. It’s NOT on the front of your thigh, and it’s NOT on the outside of your thigh, but instead it is in between these two lines.

As you go down your thigh you’ll go over several “bumps,” which are actually large spasms that are pulling down on the front of your pelvis. The pelvis rotation causes a strain on your low back, and presses your posterior pelvis up into your sciatic nerve.

There’s a lot more to this muscle, but it’s so broad that it can’t be explained properly here. In fact, each of the muscles that cause back pain are fully explained, and treatments are demonstrated in my Trigger Point Yoga kit.

(2) Why a Bulging or Herniated Disk Causes Back Pain

The disk between each vertebra is meant to be a cushion for the bones so they don’t rub on each other. However, tight muscles that originate on each vertebra can pull the bones together, pressing down on the disks and cause them to either bulge in the opposite direction, or herniate. For example, if the muscles on the right side of the spine are tight, they will bring the vertebrae closer together on the right, causing the disk to bulge toward the left.

If the muscles on both sides of the spine are tight, they will draw the vertebrae closer together and potentially cause the disk to herniate.

In either case the disks will put pressure on the spinal cord and causes back pain to be severe in that area. However, if it is treated before permanent damage is done, releasing the muscle tension on the vertebrae will move the bones off the disk and the pain will be eliminated.

(3) Why a Vertebra Out of Alignment Can Be What Causes Back Pain

Your spine stays in perfect alignment because muscles are putting the exact amount of “pull” on each side. In fact, without muscles the spine would just hang straight and not be able to move at all — like a skeleton on a hook. It is only because of muscles that the spine has any mobility at all.

The only way a vertebrae can move is either by a traumatic accident (such as falling down a flight of steps, or having a car accident), or by muscles pulling on the bones.

However, if muscles are pulling more on one side than the other the vertebrae will move toward the tight muscles.

The tension in the muscles must be released first if the bones are to be moved back into alignment and not be pulled out again by the tight muscles.

(4) Scoliosis, Osteoporosis, Spinal Stenosis, and other Causes of Back Pain

There are medical conditions such as scoliosis, osteoporosis, spinal stenosis, diabetes, and cancer that are also causes of back pain. These are serious conditions that need medical attention. It is always important to eliminate the possibility of any serious health risks before embarking on a path of treatment for back pain.

Conclusion

Obviously, as noted in #4 above, there are medical causes of back pain, but it is clear that the one that is consistently overlooked, and therefore not treated, is the muscular component. My experience with thousands of clients over the years, both at my office and virtually online, is that muscles are frequently what causes back pain, and that the pain can be lessened or eliminated by treating the tight muscles demonstrating one of the natural remedies of back pain.

You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by exploring the muscular component to back pain!

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

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

About The Author

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

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

Food Ingredients To Avoid List

April 14, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Food Ingredients to Avoid Part 2: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It is getting really hard to find a food or food supplement that doesn’t have any ingredients on the internet “naughty list”. The problem is that many of the internet warnings about food ingredients are what I call “urban nutrition myths”. Want to know the truth about which additives should be on the food ingredients to avoid list?

Last week I identified the top 25 food ingredients on the internet “naughty list” and told you which ones were actually “good” – OK for most people most of the time. This week I’m going to tell which ones are “bad” and which ones are truly “ugly”.

Food Ingredients to Avoid List? The Bad

The term “bad” for the food ingredients in this list is a bit of a misnomer. These are food ingredients that some people will want to avoid, but are perfectly OK for many people. In some cases, the type of food the ingredients are added to determines whether the ingredient is OK or should be avoided. So, the following could possibly be on your food ingredients to avoid list.

Sodium Nitrate and Nitrite: This is a topic I have covered in a previous article titled “Nitric Oxide Benefits and Side Effects” . It is a perfect example of a food ingredient that can be “bad” in certain foods and “good” in others. Briefly:

When sodium nitrate and/or sodium nitrate are added to processed meats, they can combine with the amino acids from the meat in the intestine to form cancer-causing nitrosamines. As you might suspect, this is not a good thing.

On the other hand, when sodium nitrate or sodium nitrite are found in fruits are vegetables or combined with natural antioxidants such as vitamin C, they are converted to nitric oxide, which has a number of beneficial effects in the body. So when they are present in these foods or food supplements, they are actually beneficial.

Sugar & High Fructose Corn Syrup: As I said in my video “The Truth About Sugar” , there are no sugar villains and there are no sugar heroes. For example, high fructose corn syrup has been particularly vilified in recent years, but its chemical composition is not significantly different from honey and agave nectar, which are considered to be “good” sugars.

The problems associated with sugars of all types in the American diet are related to the amount of sugar in our diet (too much) and the kinds of foods they are found in. Let’s focus on that last one for a minute.

When sugars are consumed as a part of foods that are rich in fiber and/or protein they have much less of an effect on blood sugar levels (a lower glycemic index) than when they are consumed in sodas, juices and highly processed foods. That’s important because the bad health consequences of sugars are primarily caused by foods that lead to high blood sugar levels. See, for example, my article “Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?” .

Consequently, we should be focusing on the glycemic index (the effect on blood sugar levels) of the foods we eat rather than obsessing about the amount or kinds of sugar on the label.

MSG: MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is a particularly interesting case. MSG is the sodium salt of the amino acid glutamate.

Glutamate is a neurotransmitter.

When MSG is used as a flavor enhancer in foods with a low protein content, the glutamate is very rapidly taken up by the brain and can overstimulate some neurons.

For most people this is no problem, but a small number of people experience what used to be called “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” due to the large amounts of MSG used in some Chinese foods.

The common symptoms associated with “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” are headache, sweating, skin flushing, nausea & fatigue. Allergic reactions to MSG can even be life threatening in some individuals.

Glutamate is also found in every protein we eat. Consequently, we create lots of MSG in our intestine every time we eat and digest protein. In this situation it is no more harmful than any other amino acid in the proteins we eat.

The most logical explanation for this phenomenon is that when all of the amino acids are in our bloodstream simultaneously they compete with glutamate for uptake into the brain. This slows the entry of glutamate into the brain and prevents overstimulation of neurons.

The bottom line is that MSG as a flavor enhancer is harmless for most people, but problematic for some. MSG as a component of hydrolyzed vegetable protein or sodium caseinate is harmless because it is in balance with the other naturally occurring amino acids. Some websites claim that MSG is found in maltodextrin and citric acid. It is not.

Salt (Sodium): I could, and probably should, write a whole article on sodium intake. Suffice it to say that 1) most of us consume too much sodium, 2) most of that sodium is hidden in the foods we eat rather than added at the table, and 3) some people are more sensitive to the bad effects of sodium than others.

Refined Grains: Again, this could be a whole article. Suffice it to say that 1) whole grains are better than refined grains and 2) most of us would benefit from eating fewer grains in any form and more fruits and vegetables in their place.

Food Ingredients to Avoid List: The Ugly

Finally, there are some food ingredients that most experts (except for those in the food industry) agree should be avoided. I call them the dirty dozen. All should be on everyone’s food ingredients to avoid list. They are:

Trans fats (also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils).
Aspartame
Acesulfame-K
Sucralose
Artificial colors
Artificial flavors
BHA & BHT
Propyl gallate
Sodium and potassium benzoate
Potassium bromate
Potassium sorbate
Polysorbate 80

The Bottom Line

If you were to believe everything you read on the internet about food ingredients that you should avoid, you could end up spending most of your day reading food labels and still find very few foods that you could eat. Some of those warnings are true, some are partially true, and some are mostly myths.

To help you determine which to place on your food ingredients to avoid list, I have identified the top 25 food ingredient warnings and have divided them into the good, the bad and the ugly.

The “good” are those food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most people, most of the time. Here are some examples (see the article above for a full explanation).
Soy: The supposed dangers of soy have been disproven by numerous clinical studies, but the myths persist. I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy protein.
GMO: GMO foods and proteins are a concern but purified food ingredients obtained from GMO foods pose no health risks. There are, however, possible environmental concerns due to the overuse of Roundup.
Carrageenan and Caramel Color: In this case it is contaminants rather than the food ingredients themselves that are the problem. As long as you choose a manufacturer who performs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients, you need not be concerned about these ingredients.
Canola Oil, Maltodextrin and Soy lecithin: The supposed dangers of these food ingredients are myths. They are not backed up by credible clinical studies. However, they are generally derived from GMO foods, so there is a possible environmental concern.
The “bad” are the food ingredients that do pose a problem for some people, particularly when those ingredients are found in the wrong kinds of foods. However, those same ingredients are OK for many people when they are in the right foods.
Sodium nitrate and nitrite: Those ingredients are a concern when added to processed meats, but are actually healthy when found in fresh fruits and vegetables or combined with antioxidants such as vitamin C.
Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup: We definitely need to reduce the amount of sugar in our diet. However, when looking at individual foods we should focus more on glycemic index than on the amount or kind of sugar.
MSG: MSG is a concern for some individuals when used as a flavor enhancer in low protein foods. However, it poses no risk when it is present as a component of partially digested proteins such as hydrolyzed vegetable protein or sodium casseinate.
The “ugly” are those ingredients that most experts agree we should avoid. They include trans fats, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, artificial flavors, artificial preservatives and a few others listed 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.

Food Ingredients To Avoid

April 7, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Food Ingredients to Avoid-Part 1: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I have been getting a lot of questions lately about food ingredient labels. That’s because in today’s internet world everyone is an “expert” wanting to be heard. Couple that with the fact that old news is boring, and we have a problem. All of these experts have to keep coming up with information that is novel and scary. It doesn’t need to be true – just novel and scary.

The warnings about which food ingredients to avoid are a perfect example. A few years ago it was pretty simple to know which ingredients to avoid. If you avoided foods with sugar, refined flour, trans fats and all that artificial stuff, you were OK. However, in recent years the list of additives to avoid keeps getting longer and longer.

It has reached the point where it is getting really hard to find a food or food supplement that doesn’t have any of the ingredients on the “naughty list”. You may even be wondering if there is anything besides organic fresh fruits and vegetables that you actually can eat. How did we get to this point?

The answer is obvious. All the internet “experts” needed something new to warn us about so they took molehills and turned them into mountains. They took food ingredients that might cause a few problems for a limited number of people and characterized them as ingredients that were dangerous for everyone. Their posts were picked up and repeated by other “experts” and pretty soon everyone thought they had to be true. The warnings about food ingredients became what I call “urban nutrition myths”.

It is time for a myth buster to come along and help you sort through all of the ingredient warnings so that you know which ones are true and which are myths. That’s something I enjoy doing. Let me be your guide.

Which Food Ingredients Should You Avoid?

My “research” for this article began by Googling “Food Ingredients to Avoid” to see what was on the internet. Starting from the top of the list that came up on Google, here are the articles I found:

Men’s Fitness: “The 9 Scariest Food Additives You Are Eating Right Now “ (http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/avoid-these-9-worst-food-ingredients)

Waking Times: “20 Ingredients to Memorize and Avoid In Any Food You Consume (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/03/04/20-ingredients-to-memorize-and-avoid-in-any-food-you-consume/)

Women’s Health: “7 Ingredients Nutritionists Always Avoid” (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/nutrition/avoid-these-ingredients)

Reader’s Digest: “4 Most Harmful Ingredients In Packaged Foods” (http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/4-most-harmful-ingredients-in-packaged-foods/)

Huffington Post: “10 Of The Worst Toxic Food Ingredients” (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/17/worst-toxic-food-ingredients_n_3101043.html)

WebMD did not even weigh in on the issue of food ingredient warnings. Reader’s Digest and the Huffington Post included mostly the ingredient warnings that we have been hearing about for years. The other three articles included some of the newcomers to the ingredient warning list. By combining all 5 of those articles, I came up with 25 of the most frequently mentioned “dangerous” food ingredients to avoid and have divided them into 3 categories. I call them “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”.

This week I will help you identify the “good ones” – those food ingredients that are on many of the internet “naughty lists”, but are actually OK for most people most of the time. Next week, I’ll be back with the bad and the ugly lists.

Food Ingredients: The Good

I would be the first to admit the using the word “good” as a descriptor for food ingredients is a bit of a misnomer. The word “good” should really be reserved for organic fresh fruits and vegetables along with other whole, unprocessed foods. Of course, the problem is that most of us don’t eat enough of those foods, so we need to know which ingredients in the processed foods and food supplements we eat are OK.

The list of food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most of us would be a long one, so let me just mention a few that have inadvertently slipped onto the online “naughty lists” that you may have seen.

GMO: Let me be perfectly clear. I am no fan of GMO foods, but ingredients derived from GMO foods are a very different story. I have covered this topic in detail in my previous articles “Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/gmo-labeling-required-food-ingredients/) & “Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/will-non-gmo-foods-be-less-nutritious/) and my webinar “The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/videos/), so let me just summarize the key points here.

GMO foods and proteins derived from GMO foods can be a problem because of food sensitivities to the modified proteins. That risk is real, but is difficult to quantify.

All other food ingredients derived from genetically modified foods contain no genetic information or proteins. They are chemically & biologically indistinguishable from the same ingredients derived from non-GMO foods. Consequently, there are no health risks associated with these food ingredients.

I am aware of the recent internet chatter about the WHO declaring that Roundup can cause cancer. What is missed in these discussions is that Roundup is also approved for use just prior to harvest for non-GMO foods such as wheat and beans. That means that some non-GMO foods are more likely to be contaminated with Roundup residues than are GMO foods.

That just leaves the environmental issue. Roundup does break down relatively quickly in the environment, but I do have concerns about spraying tons of the stuff on our crops every year. However, I must acknowledge that many of my scientific colleagues do not share this concern, and they are not all in bed with Monstanto.

Soy: This is another topic I have covered extensively in my previous articles such as “Soy and Breast Cancer Recurrence” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/soy-and-breast-cancer-recurrence/) & “Soy and Breast Cancer” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/soy-breast-cancer/) and my video “The Truth About Soy” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/videos/). Once again, I will just give a brief summary.

The myths that soy consumption causes breast cancer or any other cancer, lowers testosterone levels in men and interferes with thyroid metabolism have been disproven by multiple clinical studies.

The idea that soy has to be fermented to be healthy is also a myth. Most soy products are processed in such a manner that the toxins in the soy bean are removed.

For ingredients made from soy such as soy lecithin, there are no health risks associated with sourcing them from GMO soy (see above). If you are consuming a soy protein product, however, I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy.

Carrageenan: Carrageenan comes from seaweed and red algae. It has been used in foods for thousands of years because of its gelling properties. In the supplement world it is used to improve consistency and the disintegration of tablets.

There is a lot to like about carrageenan. It is natural, organic and non-GMO. Why then has it become an internet villain in the food ingredient world? The problem is that most of the internet “experts” who are vilifying carrageenan are not distinguishing between carrageenan and its breakdown product poligeenan. Here are the facts:

In some animal studies poligeenan at very high doses has been shown to cause diarrhea, hemorrhaging & ulcerations of the colon and even colon cancer. Not all animal studies agree, but this does raise the possibility that high doses of poligeenan might cause the same effects in humans.

Food grade carrageenan contains <5% poligeenan and does not raise the same concerns.

Food grade carrageenan does not cause gastrointestinal problems in most animal studies. Nor has it been shown to cause cancer in any animal study.
The FDA, USDA and WHO have reviewed all available studies and have concluded that food grade carrageenan is safe.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that carrageenan does not cause cancer.

Caramel Color: I won’t go into detail here, but the argument is similar to carrageenan. It is a minor impurity of caramel coloring that is the concern. However, caramel coloring itself should not be a concern for products made by any reputable manufacturer that employs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients.

Canola Oil: Canola oil is an excellent source of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats, especially the beneficial omega-3 polyunsaturated fats. In supplements it is primarily used as a source of healthy fats and to improve taste, aroma or texture. There are some legitimate concerns with canola oil, but they have been considerably overhyped. This is a perfect example of a molehill being turned into a mountain. Let’s look at the myths that are simply untrue and the facts that have been overhyped.

Myth #1: Canola oil contains the same toxins as the original rapeseed oil. Fact: The toxins found in rapeseed oil has been removed through conventional plant breeding. Canola oil is toxin free.

Myth #2: Canola oil is toxic in animal studies. Fact: When you look at those studies carefully they were either done with rapeseed oil or were done under conditions where almost any vegetable oil would have been problematic.

Fact #1: Canola oil is highly processed. That’s true, but so are most other vegetable oils. If you want a less processed oil, choose virgin olive oil. (Unfortunately, it is not found in many processed foods or food supplements – probably because of cost). Some experts recommend palm oil or coconut oil, but they have their own problems because of their high saturated fat content.

Fact #2: Most canola oil comes from GMO plants. That is true, but canola oil is a highly purified food ingredient. As described above, that means there are no health concerns from eating GMO canola oil, only a possible environmental concern.

Maltodextrin: Maltodextrin is a natural food ingredient made from enzymatically digesting starch. It is used as a stabilizer and thickener in foods. It is also combined with glucose and fructose in sports drinks to provide sustained energy.

Myth #1: The internet is filled with claims that maltodextrin causes gastrointestinal problems or that it is unsafe. There is very little evidence to back that up, and we need to consider those claims in light of the fact that we produce lots of maltodextrin in our intestines every day as we digest the starches in our diet.

Myth #2: “Maltodextrin is just another sugar. It is just another way for food manufacturers to hide the total amount of sugar in their products.” Maltodextrin is actually less sweet than most sugars. As described above, it is primarily added to foods for reasons other than to impart sweetness.

Fact: Most of the maltodextrin in the US does come from GMO corn. Once again, it is a highly purified food ingredient. As with canola oil that means there are no health concerns, only possible environmental concerns.

Just because these ingredients are on my “good list” doesn’t mean that they won’t cause problems for some people. Lots of people have food allergies. My dad, for example, was allergic to chocolate, which has to be one of the cruelest food allergies that someone could have. Sometimes food allergies can be quite severe. Just ask someone with severe peanut allergies what life can be like if they even come near a peanut.

My point is that any natural food or food ingredient can cause allergic reactions in some people. That doesn’t make them bad. It is just part of normal living.

Next week I will be back with “the bad and the ugly” food ingredients. Stay tuned.

The Bottom Line

To help you sort through this confusing information I have identified the top 25 food ingredient warnings and have divided them into the good, the bad and the ugly. This week I covered the “good ones”.

The “good” are those food ingredients that are perfectly OK for most people, most of the time. Here are some examples (see the article above for a full explanation).

Soy: The supposed dangers of soy have been disproven by numerous clinical studies, but the myths persist. I do recommend that you choose non-GMO soy protein.
GMO: GMO foods and proteins are a concern, but purified food ingredients obtained from GMO foods pose no health risks. There are, however, possible environmental concerns due to the overuse of Roundup when those GMO foods were grown.
Carrageenan and Caramel Color: In this case it is contaminants rather than the food ingredients themselves that are the problem. As long as you choose a manufacturer who performs rigorous quality control tests on their ingredients, you need not be concerned about these ingredients.
Canola Oil, Maltodextrin and Soy lecithin: The supposed dangers of these food ingredients are myths. They are not backed up by credible clinical studies. However, they are generally derived from GMO foods, so there is a possible environmental concern.
Just because these food ingredients made my good list doesn’t mean they are OK for everyone. People can be allergic to certain food ingredients, just as they can be allergic to certain foods so for some, these can still be food ingredients to avoid.

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

Risk Factors for Diabetes

March 31, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Statins Dangerous?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Several years ago I recall a cardiologist telling my class of first year medical students that statins were so beneficial that we should just put them in the water supply. He said it in a lighthearted manner, but I think he really believed it. [In actuality, statin drugs are so widely prescribed that they already are in the water supply of some major US cities (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm).]

The Pros And Cons of Statins

When taken by people who have already had a heart attack, statins clearly save lives. However, as I documented in my eBook “The Myths of the Naysayers” (scroll down to Check It Out if you would like to learn how you can get that eBook for FREE) the benefits of statins are marginal at best in healthy people who have not yet had a heart attack. So are statins one of the risk factors for diabetes?

Statin Side Effects

In addition, statins have some significant side effects. For example, up to 5% of people taking statins develop muscle pain. For most people the muscle pain is merely an inconvenience, but in a small percentage of cases it can lead to fatal complications.

More concerning are the required label warnings that statins can lead to memory loss, mental confusion, high blood sugar and type 2 diabetes. In other words, they may not kill you, but they sure can make life miserable.

Because of the marginal benefits in healthy people and the multiple side effects, some experts are starting to step up and say that statins may be overprescribed. For example, Dr. Roger Blumenthal, MD, a professor and director of the Ciccarone Preventive Cardiology Center at Johns Hopkins recently said: “Statin therapy should not be approached like diet and exercise as a broadly based solution for preventing coronary heart disease. These are lifelong medications with potential, although rare, side effects, and physicians should only consider their use for those patients at greatest risk…”

Dr. Blumenthal made that statement a few years ago when we thought that statins only increased diabetes risk by 9-22%. The latest study suggests that statins may increase diabetes risk by as much as 46%. That, in my opinion, is a game changer.

Statins And Diabetes Risk?

The idea that statins increase the risk of type 2 diabetes is not new. Previous studies have reported that statins increase the risk of diabetes anywhere from 9% to 22%. As a consequence, the FDA required that “increased risk of elevated blood sugar and developing type 2 diabetes” be added to the warning label on statin drugs starting in 2012.

The authors of the current study (Cederberg et al., Diabetologia, DOI 10.1007/s00125-015-3528-5) felt that previous studies may have underestimated the true risk of developing diabetes because:

Previous studies were often done with patient populations at very high risk of cardiovascular disease. In today’s world statin drugs are often prescribed for patients at moderate or low risk of cardiovascular disease. The authors felt that the effect of statins on diabetes risk might not be the same in these two populations.

Previous studies relied on self-reported diabetes or fasting blood glucose levels as the criteria for classifying the study subjects as diabetic. In today’s world there are a wider array of diagnostic tests that are used to confirm a diagnosis of diabetes.

This study looked at the risk of developing type 2 diabetes associated with statin treatment over a 6-year period in a group of 8,749 Finnish men (aged 45-73 years) who were enrolled in the Metabolic Syndrome in Men (METSIM) study. That means that the men had metabolic syndrome (they were pre-diabetic), but none of them were yet diabetic at the beginning of the study. Other important characteristics of the study were:

This was a healthy cross-section of the Finnish population. Only 24.5% of the study participants were using statin drugs.

The diagnosis of diabetes was based on multiple criteria: fasting blood glucose levels, an oral glucose tolerance test, and hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control over the last 6 weeks).

As you might suspect, the increased risk of developing diabetes during the 6-year trial was greatest for those who were older, more obese, less physically active and had more advanced metabolic syndrome at the beginning of the study. What was surprising, however, were the other conclusions of the study.

Statin treatment increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 46%, and the increased risk of developing diabetes directly correlated with the dose of the statin drug.

Insulin sensitivity was decreased by 24% and insulin secretion was decreased by 12% in individuals on statin treatment. In layman’s terms that means the pancreas was 12% less able to release insulin and tissues in the body were 24% less able to respond to insulin. That’s a double whammy!

Even though this study is a significant improvement over previous studies, it does have some limitations of its own.

The study population was exclusively white, Finnish men. The conclusions may not apply to other population groups.

Simvastin (Zocor) and atorvastatin (Lipitor) were the most widely used statin drugs in this study (84% of the study participants taking statins were on one of these two drugs). These two statins clearly increased the risk of developing diabetes in a dose-dependent manner. There were not enough subjects on the other statin drugs to evaluate their effect on diabetes risk, but previous studies have suggested that other statins may be less prone to increase diabetes risk.

Should You Take Statins If you are Diabetic or Pre-Diabetic?

Let’s start by identifying the symptoms of metabolic syndrome or pre-diabetes. They are:

Abdominal obesity (waist size of greater than 35” for women & 40” for men)
Slightly elevated triglycerides (greater than 150 mg/dl)
Low HDL cholesterol (less than 50 mg/dl for women and 40 mg/dl for men)
Slightly elevated blood pressure (greater than 130/85
Slightly elevated blood sugar (greater than 100 mg/dl fasting blood glucose)

If you have three or more of these symptoms, you likely have metabolic syndrome or pre-diabetes.

The medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry are circling their wagons and assuring us that the benefits of taking statins clearly outweigh the risks – even if you are diabetic or pre-diabetic. I’m not so sure

The problem is that the benefits of statin therapy in healthy individuals who have not had a heart attack are modest at best. This sets up a real “Catch 22” situation. Diabetes and pre-diabetes increase the risk of heart disease, so current guidelines recommend that statin drugs should be prescribed for individuals who are pre-diabetic or diabetic. However, we now know that those very same statin drugs increase the risk of you becoming diabetic if you are already pre-diabetic. Because they decrease insulin production and increase insulin resistance they may also make your diabetes worse if you are already diabetic, but that has not been directly tested.

That is concerning because diabetes can lead to very serious complications such as neuropathy (numbness in the extremities), kidney disease & kidney failure, high blood pressure and stroke, and cataracts & glaucoma. Of course, you can always use diabetes medications to counteract the diabetes-enhancing effect of the statins, but those medications also have serious side effects. The pharmaceutical merry-go-round continues!

Are There Alternatives For Reducing the Risk Of Heart Disease?

If statins are only modestly effective at reducing the risk of heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals and they significantly increase the risk of developing diabetes, it is perhaps prudent to ask whether there are alternative, non-drug approaches that can significantly reduce your cholesterol levels and allow you to avoid statins altogether?

According to the National Heart Lung & Blood Institute the answer to that question is a resounding yes! They call it Therapeutic Lifestyle Change or TLC (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/resources/heart/cholesterol-tlc). The TLC recommendations are:

Eat less than 7 percent of your daily calories from saturated fat
Eat less than 200 mg a day of cholesterol
Get only 25–35 percent of daily calories from total fat (this includes saturated fat calories)
Other diet options you can use for more LDL lowering are:
- Add 2 grams per day of plant stanols or sterols
- Add 10–25 grams per day of soluble fiber
Consume only enough calories to reach or maintain a healthy weight
In addition, you should get at least 30 minutes of a moderate intensity physical activity, such as brisk walking, on most, and preferably all, days of the week.

The NHLB Institute recommends that the TLC approach always be tried first, and that statins only be used if the lifestyle approach fails – a message that seems to have gotten lost in the translation in many doctor’s offices.

I have also discussed some natural alternatives in my previous articles such as “Does An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/apple-day-keep-statins-away/) and “Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/fish-oil-really-snake-oil/).

What Should You Do?

Perhaps it is time to have a serious discussion with your doctor about following the National, Heart Blood & Ling Institute’s TLC recommendations – either as an alternative to statins or as something that will allow your doctor to reduce the amount of statins that your need to take.

I also recommend that you make lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and either oily fish or fish oil supplements part of your regular diet.

The old professor is just like the rest of you. My cholesterol gets a bit high from time to time and my doctor suggests going on a statin. Instead I ramp up my exercise, watch what I eat a bit more carefully, and use a supplementation program that includes stanols, sterols and omega-3 fatty acids.

My cholesterol gets back to where it is supposed to be. My doctor is happy, and I am happy.

The Bottom Line

The news about statin drugs keeps getting worse. Not only are they only marginally effective in healthy people who have not yet had a heart attack, but the latest study suggests that they may increase the risk of developing diabetes by up to 46%.

That is concerning because the complications of diabetes can be quite serious, and diabetes drugs have side effects of their own.

There are alternatives. The National Heart, Blood & Lung Institute recommends that a Therapeutic Lifestyle Change (TLC) program (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/resources/heart/cholesterol-tlc) be tried before starting on statin drugs. This may allow you to reduce the dose or avoid statin drugs completely.

In addition to the TLC program I recommend lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, oily fish or fish oil supplements, and a supplement that provides the TLC-recommended 2,000 mg of plant stanols and sterols.

If you have been prescribed statin drugs, it may be time to make a serious commitment to the TLC lifestyle change and have a discussion with your physician about reducing or eliminating your statins. This is especially true if you are already pre-diabetic or diabetic.

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.

Folic Acid and Cancer

March 24, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Folic Acid Increase Cancer Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve seen the headlines. “Folic Acid Supplements May Increase Colon Cancer Risk in People Over 50” and “Folic Acid Supplements May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk in Men”. And I’ve seen articles telling people over 50 that they should take their multivitamin tablets every other day to avoid getting too much folic acid.

I’ve even heard of doctors telling their patients to avoid any supplements containing folic acid. So what’s the truth? Is there a cause and effect relationship between folic acid and cancer?

Why Do People Say Folic Acid Increases Colon Cancer Risk?

Perhaps a bit of historical perspective is in order. A number of population studies had suggested that high intakes of folic acid might protect against cancer, especially colon cancer, so several placebo controlled clinical studies were initiated to test that hypothesis. Those studies had mixed results, with some suggesting that folic acid might be protective and others suggesting that it had no effect. None of those studies suggested that folic acid supplementation increased the risk of any kind of cancer.

In 1998 mandatory folic acid fortification of grain products was introduced. In addition, the number of Americans taking supplements with folic has increased dramatically in recent years. As a consequence total intake of folates (folic acid from fortified foods and supplements plus folates naturally found in foods) has increased significantly. By one estimate blood levels of folates have increased 2.5-fold between 1994 (before fortification) and 2000 (after fortification).

So it was just natural to ask if this increase in folate intake might have unintended consequences. And one clinical study seemed to suggest that it might (JAMA, 297: 2351-2359, 2007)

That study looked at colorectal adenomas and reported high folate intake was associated with an increased risk of more advanced adenomas. [It is important to note that adenomas are benign tumors. They are thought to be precursors to colorectal cancer but they are not actually cancerous].

Some experts immediately started warning about getting too much folic acid in the diet – with some going so far as to warn that people over 50 should only take a multivitamin every other day.

And several papers were published speculating on how differences between the way that folic acid and the other folates were utilized by the body could cause folic acid to increase the risk of colorectal cancer while naturally occurring folates decreased the risk.

Let me put this into perspective. Any good scientist knows not to trust a single clinical study. Individual clinical studies can provide misleading results. Sometimes it is possible to pinpoint the cause. For example, the study may have been poorly designed, may have included a non-representative population group, or the statistical analysis may have been incorrect. But, sometimes we never know why an individual clinical study came to the wrong conclusion.

That is why good scientists generally say that more studies are needed and base their recommendation on the preponderance of many studies rather than a single study.

The problem was that all of this hype and hypothesizing about folic acid increasing the risk of colon cancer was based on a single study, and that study didn’t actually look at colorectal cancer. A Norwegian study four years later found no evidence for increased colorectal cancer at folic acid intakes of up to 800 ug/day (AJCN, 94: 1053-1062, 2011) – but it was largely ignored.

The background is similar for the claims that folic acid may increase prostate cancer risk. When a small meta-analysis that included some, but not all, published clinical studies suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer, some experts went as far as to suggest that men should completely avoid supplements with folic acid.

The problem is that even meta-analyses can be misleading if they only examine a small sub-set of clinical studies because they can be unduly influenced by a single misleading clinical study.

Does Folic Acid Increase Colon Cancer Risk?

Should We Avoid Supplemental Folate?

The American Cancer Society decided to resolve the uncertainty about folic acid intake and colon cancer risk once and for all (V.L. Stevens et al, Gastroenterology, 141: 98-105, 2011). They designed the study to answer two very important questions:

1) Has the increased folate intake by Americans over the past several years actually increased their risk for colorectal cancer?

2) Does the chemical form (folic acid versus folate) influence its effect on colorectal cancer risk?

And this study had two very important firsts:

1) This was the very first study to investigate the association between folate intake and colorectal cancer entirely in the post-fortification period.

2) This was also the very first study to separate out the effects of folate and folic acid on colorectal cancer risk.

And it was a very large study. They followed 43,512 men and 56,011 women aged 50-74 for 8 years between 1999 and 2007.

Folate intakes from food ranged from 175 ug/day to 354 ug/day while folic acid intakes from food fortification, supplements and multivitamins ranged from 71 ug/day to 660 ug/day. Total folate (both naturally occurring folates and folic acid) intakes ranged from 246 ug/day to over 1014 ug/day.

When they analyzed the data they found that high intakes of neither folic acid nor natural folates were associated with any increased risk of colorectal cancer. In fact, they found high intake of total folates was associated with a significant decreased risk of colorectal cancer.

Does Folic Acid Increase Cancer Risk?

What about prostate cancer and other types of cancer? Could folic acid increase the risk of other cancers? To resolve this issue once and for all, a group from Oxford University (Clarke et al, The Lancet, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62001-7) did a meta-analysis of every study published through 2010 that compared folic acid supplementation to a placebo, lasted at least 1 year, included at least 500 people and recorded cancer incidence – some 13 studies with over 50,000 participants.

The results were clear cut. As for folic acid and cancer, supplementation did not increase the overall cancer risk, and when the incidence of individual cancers was analyzed, folic acid supplementation did not increase the risk of developing colon cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer or any other site-specific cancer.

To put this in perspective the average dose of folic acid used in these clinical studies was 2 mg/day, which is 5 times the RDA and 5 times the dose in most supplements. And one of the clinical trials used 40 mg/day, which is 100 times the dose in most supplements.

The Bottom Line

Forget the warnings and the hype. You can be confident that folic acid does not increase the risk of colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, or any other kind of cancer.

The American Cancer Society recently performed a very large clinical study looking at the effect of folic acid intake from supplements and folate intake from foods on colon cancer risk. That study found that high intakes of neither folic acid nor natural folates were associated with any increased risk of colorectal cancer. And, they found high intake of total folates was associated with a significant decreased risk of colorectal cancer.

The authors of that study concluded: “The findings of this study add to the epidemiological evidence that high folate intake reduces colorectal cancer risk.” “More importantly, no increased risk of colorectal cancer was found, suggesting that the high levels of this vitamin consumed by significant numbers of Americans should not lead to higher incidence rates of this cancer in the population.”

A second meta-analysis of every clinical study looking at folic acid intake and cancer risk through 2010. The results of that study were clear cut. Folic acid supplementation did not increase the overall cancer risk, and when the incidence of individual cancers was analyzed, folic acid supplementation did not increase the risk of developing colon cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer or any other site-specific cancer

Like any good scientist I am aware that future studies could change our understanding, but for now I am confident in saying that there is no credible evidence that folic acid supplementation increases your risk of any kind of cancer. If the science changes, I will be the first to let you know.

But it will be really interesting to see how long it takes all those web sites, blogs and so-called “experts” to acknowledge that the science has changed and they should stop issuing false warnings about folic acid supplementation.

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

What Causes Hip Pain?

March 17, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT

What causes hip pain? The hip is a complicated joint and has a potential for many causes of hip pain.

There is an incredible range of motion from the synchronicity of many muscles, all inserting at different points around the hip and pelvis.

Some of the muscles pull your thigh bone in a series of different directions, while other muscles keep your pelvis in alignment.

2 Primary Muscles that can be the Cause of Hip Pain

The iliopsoas and the quadriceps are the two primary muscles that cause hip pain. These muscles rotate the pelvis forward and down, causing all of the muscles that insert into the pelvis to torque and spasm. Ouch!

As the iliopsoas muscle contracts it pulls down on the front side of your lumbar vertebrae causing you to bend over or it pulls up on your thigh bone causing your leg to lift in order to take a step or sit down.

When the muscle contains muscle fiber knots it pulls the thigh and torso toward each other, and when attempting to stand this forces a separation, pulling on the lumbar vertebrae and also on the inside of the hip.

The quadriceps originate on the tip of the anterior pelvis and then insert into the shinbone, just below the knee joint. When the quads are tight they pull hard on the front of your pelvis causing tension in the front of your hip and your knee.

Another Muscle that Causes Hip Pain

The tensor fascia lata,, a muscle on the outside of your hip, can also cause hip pain. This muscle merges into the iliotibial band (ITB) that inserts into the knee.

When the tensor fascia lata is in spasm (contains muscle knots) it not only causes hip pain, but it can also cause the outside of your knee to ache and to feel like it could pop out of joint.

To complicate the problem, while the iliopsoas and quadriceps pull the hip down in the front, tight hamstrings pull the pelvis down in the back. This causes pain in the top back of the leg and at the groin. Plus, as the muscles pull on both sides of the pelvis, this can cause pain that radiates all around the hip.

How to Relieve Hip Pain Naturally

The bottom line is in order to relieve hip pain naturally, you need to first locate the source of the pain.

The best way to find the source what causes hip pain is to pinpoint exactly where you feel the pain and then figure out which muscle inserts at that joint. This is the muscle causing your hip pain!

Treating Hip Pain

Once you know which muscle is causing the pain, treating hip pain is easy!

Locate the most painful point in the length of the muscle. This normally is the muscle spasm that is causing the pain where the tendon attaches to the bone. When looking at hip pain, the spasm could be above the hip, below the joint or even directly on the joint.
Maintain deep pressure on the point for 60 seconds. Holding pressure directly on the knot (spasm) in the muscle flushes out toxins and stretches the muscle fibers. When the knot is released toxins are removed which causes a void in the muscle fiber. The body fills this void with nourishing blood and nutrients.
Stretch. Stretches are most effective after the muscle knots have released their strain on the tendon and bone.

While it is useful to have a therapist release your muscles, it is more beneficial to do regular, even daily, treatments (muscle release techniques) on the muscles that are repetitively used and strained. Maintaining healthy muscle tone rewards you with greater strength and flexibility and eliminates pain; keeping you in the race! The process above explains how to relieve hip pain naturally has proven to be extremely effective.

An Example Of Natural Hip Pain Treatment

Today I’d like to share with you how to do one of the Julstro self-treatments that we teach on the Julstro Trigger Point Yoga instruction kit. For example, let me explain how to treat the tensor fascia lata muscle which is located on the outside of your hip, between your hip bone and the top of your thigh bone:

Using a tennis ball (hollow in the center so it is a bit less intense) or a Perfect Ball (solid in the center so it gets in deeper) place the ball right where the side-seam of your pants is located – between the two bones. If you are in a lot of pain, start by leaning into a wall. If you want to go deeper into the muscle, lie on the floor on top of the ball. You may need to move an inch or so to find the “epicenter” of the spasm, but you’ll know immediately when you locate it. Always make sure you keep your pressure to a “hurts so good” level, you’re in control so don’t over-do.

Once you find the spasm, which is also called a “trigger point,” just stay still on it for 30-60 seconds. Lift your weight off the ball for a few breaths and then press into the ball again. This second time you’ll find that it won’t be as painful as the first time because you have already pressed out some of the H+ ions that are causing the spasm (and the pain).

Keep repeating this for a few minutes and then slightly move your body so you can find other trigger points that are around your hips. You’ll probably find points that are a little bit toward the front of your hip, so make sure you rotate your body so you’re facing more toward the wall or the floor, and then rotate your body so you’re back is more toward the wall or the floor.

This one simple technique has saved several of my clients from thinking they needed hip surgery! It will help you move easier and with less discomfort – and often it will totally eliminate the pain from your hip completely.

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

About The Author

Check It Out!

If you would like easy to follow instructions on how to relieve joint pain and muscle tightness from head to toe, click Full Point Yoga Full Body Kit to check out Julie Donnelly’s Trigger Point Yoga instruction kit today. Whenever, I have pain and stiffness I use her techniques. They work!

What Did You Think?

Let us know your thoughts on today’s issue

Post your comments here

Remember – sharing is caring

Forward this email to a friend!

The Food Label: Lies of the Food Industry

March 10, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Can BIG FOOD Inc. Be Trusted?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Healthy Eating Is In. We are told we need more fiber, whole grains, fruits & vegetables, nuts and omega-3s in our diet. As a consequence more and more Americans are reading food labels to be sure that the foods they are buying are healthy.

But are those food labels deceptive? Is it possible that BIG FOOD Inc. could actually be lying to us? Could it be that the food manufacturers care more about their profits than about our health?

Normally I base my health tips on clinical studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, this week I am reporting on an article called “Hijacked. How the Food Industry Turns Diet Advice into Profits” from the October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Health letter because they do an excellent job of exposing the lies of the food industry.

The Food Label: The Lies of the Food Industry

False Fiber

For example, Nutrition Action describes how the food industry tries to fool us into thinking that their processed foods are healthy by making fiber claims on their labels that are deceptive, if not downright false.

Everyone knows that eating fiber rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes is good for us. But wouldn’t it be more fun if you could get the same amount of fiber in your breakfast bars, cakes, cookies and even yoghurt?

The food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. DuPont, for example, manufacturers and artificial fiber called Litesse by chemically linking glucose (dextrose) molecules into a non-digestible polydextrose polymer. They tell the food manufacturers that they can use Litesse to “tap into this market opportunity and project a healthier image for your product”. I’d be much more impressed if they were talking about a healthier product rather than a “healthier image for your product” It’s all about image, isn’t it.

Similarly, Archer Daniels Midland manufactures a digestion-resistant form of maltodextrin they call Fibersol-2. They tell food manufacturers “who knew fiber could be clean and clear?” (Translation: Adding bran to your products might make them denser and chewier. You can add Fibersol-2 to your doughnuts or cookies and it won’t change their taste or texture).

The problem is that there are few clinical studies showing that these artificial fibers have the same benefits as the fibers we find in fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In addition, these fibers don’t fill you up the way that unprocessed fibers found in foods do (something we scientists refer to as satiety). For example, if you eat a bowl of oatmeal you’re not going to be hungry for a long time. However, recent studies show that adding an equivalent amount of one of these artificial fibers to a muffin or breakfast bar has no effect on how hungry you feel after eating it.

Nutrition Action also raised concerns about highly processed natural fibers such as inulin, maltodextrin, soluble corn fiber or resistant wheat starch. In this situation, they may be oversimplifying their messaging a bit. I agree with their statement that adding these purified fibers to solid foods like cookies or muffins has relatively little effect on either satiety or regularity, but these fibers do have some benefits when used in the right kinds of foods.

For example, inulin is an excellent prebiotic. Its addition to processed foods as a prebiotic, rather than a source of fiber, is appropriate. Maltodextrin needs to be digested before its component sugars are absorbed into the bloodstream, so it enters the bloodstream a bit more slowly than simple sugars. When used in sports drinks it helps stabilize blood sugar and provide more sustained energy. Similarly, the addition of soluble corn starch to a protein shake slows gastric emptying, which also stabilizes blood sugar and provides sustained energy. Wheat bran in a protein shake, on the other hand, would be an inappropriate choice. It would just settle to the bottom of the glass.

The Bottom Line: The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

Vegetable & Fruit Follies

Everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are good for us. They are chock-full of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients as well as fiber. But who wants to spend the time peeling an orange or washing the pesticides off that broccoli? It’s much more fun to get our fruits and vegetables from chips, pasta, and breakfast cereals.

Once again, the food manufacturers are only too happy to oblige. The chemical companies make a variety of fruit and vegetable powders that food manufacturers can add to their products. For example, PowderPure tells food manufacturers “Whether you want to add nutrition to your label, infuse full color or formulate a specific flavor profile for your discerning consumers, PowderPure has the right powder to enhance your presence in the marketplace”. You will notice they are talking about adding nutrition to the label, not to the food. They are talking about “enhancing your presence in the marketplace”, not making your food healthier.

The problem is that sprinkling a little fruit and vegetable powder into a processed food will never provide the full range of nutrients that those fruits and vegetables would have provided.

Most manufacturers can’t (or won’t) specify the amounts of nutrients and phytonutrients you get from the fruit & vegetable powders they add to their processed foods, but that doesn’t stop them from making label claims like “We pop a flavorful blend of nine veggies…[in our chips]” or there is “half serving of vegetables in a 2 oz serving…[of our pasta]”.

The Bottom Line: Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

The Fruits & Vegetables in a Capsule Con

One of my pet peeves is the food supplement manufacturers who try to tell you that they have concentrated a cornucopia of fresh fruits and vegetables in a capsule. For example, one company claims that their capsules contain apple, barley, broccoli, beet, cabbage, carrot, cranberry, date, garlic, kale, oats, orange, parsley, peach, pineapple, prunes, spinach, plant enzymes, fiber, and acidophilus. All this in one capsule!

While this list sounds impressive, you need to ask whether they are providing meaningful amounts of those fruits and vegetables. For example, the product claims to have oats. A serving of oats is equal to 1/3 cup dry oats and weighs about 28 grams. A capsule typically weighs about 0. 5 grams. Therefore, to get the equivalent of one serving of oats from a capsule, you would have to consume 56 capsules! And that’s assuming that the entire capsule was filled with oats.

Broccoli is another claimed ingredient. A serving of fresh broccoli weighs 88 grams, but roughly 80 grams of that is water. So if you dehydrated the broccoli you would be left with about 8 grams of material. Therefore, to get a single serving of dehydrated broccoli you would have to consume 16 capsules. Again, that’s assuming that the capsules were completely filled with just broccoli.

You can do this kind of calculation with each ingredient they claim is in their capsules. But when you add up the number of capsules needed to get a reasonable amount of each of these ingredients, the capsule total is staggering.

As for essential nutrients, when you read the label you usually discover that their capsules only contain small amounts of a few essential nutrients. They simply do not provide significant amounts of the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you would have been getting if you ate the real foods.

The Bottom Line: Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label. They do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you had eaten the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

Omega Oops

Omega-3 fatty acids are in fashion, so omega-3 claims are springing up everywhere. You can find omega-3 enriched eggs, milk, juices, bars, and even pasta. I won’t address the controversies about omega-3 benefits in this article because I have written about them previously (“Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?” , “Can Fish Oil Make Children Smarter?” , or “Do Omega-3s Slow Cognitive Decline?”.

The other point that Nutrition Action made was that the amount of omega-3s provided by these omega-3 enriched foods was seldom enough to provide any significant health benefit. It is the long chain omega-3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA that are thought to provide the health benefits. The American Heart Association recommends 500 mg/day of these long chain fatty acids for people who have no history of heart disease, and over 1,000 mg/day for people with prior history of heart disease. In that context the few mg of long chain omega-3s provided by most omega-3 enriched foods is a drop in the bucket.

The story is even more tenuous for those manufacturers who add the short chain omega-3 fatty acid ALA, which is found in most vegetable oils and plant seed oils, to their products. That’s because the efficiency of conversion of short chain to long chain fatty acids in the body is only 10-15% for most people. One tablespoon of canola or soy oil provides about 1,000 mg of ALA. Once again, those products providing only a few mg of short chain omega-3s provide little benefit.

When asked why they added omega-3s to their pasta, one manufacturer said “We have to because of the competition”, not “We wanted to make our product healthier”.

The Bottom Line: Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

The Bottom Line

The October 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter exposed many of the deceptive labeling practices that food manufacturers use to make their products seem healthier than they are. In particular:

The best place to get your fiber is from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and whole grains. Before you reach for a processed food that claims to be high in fiber, read the label carefully. Make sure that fiber comes from foods rather than artificial fibers. If the main fiber ingredient is a processed fiber, make sure that the type of fiber is appropriate for the food you are consuming.

Ignore the label claims of fruits and vegetables added to the processed foods you see in the market. The fruit and vegetable powders added to those foods provide no proven benefit. The best place to get your fruits and vegetables is to [surprise] eat your fruits and vegetables.

Leave those supplements claiming to have concentrated lots of fruits and vegetables into a single capsule on the shelf. Those claims are grossly deceptive because the capsules do not contain significant amounts of the fruits and vegetables listed on the label and do not provide the nutrients you would have gotten if you ate the real foods. Once again, the best way to get the fruits and vegetables you need in your diet is to actually eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

Avoid those omega-3 enriched processed foods that provide only a few mg of omega-3 fatty acids, especially if their source of omega-3 fatty acids is listed as ALA, vegetable oils or plant seed oils. The best place to get your omega-3s in the amounts that you need is still cold water fish and fish oil supplements.

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.

What Causes ADHD?

March 3, 2015 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Foods Make Kids Fidget?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

When I was a kid we didn’t have all of these fancy words like hyperactivity, ADD and ADHD. If a kid had trouble sitting still and trouble focusing on the task at hand, they were just considered “fidgety”. So, what causes ADHD in kids?

Now that I’ve dated myself once again, let’s get to the real topic which is: “Can the foods that your kids eat have any relationship to ADD and ADHD symptoms?”

To put things into perspective, the CDC just announced that 11% of all school age children in the US have been diagnosed with ADHD. That is a 41% increase in the last decade alone. I am not going to discuss the controversy about why the incidence of ADHD is rising so rapidly in this country. That is another story for another time.

My concern is that two thirds of those children are being given stimulant medications like Ritalin and Adderall. While those medications can help reduce the symptoms, they can also cause serious side effects such as addiction, anxiety and psychosis.

So it might be time to stop and ask, is there a better way? Could the foods those children are eating cause ADHD? If so, could something as simple as changing their diet control the symptoms of ADHD without any side effects?

I’ve talked about the effect of food additives, Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity , and the sugar content of the diet on hyperactivity in previous issues of my “Health Tips from the Professor”.

The question that I’m posing today is whether sensitivities to foods that we would otherwise consider to be healthy could also trigger ADHD symptoms?

Could The Foods Our Children Eat Cause ADHD?

Could food be what causes ADHD in kids? Many clinicians have long felt that food sensitivities could be associated with ADHD symptoms because many of the children that they were treating for ADHD also had food sensitivities that showed up as eczema, asthma and gastrointestinal problems. But no definitive clinical studies had been performed in this area, so the idea that food sensitivities might cause ADHD symptoms remained an open question.

However, a major clinical study called The Impact of Nutrition on Children with ADHD was recently performed that suggests the answer to this question is a resounding YES – food sensitivities can cause ADHD symptoms (Pelesser et al, Lancet, 377: 494-503, 2011).

100 children from the Netherlands and Belgium with a definitive diagnosis of ADHD were enrolled in the study. The age of the children was 4 to 8 years old because it is easiest to control the food intake of children in that age group.

At the beginning of the study every child was given IgG blood tests to identify food sensitivities. During the first 5 weeks of the program the children were divided into two groups.

One group was put on a restricted elimination diet consisting of rice, meats, vegetables, pears and water for 5 weeks (An elimination diet is the “gold standard” for evaluating food sensitivities because it eliminates almost every food known to cause sensitivity from the diet).

The second group was put on a “healthy diet” – one which met current nutritional guidelines, but did not eliminate any food or food group from the diet.

At the end of this 5-week period all of the children were evaluated for ADHD symptoms in a blinded fashion by a pediatrician specializing in diagnosing and treating ADHD.

An astonishing 78% of the children on the elimination diet had a reduction in their ADHD symptoms!

Those on the “healthy diet” showed no significant improvement in symptoms.

Can IgG Tests Identify Children Who Will Benefit From Changing Their Diet?

The first phase of the study (described above) was followed by a second phase in which restricted foods were added back to the diet of those children who had responded positively to the elimination diet.

But the foods were not added back randomly. Each child was exposed for two weeks to foods with a high IgG response in their initial screen and for two weeks to foods with a low IgG response in their initial screen. In others words the foods added back were different for each child and were based on their individual IgG results.

This phase of the trial was done in a crossover fashion – meaning that half of the children received low IgG foods during the first two weeks followed by high IgG foods during the second two weeks – and for the other half of the children the order was reversed.

And this phase of the study was also done in a double blind fashion – meaning that neither the children nor the evaluators knew whether they were receiving low IgG foods or high IgG foods during the test period.

The results of this phase of the study were also very interesting:

There was a substantial worsening of ADHD symptoms in 63% of the children when restricted foods were added back to the diet

AND – it didn’t matter whether the foods were low IgG foods or high IgG foods.

The authors’ conclusions were simple:

Food sensitivities make a substantial contribution to ADHD symptoms in children.

Don’t waste your money on the IgG tests (They have been controversial for some time).

The Bottom Line

What is the significance of this study if you have a child with ADHD? According to a recent study:

Food sensitivities make a substantial contribution to ADHD symptoms in children.

Don’t waste your money on the IgG tests (They have been controversial for some time).

The best way to see if foods trigger your child’s ADHD symptoms is to put them on an elimination diet, and if they show an improvement on the elimination diet, add the restricted foods back one or two at a time so you can identify the ones that should be avoided in the future.

Some of you might be saying that sounds difficult (it is), so why bother?

The answer is that 11% of school age children in this country are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD – and almost all of them are treated with drugs that can have serious side effects.

Using an elimination diet to find out whether your child’s ADHD is triggered by food sensitivities and then changing their diet has absolutely no side effects!

Some of you might be asking, “Are there any easier drug-free approaches that one could try, or is there any natural approach that might work for the 22% of children who don’t respond to the elimination diet?”

The answer to both questions is yes.

Simply eliminating food additives, junk foods and/or sugary foods from the diet helps reduce ADHD symptoms in many children.

You also shouldn’t neglect the role that supplementation can play in laying a strong nutritional foundation for your child. I recommend a good children’s multivitamin to make sure that they are getting the nutrients they need, a protein supplement to help prevent blood sugar swings, a good omega-3 (preferably DHA) supplement to support brain health and a supplemental source of friendly bacteria to promote gut health.

But if all else fails I would recommend trying an elimination diet to identify problem foods and then eliminating those foods from your child’s diet before putting them on drugs.

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.