Sugar in Diet

Is Erythritol Bad For Your Heart?

by

Who Should Be Concerned About Erythritol Intake?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Everyone is searching for the perfect sweetener. And if you were in the marketing department of Big Food Inc, the perfect sweetener would be defined as:

  • Natural, meaning that it is found in fruits, vegetables, or other plant foods.
  • Low in calories. Of course, a perfect sweetener would have zero calories because it is not metabolized in our bodies.
  • Low glycemic, meaning that it would have a minimal effect on blood sugar levels. Once again, a perfect sweetener would have zero effect on blood sugar levels.
  • Safe, meaning that it has no adverse effects on our health.

Sugar alcohols appear to meet all these criteria, so they have become the sweetener of choice for lots of highly processed foods. This is especially true for the sugar alcohol, erythritol, since it is currently the least expensive of the sugar alcohols.

So, a recent study (M Witowski et al, Nature Medicine, 2023) suggesting that erythritol might increase the risk of heart disease was quite surprising.

This is the first study to suggest a link between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a flawed study (I will discuss the flaws below).

Reputable scientists don’t put much credence in a weak first study like this one. We generally consider the conclusions of a first study like this one to be an unproven hypothesis at this point.

But we are cautious. There will be many follow-up, better designed studies, to test this hypothesis. Once these studies have been published, the scientific community will look at all the evidence and either issue a warning or conclude that there is no reason for concern.

But that doesn’t stop the Dr. Strangeloves of the world from warning you of the “dangers” of erythritol and telling you to avoid it at all costs.

For that reason, I felt it was appropriate to address this issue. I will:

  • Describe the study and its flaws.
  • Put the study into the broader perspective of what we know about sweeteners.
  • Identify the two population groups who should be most concerned about erythritol.

How Was The Study Done And What Did It Show?

This study can be divided into three parts.

heart disease#1: An Association Between Erythritol Blood Levels And Heart Disease.

There were three separate experiments included in this section of the study. In each experiment patients were recruited after visiting cardiac clinics for diagnostic procedures. The average age of these patients was 67 and 45% of them already had experienced a non-fatal heart attack prior to the study. In other words, these were all older patients with pre-existing heart disease who were at high risk of heart attack or stroke in the near future.

The first study was a metabolomic study. In simple terms this means that high-tech equipment and computing were used to measure hundreds of metabolites in the blood of the patients and, in this case, correlate each of them with the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes over the next three years.

  • This study identified 16 sugar alcohols and related metabolites in the blood of these patients that were associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. (I will discuss the significance of this observation in more detail later.)

Because erythritol was among the top 6 compounds in terms of association with increased heart attack and stroke risk, and erythritol is the most commonly used sugar alcohol in processed foods, the next two studies focused on the association between blood levels of erythritol and heart attack/stroke risk. Their results were predictable.

  • High blood levels of erythritol were associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke over the next three years.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • As the authors of the study pointed out, these studies were done with older patients with pre-existing heart disease who were at high risk of heart attack or stroke. They acknowledged that it is not known whether these associations exist with younger, healthier patients.
  • As the authors also pointed out, these are associations. They do not prove cause and effect. In particular, the studies did not measure the diet, exercise habits, and other lifestyle factors of these patients that may have contributed to their increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
  • When you look closely at the data, it is clear that the association is only seen at the highest blood levels of erythritol. Specifically, the blood levels of erythritol in these patients were divided into quartiles. The risk of heart attack and stroke in the first three quartiles (low to moderate blood levels of erythritol) were identical to the control. However, the fourth quartile (highest blood levels of erythritol) was associated with a dramatically increased risk of heart attack and stroke. That raises three important questions:
    • “How much erythritol were patients in the fourth quartile consuming?”
      • The authors did not look at dietary intake of erythritol but did note a previous study estimated that Americans consume up to 30 grams of erythritol a day.
    • 30 grams of erythritol a day is a huge amount of erythritol. Where does that erythritol come from?
      • Much of it comes from erythritol-containing highly processed foods like zero calorie sugar substitutes (either erythritol alone or erythritol mixed with artificial sweeteners to improve the taste); reduced- and low calorie carbonated and non-carbonated beverages; hard candy and cough drops, cookies, cakes, pastries, and bars; puddings and pie fillings; soft candies; syrups and toppings; ready to eat cereals; fruit novelty snacks; and frozen desserts.
      • But it is also found in foods you might not suspect, such as plant-based “milk” substitutes; chocolate and flavored milks; barbecue and tomato sauce, fruit-based smoothies, the syrup used in canned fruits, yoghurt; low calorie salad dressings; and salty snacks.
      • In other words, the only way anyone can consume 30 grams of erythritol in a day is to consume large quantities of erythritol-containing highly processed foods (I will discuss the significance of this observation later).
    • “What else was different about patients in the fourth quartile?”
      • When you look carefully at the data, the patients in the fourth quartile were significantly older, with a higher incidence of diabetes, pre-existing coronary artery disease, previous non-fatal heart attacks, congestive heart failure, and greater triglycerides – all of which significantly increase their risk of heart attack and stroke.

#2: Mechanistic Studies:

Next the authors did in vitro and animal studies looking at the effect of high levels of erythritol on blood clotting.

  • These studies showed that high levels of erythritol promoted blood clotting both in vitro and in mice. The authors concluded that these studies provided a plausible mechanism for a link between high erythritol blood levels and increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • Other critics have pointed out that the assays used were not accurate models of blood clotting in humans. This particular critique is beyond my expertise, so I won’t comment further. However:
    • As someone who was involved in cancer drug development for over 30 years, I know that in vitro and animal models are poor indicators of how things work in humans.
    • And as a biochemist, I have two concerns:
      • The authors provided no mechanistic rationale for why erythritol would enhance blood clotting.
      • The authors made no effort to show that the effect of erythritol was unique. Would high levels of other sugar alcohols or other naturally occurring sugars have the same effect on blood clotting in their assays? We don’t know.

#3: Blood Levels Of Erythritol After Oral Intake.

Finally, the authors gave subjects 30 grams of erythritol and measured blood levels over the next several days.

  • This experiment showed that very high blood levels of erythritol were attained and maintained for at least two days before gradually decreasing to baseline. The authors concluded this experiment showed that it was feasible to attain and maintain high blood levels of erythritol for several days following a single ingestion of 30 grams of erythritol.

Flaws In This Portion Of The Study:thumbs down symbol

  • I have already pointed out that 30 grams per day is a huge amount of erythritol. However, erythritol in the diet will come from a variety of foods, some of which will contain components (fiber etc.) that slow the absorption of erythritol.
  • In contrast, the subjects in this experiment were given 300 ml of liquid containing 30 grams of erythritol and told to drink it in two minutes!
  • In other words, these subjects were consuming 30 grams of erythritol in 2 minutes rather than 24 hours, and they were consuming it in the most easily absorbable form. For a study like this, that makes the effective dose orders of magnitude greater than the amount of erythritol that anyone consumes from their diet over a 24-hour period. The study design was completely unrealistic.

Is Erythritol Bad For Your Heart?

Question MarkAs described above, this is the first study to suggest an association between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a highly flawed study.

It is also important to know that erythritol is not an artificial sweetener. It is found naturally in foods like grapes, peaches, pears, watermelons, and mushrooms. It is also found in some fermented foods like cheese, soy sauce, beer, sake, and wine.

It is also a byproduct of normal human metabolism, so we always have some of it circulating in our bloodstream. Our body knows how to handle low to moderate intakes of erythritol.

However, to help you really understand what this study means, I need to put it into the context of other studies. I will do this in story form (You will find more details about these studies in my book “Slaying The Food Myths”).

First, let’s look at highly processed food consumption:

  • Multiple recent studies have shown that high consumption of highly processed food is associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death. We don’t know what it is about highly processed food consumption that is responsible for the increased risk, but it is unlikely to be just one thing.
  • As I pointed out above, the only way to achieve the high blood levels of erythritol associated with increased heart disease risk is to consume large quantities of erythritol-containing highly processed foods.

Next, let’s follow the history of sweeteners in highly processed foods.

  • When I was a young man, sucrose (table sugar) was added to most highly processed foods. Sucrose is foundsugar cubes naturally in many fruits and vegetables. Small to moderate intake of sucrose in unprocessed and minimally processed foods posed no problem. However, large intakes of sugar in highly processed foods were found to increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.
  • At that point, sucrose became a “sugar villain”, and Big Food, Inc substituted fructose and high fructose corn syrup (a mixture of fructose and glucose) for sugar in their highly processed foods. As with sucrose, fructose is found naturally in many foods, and small to moderate intakes of fructose and high fructose corn syrup posed no health risks. However, large intakes of fructose and high fructose corn syrup in highly processed foods were found to increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.
  • Fructose and high fructose corn syrup then became the sugar villains. And because high fructose corn syrup is chemically and biologically indistinguishable from natural sugars like honey, date sugar, coconut sugar, it is likely that high intakes of these sugars in highly processed foods would cause the same problem.
  • So Big Food, Inc started relying on artificial sweeteners in their highly processed foods. But guess what? Artificial SweetenersRecent studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners in highly processed foods are associated with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
  • That has caused Big Food, Inc to rely more on sugar alcohols in their highly processed foods, particularly erythritol because it is the least expensive of the sugar alcohols. Now the current study comes along and suggests that high intake of erythritol in highly processed foods may increase the risk of heart disease.
  • If this hypothesis is confirmed by better designed studies, it is not clear what Big Food, Inc will do next. The metabolomic study described above showed that high blood levels of several other sugar alcohols are associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

Hopefully, you are starting to see a pattern here. It’s time to ask the question, “Is it the sweetener, or is it the food?”

Clearly, it doesn’t matter what sweetener we are talking about. Large intake of any natural sweetener in the context of a diet rich in highly processed foods appears to have an adverse effect on our health. And we don’t know whether these adverse health effects are caused by the sweetener or some other component of the highly processed foods.

If you want to improve your health, the best solution is to decrease your intake of highly processed foods. That will automatically reduce your intake of sweeteners and other unhealthy components of highly processed foods and increase your intake of healthy components from the whole foods you will be eating instead.

Who Should Be Concerned About Erythritol Intake?

The authors of this study identified two groups who should be most concerned about erythritol consumption – diabetics and adherents of the keto diet.

  • Diabetics are at high risk because they are told to consume non-caloric sweeteners instead of sugars, and they are not told to avoid highly processed foods. Consequently, they consume much higher amounts of non-caloric sweeteners than the average American.
  • I must admit that I didn’t foresee keto adherents as a high-risk group. However, it appears that keto enthusiasts love their sweets as much as the rest of us, and the sweetener of choice for keto-friendly sweets is erythritol. The authors said that a single serving of keto ice cream contains 30 grams of erythritol. I can hardly imagine how much erythritol they must be getting in their diet.

And, once again, the best advice for both groups is to simply decrease the amount of highly processed food in their diet.

The Bottom Line 

Erythritol is not an artificial sweetener. It is found naturally in foods like grapes, peaches, pears, watermelons, and mushrooms. It is also found in some fermented foods like cheese, soy sauce, beer, sake, and wine.

It is also a byproduct of normal human metabolism, so we always have some of it circulating in our bloodstream. Our body knows how to handle erythritol.

That is why it was a surprise when a recent study claimed that high intake of erythritol is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The Dr. Strangeloves of the world are already starting to tell you that erythritol is deadly and you should avoid it at all costs. But reputable scientists are saying, “Not so fast”.

This is the first study to suggest an association between erythritol and heart disease, and it was a highly flawed study.

In fact, the study showed that low to moderate intakes of erythritol had no effect on heart disease risk. It was only the highest intake of erythritol that was associated with increased risk of heart disease. And given the distribution of erythritol in the American diet, the only way someone could take in that much erythritol is to consume large amounts of erythritol-sweetened highly processed foods.

A brief review of the literature on sweeteners reveals that this is a common pattern for every natural sweetener tested. Low to moderate intake of these sweeteners has no adverse health effects. However, high intake of every sweetener tested in the context of a highly processed food diet is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.

That raises the question, “Is it the sweetener, or is it the food?”

Clearly, it doesn’t matter what sweetener we are talking about. Large intake of any natural sweetener in the context of a diet rich in highly processed foods is likely to have an adverse effect on our health. And we don’t know whether these adverse health effects are caused by the sweetener or some other component of a highly processed food diet.

If you want to improve your health, the best solution is to decrease your intake of highly processed foods. That will automatically reduce your intake of sweeteners and other unhealthy components of highly processed foods and increase your intake of healthy components from the whole foods you will be eating instead.

For more details on the study and information about which foods are likely to contain erythritol and the population groups who should be most concerned about erythritol consumption, read the article above.

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

Is It The Sugar Or Is It The Food?

by

Is Fructose Bad For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I don’t usually report on studies done in mice, but this study sheds light on a particularly puzzling question: Why is fructose bad for us?

The studies are clear-cut. High fructose consumption is associated with inflammation, obesity, non-alcoholic liver disease, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, increased LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and heart disease. Based on these associations, fructose appears to be deadly. Why would anyone want to consume it?

Yet fructose is found in virtually every fruit. In fact, fructose, also known as fruit sugar, was first isolated from fruits. Hence the name fructose. Humans have been eating fruits safely for thousands of years. Fruits are very good for us. That raises the question: “If fruits are good for us, how can fructose be bad for us?”.

An important clue can be found by looking at what the food industry has done to the American diet. Because fructose imparts a pleasurable, sweet taste to foods the food industry keeps adding it to more and more foods. As a result, dietary intake of fructose has increased 100-fold over the past two centuries. It has reached the point where fructose now accounts for almost 10% of the caloric intake in the United States.

Is It The Sugar, Or Is It The Food?

Let me expand the discussion by using a couple of graphics I developed for my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”

There Are No Sugar Villains. There Are No Sugar Heroes:

Sugar ComparisonsVirtually all sweeteners are primarily a mixture of fructose and glucose. The graphic on the left compares high fructose corn syrup (the current villain) with other “natural” sweeteners used in foods (our current heroes). High fructose corn syrup ranges from about 40% fructose to 55% fructose. The exact percentage depends on what kind of food product is being made with it.

Honey and coconut sugar are about 45% fructose. Sucrose and grape juice concentrate are around 50% fructose. Apple juice concentrate is around 60% fructose, and agave sugar comes in at a whopping 80% fructose.

In other words, if fructose is the culprit that everyone makes it out to be, “healthy” sugars are no better than high fructose corn syrup. Simply substituting a “healthy” sugar for high fructose corn syrup is unlikely to provide any meaningful benefit.

Is It The Sugar, Or Is The Food?

Apple With Nutrition LabelThis graphic shows us what a nutrition label would look like on a medium apple. I am sure that label is a wake-up call for many of you. The amount of sugar and the percentage of fructose and glucose are about the same as in an 8-ounce soda sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. The same is true for virtually every other fruit you can think of.

Now let me share one more thing you won’t hear from what I refer to as “Dr. Strangelove’s Health Blog” (You probably know the ones I am referring to). Virtually all the studies showing the bad effects of fructose consumption have been done with sodas and sugary junk foods. They haven’t been done with apples.

In fact, virtually every study looking at fruit and vegetable consumption has shown they are incredibly good for us. They lower inflammation and reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. And the more the better. One study found that the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption topped out at around 10 servings a day.

With this background, you should now fully understand why the question “If fruits are good for us, how can fructose be bad for us?” is so perplexing.

My simplistic explanation has always been that whole foods like fruits have fiber, which slows the absorption of fructose from the intestine. Our bodies were designed to handle fructose in a safe manner when it enters the bloodstream slowly. It is taken up by the liver, converted to glucose, and then slowly metered back into the bloodstream. This provides our brain and other tissues with the glucose they need for energy without blood sugar spikes. This is how fructose is supposed to be metabolized by our bodies.

Sodas and junk foods, on the other hand, have little to slow the absorption of fructose. When lots of fructose enters the bloodstream rapidly, our “safe” metabolic pathways for handling it are overwhelmed, and it is forced into the pathways that are harmful. For example, the “excess” fructose is converted to fat by the liver, which causes inflammation, obesity, fatty liver disease, and triglyceride production.

This is, of course, simply my hypothesis for explaining the different effect of fructose in fruits and sodas. It is based on sound metabolic principles, but it is far from proven. That is why I found a recent study (C. Jang et al, Cell Metabolism, 27: 351-361, 2018) so interesting. It provides a metabolic rationale for my hypothesis.

How Was The Study Done?

Mice were fed a 1:1 mixture of fructose and glucose at doses that approximated the ranges of typical human fructose consumption. The fructose was isotopically labeled so that fructose and its metabolites could be identified by LC-MS (liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry). After feeding the mice the labeled fructose, the investigator measured the amount of fructose and its metabolites in various organs and in the portal vein, which transports sugars from the intestine to the liver for additional metabolism before they enter the bloodstream.

Is Fructose Bad For You?

intestine & liverThe first surprise was that most of the fructose was metabolized by the intestinal mucosal cells that line the small intestine rather than the liver. Previous reports had assumed that fructose was primarily metabolized by the liver because that was where most of the bad effects of fructose metabolism had been observed.

These investigators observed that fructose was primarily converted to glucose and small molecular weight metabolites by the intestinal mucosal cells before being released into the portal vein, where they were transported to the liver. However, there was a strong dose response effect.

  • At low fructose doses, 90% of fructose was metabolized by intestinal mucosal cells before being released to the liver.
  • At high fructose doses, only 70% of fructose was metabolized by intestinal mucosal cells.
  • That means at high fructose doses the amount of fructose reaching the liver unchanged increases from 10% to 30%. That is a 3-fold increase!

The authors concluded:

  • “Based on these findings, we propose that the small intestine shields the liver from fructose and that excessive doses of fructose overwhelm the small intestine, spilling over to the liver where they cause toxicity.”
  • “A key difference between the health effects of fiber-rich fruits (and perhaps even fiber-rich prepared foods) and juices/sodas is their rate of intestinal fructose release.”
  • “It is likely that the appearance rate of free fructose in the small intestine plays a critical role in dictating its metabolic fate. Like the lower doses in our experiments, a slower rate of fructose appearance will result in more complete intestinal clearance, whereas higher doses and faster rates result in fructose overflow to the liver.”

This study needs to be confirmed, and the mechanism may be entirely different in humans. However, whether mechanism is the same in mice and humans is immaterial. We already know that fructose in sodas and junk foods exerts a very different effect on our health than fructose in fruits and other fiber-containing foods.

Despite what Dr. Strangelove tells you, fructose is not bad for you. It isn’t the problem. It is sodas and junk foods containing high-fructose corn syrup that are the problem. And substituting other sugars for high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t make them any better. As I showed you above, the so called “healthy” sugars are chemically and biologically indistinguishable from high-fructose corn syrup.

The Bottom Line

Previous studies have clearly shown that fructose in sodas and junk foods is bad for us, while fructose in fruits is good for us. A recent study in mice provides a metabolic explanation for this difference. The study found:

  • At low fructose doses, 90% of fructose was metabolized by intestinal mucosal cells before being released to the liver.
  • At high fructose doses, only 70% of fructose was metabolized by intestinal mucosal cells.
  • That means at high fructose doses the amount of fructose reaching the liver unchanged increases from 10% to 30%. That is a 3-fold increase!

The authors concluded:

  • “Based on these findings, we propose that the small intestine shields the liver from fructose and that excessive doses of fructose overwhelm the small intestine, spilling over to the liver where they cause toxicity.”
  • “A key difference between the health effects of fiber-rich fruits (and perhaps even fiber-rich prepared foods) and juices/sodas is their rate of intestinal fructose release.”
  • “It is likely that the appearance rate of free fructose in the small intestine plays a critical role in dictating its metabolic fate. Like the lower doses in our experiments, a slower rate of fructose appearance will result in more complete intestinal clearance, whereas higher doses and faster rates result in fructose overflow to the liver.”

This study needs to be confirmed, and the mechanism may be entirely different in humans. However, whether mechanism is the same in mice and humans is immaterial. We already know that fructose in sodas and junk foods exerts a very different effect on our health than fructose in fruits and other fiber-containing foods.

Despite what Dr. Strangelove tells you, fructose is not bad for you. It isn’t the problem. It is sodas and junk foods containing high-fructose corn syrup that are the problem. And substituting other sugars for high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t make them any better. As I showed you above, the so called “healthy” sugars are chemically and biologically indistinguishable from high-fructose corn syrup.

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.

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

by

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

fast foodIt breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

Let me explain. The human brain is hardwired to crave sweets, salt, and fat. In prehistoric times each of these cravings had a survival benefit. For example:

  • Mother’s milk is naturally sweet. It only makes sense that babies should crave the nutrition source that is essential for their early growth and development.
  • Fruits provide a cornucopia of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. But fruits were scarce and seasonal in prehistoric times. Their sweetness provided an incentive for early man to seek them out.
  • Some salt is essential for life. Yet in early history it was scare. It was worth its weight in gold.
  • In prehistoric times it was feast or famine. The human body has an unlimited capacity to store fat in times of plenty, and those fat stores carried early man through times of famine.

Today most Americans live in a time of food abundance. There are fast food restaurants on almost every street corner and in every shopping mall. We think of famine as the days we skipped lunch because we were busy.

Yet these cravings remain, and the food industry has weaponized them. They are churning out an endless supply highly processed foods and beverages. These foods are not being designed to improve their nutritional value. They are designed to satisfy our cravings and lure us and our children into consuming more of them every year.

Scientists have developed a classification system that assigns foods in the American diet to different groups based on the degree of processing of that food. As you might expect, the best classification is unprocessed foods. The worst classification is called “ultraprocessed foods”. [I will describe this classification system in more detail in the next section.]

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. That is the topic of the study (L Wang et al, JAMA, 326: 519-530, 2021) I will discuss today.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe data for this study were obtained from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) dietary data collected from 33,795 American children (ages 2-19, average age = 10) between 1999 and 2018.

NHANES is a program conducted by the CDC to survey the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey has been conducted on a continuous, yearly basis since 1999.

The dietary data are collected via 24-hour dietary recalls conducted by trained interviewers, with a second recall administered over the phone 3-10 days later to improve the accuracy of the data.

  • Children aged 12-19 completed the dietary survey on their own.
  • For children aged 6-11, a parent or guardian assisted them in filling out the survey.
  • For children aged 2-5, a parent or guardian filled out the survey for them.

The foods and beverages consumed by the children were divided into 4 major groups based on the extent of processing using a well-established classification system called NOVA. The 4 groups are:

1) Unprocessed Or Minimally Processed Foods.

  • This includes whole foods and foods that are minimally processed without the addition of oils, fats, sugar, salt, or other ingredients to the food.
  • Examples of minimally processed foods include things like oatmeal, nut butters, dried fruit, frozen fruits or vegetables, and dried beans.

2) Processed Culinary Ingredients.

  • This includes recipes from restaurants or in-home cooking that add small amounts of oils, fats, sugar, salt, and seasonings to whole foods.

3) Processed Foods

  • This includes foods made in factories by the addition of salt, sugar, oil, or other substances added to whole or minimally processed foods.
  • Examples include tomato paste, canned fruits packed in sugar syrup, cheese, smoked or cured meat.

4) Ultraprocessed Foods

  • These are industrial formulations created in factories mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories (flavor enhancers, colors, and food additives).
  • Examples include sugar sweetened beverages; sweet or savory packaged snacks; chocolates and candies; burgers, hot dogs, and sausages; poultry and fish nuggets, pastries, cakes, and cake mixes.

Are We Killing Our Children With Kindness?

Obese ChildAs I said above, the important question is, “Are we killing our children with kindness when we give them the sugary drinks, sweets, convenience foods, and fast foods they crave?” After all, the foods we give them when they are young are the ones they are most likely to select when they get older.

Let’s start by looking at how pervasive these foods have become. That was the purpose of the study I am discussing today, and the results of this study are alarming. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!
  • Ultraprocessed foods were more likely to be consumed away from home and at fast food restaurants.

When the investigators looked at individual categories of ultraprocessed foods:

  • The percentage of calories coming from ready to heat and eat dishes like frozen pizzas and other frozen meals or snacks increased from 2.2% to 11.2%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sweet snacks and desserts increased from 10.7% to 12.9%.
  • The percentage of calories coming from sugar sweetened beverages decreased from 10.8% to 5.3%.
    • This is potentially the only good news from this study.

The authors concluded. “Based on NHANES data from 1999 to 2018, the estimated energy intake from consumption of ultraprocessed foods has increased among youths in the US and has consistently comprised the majority of their total energy intake.”

“These results suggest that food processing may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies.”

The Danger Of Ultraprocessed Foods

Fast Food DangersThis study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

#1: Their nutrition suffers. When the investigators divided the children into 5 groups based on the percentage of calories coming from ultraprocessed foods, the children consuming the most ultraprocessed food had:

  • Significantly higher intakes of carbohydrates (mostly refined carbohydrates); total fats; polyunsaturated fats (mostly highly processed omega-6-rich vegetable oils); and added sugars.
  • Significantly lower intakes of fiber; protein; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; calcium; magnesium; potassium; zinc; vitamins A, C, D, and folate.
    • The low intake of fiber means our children will be less likely to have health-promoting friendly bacteria and more likely to have disease-promoting bad bacteria in their guts.
    • The low intake of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D means they will be less likely to achieve maximum bone density as young adults and will be more likely to suffer from osteoporosis as they age.

#2: They are more likely to become obese. Remember, these are foods that are made in a factory, not grown on a farm.

  • They are high in fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates. That means they have a high caloric density. Each bite has 2-3 times the calories found in a bite of fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • As I said earlier, the food industry has weaponized our natural cravings for sweet, salty, and fatty foods. They feed their prototypes to a series of consumer tasting panels until they find the perfect blend of sugar, salt, and fat to create maximum craving.
  • And if that weren’t enough, they add additives to create the perfect flavor and “mouth appeal”.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and obesity in both children and adults.
    • It is also no wonder that the rate of childhood obesity has almost quadrupled (5% to 18.5%) in the last 40 years.

#3: They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

  • Obesity; high intake of fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates; and low intake of fiber, omega-3s, and essential nutrients all contribute to an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.
    • It is no wonder that clinical studies have found a strong correlation between high intake of ultraprocessed food and increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and premature death in adults.
    • It is also no wonder a recent study found that type 2 diabetes in children has almost doubled between 2001 and 2017.

The data are clear. When we allow our children to subsist on a diet mostly made up of the ultraprocessed foods they crave, we may be giving them, not love, but a lifetime of obesity and declining health instead. And yes, we may be killing them with kindness.

Instead, my recommendations are:

  • expose your children to a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed foods at an early age.
  • They will reject some of them, and that’s OK. Introduce others until you find whole, minimally processed foods they like. Reintroduce them to some of the foods they initially rejected as they get older.
  • Don’t keep tempting ultraprocessed foods in your house.
  • You may just succeed in putting your children on the path to a healthier diet and a healthier, longer life.

The Bottom Line

It breaks my heart when I see a mom and her children in the checkout line of a supermarket with a cart filled with sodas, sweets, and convenience foods and devoid of fresh fruits and vegetables – or when I see fast food restaurants packed with parents and their children.

I get it. Our kids love these foods. It seems like an act of kindness to give them the foods they crave. But are we killing our children with kindness?

It is time we asked how much ultraprocessed foods our children are eating and what it is doing to their health. A recent study did just that. When they looked at the changes in food consumption by our children between 1999 and 2018:

  • The percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67%. That means:
    • Today, more than 2/3 of the calories our children consume daily come from ultraprocessed foods!
  • The percentage of calories from unprocessed and minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5%. That means:
    • In the span of just 19 years the diets of our children have gone from bad to worse!

This study clearly shows that ultraprocessed foods have become the mainstay of our children’s diets. Forget a balanced diet! Forget “Eat your fruits and vegetables”! Our children’s diets have been fundamentally transformed by “Big Food, Inc”.

You might be saying to yourself, “So, they are eating their favorite processed foods. What’s the big deal? How bad can it be?” My answer is, “Pretty Bad”. I chose the title, “Are we killing our children with kindness”, for a reason.

When you look at what happens to children who eat a diet that is mostly ultraprocessed foods:

  • Their nutrition suffers.
  • They are more likely to become obese.
  • They are more likely to become sick as adults and die prematurely.

For more details about this study, 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.

What Is An Anti-Inflammatory Diet?

by

Can Diet Douse The Flames?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

InflammationIf you have arthritis, colitis, bursitis, or any of the other “itis” diseases, you already know that inflammation is the enemy. Chronic, low level inflammation is also a contributing factor to heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Clearly, inflammation is a bad actor. It is something we want to avoid.

Obesity and diabetes are two of the biggest contributors to inflammation, but does diet also play a role? With all the anti-inflammation diets circulating on the internet, you would certainly think so. How good is the evidence that certain foods influence inflammation, and what does an anti-inflammatory diet look like?

The Science Behind Anti-Inflammatory Diets

ScientistLet me start by saying that the science behind anti-inflammatory diets is nowhere near as strong as it is for the effect of primarily plant-based diets on heart disease and diabetes. The studies on anti-inflammatory diets are mostly small, short duration studies. However, the biggest problem is that there is no standard way of measuring inflammation.

There are multiple markers of inflammation, and they do not change together. That means that in every study some markers of inflammation are altered, while others are not. There is no consistent pattern from one study to another.

In spite of these methodological difficulties, the studies generally point in the same direction. Let’s start with the strongest evidence and work our way down to the weakest evidence. 

Omega-3 fats are anti-inflammatory (I. Reinders et al, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66: 736-741, 2011). The evidence is strongest for the long chain omega-3s found in fish and fish oil, but the shorter chain omega-3s found in foods like walnuts, flaxseeds, chia seeds and flaxseed oil, soybean oil, and canola oil also appear to be anti-inflammatory. 

Inflammation is directly correlated with glycemic index (L. Qi and F.B. Lu, Current Opinion in Lipidology, 18: 3-8, 2007). This has a couple of important implications.

The most straightforward is that refined carbohydrates and sugars (sodas, pastries, and desserts), which have a high glycemic index, increase inflammation. In contrast, complex carbohydrates (whole grains, most fruits and vegetables) decrease inflammation. No surprise there. The second implication is that it is the glycemic index, not the sugar, that is driving the inflammatory response.

That means we need to look more closely at foods than at sugars. Sodas, pastries and desserts are likely to cause inflammation, but sugar-containing foods with a low glycemic index are unlikely to be inflammatory. 

Fruits and vegetables are anti-inflammatory. This has been shown in multiple studies. At this point most of the research is centered on identifying the nutrients and phytonutrients from fruits and vegetables that are responsible for the reduction in inflammation. I suspect the investigators are hoping to design an anti-inflammatory supplement and make lots of money. I will stick with the fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Saturated fats are inflammatory. At face value, the data on saturated fats appear to be contradictory. Some Fatty Foodsstudies say that saturated fats increase inflammation, while others say they do not. However, similar to my earlier discussion on saturated fats and heart disease), the outcome of the study depends on what the saturated fats are replaced with.

When saturated fats are replaced with refined carbohydrates, sugar and highly processed foods (the standard American low-fat diet), inflammation doesn’t change. This doesn’t mean that a diet high in saturated fat is healthy. It just means that both diets are bad for you. Both are inflammatory.

However, when saturated fat is replaced with omega-3 polyunsaturated fats (J.A. Paniagua et al, Atherosclerosis, 218: 443-450, 2011) or monounsaturated fats (B. Vessby et al, Diabetologia, 44: 312-319, 2001), markers of inflammation decrease. Clearly, saturated fats are not the best fat choice if you wish to keep inflammation in check.

I would be remiss if I did not address the claims by the low-carb diet proponents that saturated fats do not increase inflammation in the context of a low-carb diet. I want to remind you of two things we have discussed previously:

  • The comparisons in those studies are generally with people consuming a diet high in simple carbohydrates and sugars.
  • These studies have mostly been done in the short-term when the participants are losing weight on the low-carb diets. Weight loss decreases inflammation, so the reduction in inflammation on the low-carb diet could be coming from the weight loss.

The one study (M. Miller et al, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109: 713-717, 2009) I have found that compares a low-carb diet (the Atkins diet) with a good diet (the Ornish diet, which is a low-fat, lacto-ovo vegetarian diet) during weight maintenance found that the meat based, low-carb Atkins diet caused greater inflammation than the healthy low-fat Ornish diet.

Red meat is probably pro-inflammatory. Most, but not all, studies suggest that red meat consumption is associated with increased inflammation. If it is pro-inflammatory, the inflammation is most likely associated with its saturated fat, its heme iron content, or the advanced glycation end products formed during cooking.

What Is An Anti-Inflammatory Diet?

Colorful fruits and vegetablesAnti-inflammatory diets have become so mainstream that they now appear on many reputable health organization websites such as Harvard Health, WebMD, the Mayo Clinic, and the Cleveland Clinic. Each have slightly different features, but there is a tremendous amount of agreement. 

Foods an anti-inflammatory diet includes: In a nutshell, an anti-inflammatory diet includes fruits and vegetables, whole grains, plant-based proteins (like beans and nuts), fatty fish, and fresh herbs and spices. Specifically, your diet should emphasize:

  • Colorful fruits and vegetables. Not only do they help fight inflammation, but they are a great source of antioxidants and other nutrients important for your health.
  • Whole grains. They have a low glycemic index. They are also a good source of fiber, and fiber helps flush inflammatory toxins out of the body.
  • Beans and other legumes. They should be your primary source of protein. They are high in fiber and contain antioxidants and other anti-inflammatory nutrients.
  • Nuts, olive oil, and avocados. They are good sources of healthy monounsaturated fats, which fight inflammation.
  • Fatty fish. Salmon, tuna, and sardines are all great sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, which are fish and fish oilincorporated into our cell membranes. Those long chain omega-3s in cell membranes are, in turn, used to create compounds that are powerful inflammation fighters.

Walnuts, flaxseeds, and chia seeds are good sources of short chain omega-3s. The efficiency of their conversion to long chain omega-3s that can be incorporated into cell membranes is only around 2-5%. If they fight inflammation, it is probably because they replace some of the saturated fats and omega-6 fats you might otherwise be eating.

  • Herbs and spices. They add antioxidants and other phytonutrients that fight inflammation.

Foods an anti-inflammatory diet excludes: In a nutshell, an anti-inflammatory diet should exclude highly processed, overly greasy, or super sweet foods, especially sodas and other sweet drinks. Specifically, your diet should exclude:

  • Refined carbohydrates, sodas and sugary foods. They have a high glycemic index, which is associated with inflammation. They can also lead to weight gain and high blood sugar, both of which cause inflammation.
  • Foods high in saturated fats. This includes fatty and processed meats, butter, and high fat dairy products.
  • Foods high in trans fats. This includes margarine, coffee creamers, and any processed food containing partly hydrogenated vegetable oils. Trans fats are very pro-inflammatory.
  • French fries, fried chicken, and other fried foods. They used to be fried in saturated fat and/or trans fat. Nowadays, they are generally fried in omega-6 vegetable oils. A little omega-6 in the diet is OK, but Americans get too much omega-6 fatty acids in their diet. Most studies show that a high ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids is pro-inflammatory.
  • Foods you are allergic or sensitive to. Eating any food that you are sensitive to can cause inflammation. This comes up most often with respect to gluten and dairy because so many people are sensitive to one or both. However, if you are not sensitive to them, there is no reason to exclude whole grain gluten-containing foods or low-fat dairy foods from your diet.

Can Diet Douse The Flames?

FlamesIn case you didn’t notice, the recommendations for an anti-inflammatory diet closely match the other healthy diets I have discussed previously. It should come as no surprise then that both the Mediterranean (L. Gallard, Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 25: 634-640, 2010; L. Schwingshackl and G. Hoffmann, Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 24: 929-939, 2014) and DASH (D.E. King et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, 167: 502-506, 2007) diets are anti-inflammatory.

Vegan and vegetarian diets also appear to be anti-inflammatory as well. The anti-inflammatory nature of these diets undoubtedly contributes to their association with a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

As for the low-carb diets, the jury is out. There are no long-term studies to support the claims of low-carb proponents that their diets reduce inflammation. The few long-term studies that are available suggest that low-carb diets are only likely to be anti-inflammatory if vegetable proteins and oils replace the animal proteins and fats that are currently recommended.

What does this mean for you if you have severe arthritis or other inflammatory diseases? An anti-inflammatory diet is unlikely to “cure” your symptoms by itself. However, it should definitely be a companion to everything else you are doing to reduce inflammation.

The Bottom Line 

If you have arthritis, colitis, bursitis, or any of the other “itis” diseases, you already know that inflammation is the enemy. Chronic, low level inflammation is also a contributing factor to heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Clearly, inflammation is a bad actor. It’s something we want to avoid.

Obesity and diabetes are two of the biggest contributors to inflammation, but does diet also play a role? With all the anti-inflammation diets circulating on the internet, you would certainly think so. In this article I review the evidence that certain foods influence inflammation and describe what an anti-inflammatory diet looks like.

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.

Do Diet Sodas Hurt Your Heart?

by

Love Your Heart

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

confusionHeart healthy diets are confusing.

  • First, we were told that fats, especially saturated fats, were the problem. Then it was carbohydrates.
  • Then, we were told not all carbohydrates were equally bad for us. Sugars were the culprit.
  • Next, we were told not all sugars were bad for us. It was added sugars, especially the sugars added to sodas and other sugary drinks.
  • In fact, most of the clinical studies on the bad effects of sugar have been done with sugar-sweetened sodas.
  • If sugar-sweetened sodas are the problem, then surely diet sodas must be the answer.

Maybe not. In a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor” I summarized studies showing that consuming diet sodas was just as likely to be associated with obesity and diabetes as consuming sugar-sweetened sodas.

But what about heart health? Are diet sodas better for your heart than sugar-sweetened sodas? A recent study (E. Chazelas et al, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 76: 2175-2180, 2020) suggests the answer is no.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis study is part of a much larger French study on the effect of diet on health outcomes called the NutriNet-Sante cohort. The NutriNet-Sante cohort study was started in 2009 and, as the name suggests, makes extensive use of online questionnaires. For example:

  • Participants are asked to fill out online questionnaires on physical activity, socioeconomic status, anthropometric data (height, weight, etc.), and major health events on a regular basis.
  • Every 6 months participants are asked to fill out 3 web-based 24-h dietary records (2 on weekdays and 1 on a weekend).
  • Major health events were validated based on their medical records and France’s national health insurance system (Yes, Big Brother is definitely watching in France).
  • Deaths were validated using France’s national mortality registry.

The study included a total of 104,760 participants with an average age of 42.9 and an average BMI of 23.7 (towards the upper end of the normal range) and followed them for 10 years. [Note: The average BMI for Americans at age 40 is 28.6, which is towards the upper end of the overweight category.]

The study compared consumption of diet drinks and sugary drinks with first-time cases of heart disease events (stroke, heart attack, angina, and angioplasty) during a 10-year period.

  • All first-time cases of heart disease events were combined into a single category for this publication. They will be considered separately in a subsequent publication.
  • Artificially sweetened beverages (diet drinks) were defined as beverages containing non-nutritive sweeteners. Sugary drinks consisted of all beverages containing ≥ 5% sugar (sodas, syrups, 100% juice, and fruit drinks).
  • For both categories of beverages, the participants were divided into non-consumers, low consumers, and high consumers.

Do Diet Sodas Hurt Your Heart?

Fast Food DangersThe results were clear. When high consumers were compared with non-consumers:

  • High consumers of sugary drinks had a 20% increased risk of first-time heart disease events.
  • High consumers of diet drinks had a 32% increased risk of first-time heart disease events.

The authors concluded, “In this cohort, higher intakes of [both] sugary drinks and diet drinks were associated with a higher risk of heart disease, suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages might not be a healthy substitute for sugary drinks.”

I also might point out that if this study had been done in the United States the increased risk of heart disease might have been greater.

That is because the French drink less sugary drinks and diet drinks than Americans.

  • High consumers of both sugary drinks and diet drinks in this study averaged 6 ounces per day.
  • In contrast, the average consumption sugary drinks in the United States is around 17 ounces per day.

Since consumption of sugary drinks is associated with increased incidence of heart disease and we drink more sugary drinks, the increased risk of heart disease in Americans might be greater than the 20% reported in this study.

What Are The Pros And Cons Of This Study?

pros and consOn the plus side, this was a very large and well-designed study.

For example, many studies of this type take a single assessment of the participant’s diet, either at the beginning or end of the study. They have no idea whether the participants changed their diet during the study. This study did a diet assessment every 6 months.

On the minus side, this was an association study. It measured the association of sugary drink and diet drink consumption with heart disease. Association studies have several limitations. Here are the top three:

#1: Confounding variables. Here are a couple of examples:

  • People who are overweight tend to drink more diet drinks than people who are normal weight. Obesity increases the risk of heart disease. Therefore, obesity is a confounding variable. You don’t know whether heart disease increased because the participants drank more diet drinks or because they were obese.
  • People who consume more diet drinks tend also to eat less healthy diets. Unhealthy diets increase the risk of heart disease. Thus, unhealthy diets are also a confounding variable.

The study authors adjusted for confounding variables by statistically correcting the data for:

  • Age, sex, BMI, sugar intake from other dietary sources, smoking status, physical activity, and family history of heart disease.
  • Intakes of alcohol, total calories, fruits & vegetables, red & processed meats, nuts, whole grains, legumes, saturated fat, sodium, and proportion of highly processed food in the diet.
  • Presence of type 2 diabetes, elevated cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure upon entry into the study.

In short, they did an excellent job of controlling for confounding variables that also affect the risk of heart disease.

#2: Reverse Causation: This is the chicken and egg question. This study measured the association between sugary and diet drink consumption and heart disease. None of the participants in the study had diagnosed heart disease when the 10-year study began.

However, both obesity and sugar consumption have been linked to increased risk of heart disease. What if some participants in the study had been diagnosed with heart disease early in the study and switched to diet drinks to lose weight or reduce sugar intake?

In that case, the diagnosis of heart disease would have caused increased diet drink consumption rather than the other way around. That would be reverse causation.

The study authors took reverse causation into account by excluding participants who experienced a first-time heart disease event in the first 3 years of this 10-year study. In other words, participants had to have been consuming sugary or diet drinks for at least 3 years before their heart disease event for their data to be included in the analysis.

This is considered the gold standard for reducing the influence of reverse causation on the outcome of the study.

#3: Uncertainty About Causation:

Association studies do not provide information on the possible mechanism(s) of the association.

For example, multiple previous studies have shown that people are just as likely to gain weight and develop type 2 diabetes when they consume diet drinks or sugary drinks. However, after years of study, the mechanism(s) of that effect are uncertain.

  • The mechanism may be physiological. However, many physiological mechanisms have been proposed. None have been proven.
  • The mechanism may be psychological. We may feel so virtuous for drinking diet drinks that we think it gives us license to eat more junk food. As a former University of North Carolina colleague once put it, “The problem is that we are using our diet drinks to wash down a Big Mac and fries.”

Association studies also do not prove causation. We cannot say with confidence that diet drink consumption increases our risk of heart disease. Nor can we speculate on the mechanism by which this might occur.

However, as the authors of this study concluded, we can say with confidence that there is no evidence that diet drink consumption decreases the risk of obesity, diabetes, or heart disease.

Love Your Heart

Love Your Heart – Drink Water Rather Than Sugar-Sweetened Or Artificially Sweetened Beverages. 

strong heartIf drinking diet drinks does not decrease your risk of heart disease, what can you do to decrease your risk?

The short answer is to fall in love with water. Water has no calories, no sugar, and no artificial sweeteners. In the study described above, it was the non-consumers of sugary beverages and diet beverages that had the lowest risk of heart disease.

Pure water is, of course, the best alternative. However, if plain water is too boring, try herbal teas. If you crave the fizz of sodas, try unsweetened sparkling water, perhaps infused with a little of your favorite fresh fruit. If you crave the caffeine of sodas, coffee or tea might suit you best, preferably without the sugar and cream. There are just two caveats:

  • Tea and coffee should not be your only source of liquid.
  • It goes without saying that you want to avoid the 500 calorie Starbucks extravaganzas.

Love Your Heart – What About Artificially Sweetened Foods?

If artificially sweetened drinks have no benefit for preventing obesity, diabetes, or heart disease, what about artificially sweetened foods? Do they also have no benefit?

The short answer is that we don’t know. Most of the studies to date have been with artificially sweetened beverages. However, these studies should make us cautious. We should not automatically assume that artificially sweetened foods are beneficial because they contain fewer calories. They may be just as useless as artificially sweetened beverages.

Love Your Heart – A Holistic Approach

With that in mind, here is what the American Heart Association recommends for reducing your risk of heart disease:

  • If you smoke, stop.
  • Choose good nutrition.
    • Choose a diet that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, poultry, fish, legumes, nuts, and nontropical vegetable oils (ie, avoid coconut and palm oil).
    • Choose a diet that limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meats.
    • [Note: Don’t substitute artificially sweetened beverages for sugar-sweetened beverages. That doesn’t appear to offer any advantage. Drink water instead.]
  • Reduce high blood cholesterol and triglycerides.
    • Reduce your intake of saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol and get moving.
    • If diet and physical activity don’t get your cholesterol and triglyceride numbers under control, then medication may be the next step.
    • [Note: The American Heart Association recommends changing your diet and physical activity first and only resorting to medications if lifestyle changes don’t work. Diet and exercise do not have side effects. Medications do.]
  • Lower High Blood Pressure.
  • Be physically active every day.
  • Aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity per week.
  • Aim for a healthy weight.
  • Manage diabetes.
  • Reduce stress.
  • Limit alcohol.

The Bottom Line 

Previous studies have shown that people are just as likely to gain weight and develop type 2 diabetes when they consume artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened drinks. In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I shared a study showing that artificially sweetened drinks are just as bad for your heart as sugar-sweetened drinks.

These are all association studies. Association studies do not provide information on the possible mechanism(s) of the association.

That means we don’t know why artificially sweetened drinks are bad for your heart.

  • The mechanism may be physiological. However, many physiological mechanisms have been proposed. None have been proven.
  • The mechanism may be psychological. We may feel so virtuous for drinking diet drinks that we think it gives us license to eat more junk food. As a former UNC colleague once put it, “The problem is that we are using our diet drinks to wash down a Big Mac and fries.”

Association studies also do not prove causation. We cannot say with confidence that diet drink consumption increases our risk of heart disease. Nor can we speculate on the mechanism by which this might occur.

However, we can say with confidence that there is no evidence that diet drink consumption decreases the risk of obesity, diabetes, or heart disease.

The authors of this study concluded, “…higher intakes of [both] sugary drinks and diet drinks were associated with a higher risk of heart disease, suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages might not be a healthy substitute for sugary drinks.”

For more details on the study and information on a holistic approach for reducing heart disease risk 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.

 

What Do The US Dietary Guidelines Say About Supplementation?

by

What Do The US Dietary Guidelines Say About Your Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

US Dietary Guidelines 2020-2025Science is always changing, and nutritional science is no different. As we learn more, our concept of the “ideal diet” is constantly evolving. Because of that, the USDA and the US Department of Health & Human Services produce a new set of Dietary Guidelines for Americans every 5 years.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans have just been released. As usual, the process started with a panel of 20 internationally recognized scientists who produced a comprehensive report on the current state of nutritional science and made recommendations for updated dietary guidelines. After a period of public comment, the dietary guidelines were published.

There were two new features of the 2020-2025 Guidelines:

  • They provided dietary guidelines for every life stage from 6 months of life to adults over 60.
  • The guidelines also addressed personal preferences, cultural traditions, and budgetary concerns in so that each of us can develop a healthy diet that fits our lifestyle.

What Do The US Dietary Guidelines Say About Your Diet?

Here are the 2020-2025 Guidelines in a nutshell:healthy foods

  • Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
  • Customize and enjoy nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect personal preferences, cultural traditions, and budgetary considerations.
  • Focus on meeting food group needs with nutrient-dense foods and beverages and stay within calorie limits. They went on to say, “A healthy dietary pattern consists of nutrient-dense forms of foods and beverages across all food groups [emphasis mine], in recommended amounts, and within calorie limits.”

They said, “the core elements that make up a healthy dietary pattern include:”

    • Vegetables of all types – dark green, red, and orange vegetables; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy vegetables; and other vegetables.
    • Fruits – especially whole fruits.
    • Grains – at least half of which are whole.
    • Dairy – including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese; lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and soy yogurt as alternatives. [Other plant-based milk and yogurt foods were not recommended because they do not provide as much protein as dairy. So, they were not considered equivalent foods.]
    • Protein foods – including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
    • Oils – including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.
  • Limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium; and limit No Fast Foodalcoholic beverages. Their specific recommendations are:
    • Added sugars – less than 10% of calories/day starting at age 2. Avoid foods and beverages with added sugars for those younger than 2.
    • Saturated fat – Less than 10% of calories starting at age 2.
    • Sodium – Less than 2,300 mg per day – even less for children younger than 14.
    • Alcoholic beverages – Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink, or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed. Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.

For more details, read the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The Dark Side Of The US Dietary Guidelines

Darth VaderThe US Dietary Guidelines point Americans in the right direction, but they are never as strong as most nutrition experts would like. The 2025 Dietary Guidelines are no exception. They have two major limitations:

#1: The food industry has watered down the guidelines. This happens every time a new set of guidelines are released. The food and beverage lobbies provide their input during the public comment period. And because they fund a significant portion of USDA research, their input carries a lot of weight. Here are the 3 places where they altered the recommendations of the scientific panel:

  • The scientific panel recommended that Americans decrease the intake of added sugar from 13% of daily calories to 6%. The final dietary guidelines recommended reducing sugar to 10% of daily calories.
  • The scientific panel recommended that both men and women limit alcoholic drinks to one a day. The final dietary guidelines recommended men limit alcoholic drinks to two a day.
  • The scientific panel included these statements in their report:
    • “Dietary patterns characterized by higher intake of red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and refined grains are…associated with detrimental health outcomes.”
    • “Replacing processed or high fat-meats…with seafood could help lower intake of saturated fat and sodium, nutrients that are often consumed in excess of recommended limits.”
    • “Replacing processed or high-fat meats with beans, peas, and lentils would have similar benefits.”

These statements are included in the final report, but they are buried in portions of the report that most people are unlikely to read. The summary that most people will read recommends shifts in protein consumption to “add variety” to the diet.

#2: The guidelines do not address sustainability and do not explicitly promote a shift to more Planetary Dietplant-based diets. Again, this was based on input from food lobby groups who argued that sustainability has nothing to do with nutrition.

If you are concerned about climate change and the degradation of our environment caused by our current farming practices, this is a significant omission.

I have covered this topic in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is a brief summary:

  • In 2019 a panel of international scientists was asked to conduct a comprehensive study on our diet and its effect on both our health and our environment.
  • The scientific panel carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:
    • Are they good for us?
    • Are they good for the planet?
    • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.
  • They developed dietary recommendations popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”. Here are the characteristics of the planetary diet.
    • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
    • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day.
    • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
    • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

Unless you are a vegan, this diet is much more restrictive than you are used to. However, if you, like so many Americans believe that climate change is an existential threat, I would draw your attention to one of the concluding statements from the panel’s report.

  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”

In other words, we can do everything else right, but if we fail to change our diet, we cannot avoid catastrophic global warming.

What Do The US Dietary Guidelines Say About Supplementation?

MultivitaminsThe authors of the 2020-2025 US Dietary Guidelines have relatively little to say about supplementation. However:

  • They list nutrients that are of “public health concern” for each age group. Nutrients of public health concern are nutrients that:
    • Are underconsumed in the American diet.
    • Are associated with health concerns when their intake is low.
  • They state that “dietary supplements may be useful in providing one or more nutrients that otherwise might be consumed in less than recommended amounts.”
  • They recommend specific supplements for several age groups.

Here are their nutrients of public health concern and recommended supplements for each age group:

#1: General population.

  • Nutrients of public health concern are calcium, dietary fiber, and vitamin D. They state that supplementation may be useful for meeting these needs.

#2: Breast Fed Infants.

  • Supplementation with 400 IU/day of vitamin D is recommended shortly after birth.

#3: Vegetarian Toddlers.

  • Iron and vitamin B12 are nutrients of concern.

#4: Children & Adolescents.

  • Calcium and vitamin D are nutrients of concern. Dairy and/or fortified soy alternatives are recommended to help meet these needs.
  • Iron, folate, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and magnesium are also nutrients of concern for adolescent females.

#5: Adults (Ages 19-59).

  • 30% of men and 60% of women do not consume enough calcium and 90% of both men and women do not get enough vitamin D.

#6: Pregnant & Lactating Women:

  • Calcium, vitamin D, and fiber are nutrients of concern for all women in this age group.
  • In addition, women who are pregnant have special needs for folate/folic acid, iron, iodine, and vitamin D.
  • Women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant should take a daily prenatal vitamin and mineral supplement to meet folate/folic acid, iron, iodine, and vitamin D needs during pregnancy. They go on to say that many prenatal supplements do not contain iodine, so it is important to read the label.
  • All women who are planning or capable of pregnancy should take a daily supplement containing 400 to 800 mcg of folic acid.

#7: Older Adults (≥ 60).

  • Nutrients of concern for this age group include calcium, vitamin D, fiber, protein, and vitamin B12.
  • About 50% of women and 30% of men in this age group do not get enough protein in their diet.

My Perspective:

The US Dietary Guidelines use foods of public health concern as the only basis for recommending Supplementation Perspectivesupplementation. I prefer a more holistic approach that includes increased needs, genetic predisposition, and preexisting diseases as part of the equation (see the diagram on the right). I have discussed this concept in depth in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

I have also taken this concept and made supplement recommendations for various health goals in a free eBook called “Your Design For Healthy Living”.

Some people may feel I should have included more supplements in my recommendations. Others may feel I should have included fewer supplements in my recommendations. No list pf recommend supplements is perfect, but I have tried to include those supplements supported by good scientific evidence in my recommendations.

The Bottom Line 

The USDA and Department of Health & Human Services have just released the 2020-2025 US Dietary Guideline. In the article above I have summarized:

  • Their recommendations for a healthy diet.
  • Their recommendations for supplementation.
  • The dark side of the US Dietary Guidelines.

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.

Which Foods Should I Avoid?

by

What Is Nutritionism?

In Defense Of FoodRecently, I have been reading Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food”. Yes, I know the book has been around for a long time. Normally I read the scientific literature rather than popular health books. However, in the past few weeks I have had a lot more time to read books, so I decided to read this one.

Some of the things he says are “off the wall”. As he readily admits, he isn’t a scientist or a medical doctor. However, a lot of what he says is “right on”. He echoes many of the things I have been talking about for years. But he does a masterful job of pulling everything together into a framework he calls “nutritionism”.

If you have a chance, I highly recommend that you read his book.

I will briefly summarize his discussion of nutritionism below. I will also share some scientific support for what he is saying. Finally, I will close by sharing what the Bible says on the subject.

What Is Nutritionism?

Low Fat LabelSimply put, nutritionism is the belief that we can understand food solely in terms of its nutritional and chemical constituents and our requirements for them. I use the term “belief” purposely. As Michael Pollan puts it: “As the ‘-ism’ suggests, nutritionism is not a scientific subject, but an ideology.”

What Michael Pollan is referring to is taking food constituents like saturated fats, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, fiber, antioxidants, and probiotics and labeling them as either “good” or “bad”.

As he points out, that leads to debacles like the creation of margarine as a substitute for butter. Of course, everyone reading this article knows that we subsequently found out that the trans fat in margarine was worse for us than the saturated fat in butter. He offers many other examples like this.

He also points out that the nutritionism concept has given free rein to the food industry to replace whole foods with processed foods that are cholesterol-free, sugar-free, low-fat, low-carb, or high in fiber, omega-3s, etc. He says that these foods are seldom healthier than the foods they replace. I agree.

Finally, he points out that the scientific support for the classification of individual ingredients or foods as “good” or “bad” is weak. That’s because when scientists design a study that removes a chemical constituent or a food from the diet, they have to replace it with something. And what they replace it with determines the outcome of the study. I give some examples of this in the next section.

The essence of Michael Pollan’s message is:

  • The effect of an individual nutrient or chemical constituent on your health depends on the food it is found in. Forget the fancy nutrition labels. Whole foods are almost always healthier than processed foods.
  • The effect of a food or food constituent on your health also depends on your overall diet. We should be thinking about healthy diets rather than the latest “magical” or “forbidden” food.

I will discuss these points below.

Which Foods Should I Avoid?

Question MarkNow, let’s get to the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” If we are talking about whole foods, the short answer is “None”. As I said in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”, “We have 5 food groups for a reason”.

For example, if we are talking about plant foods, each plant food group:

  • Has a unique blend of vitamins and minerals.
  • Has a unique blend of phytonutrients.
  • Has a unique blend of fiber.
  • Supports the growth of a unique combination of beneficial gut bacteria.
  • Dr Strangelove and his friends are telling you to eliminate whole grains, fruits, and legumes (beans) from your diet. Recent studies suggest that might not be a good idea. Here is one example.

If we are talking about animal foods, each animal food group:

  • Has a unique blend of vitamins and minerals.
  • May have unique components that are important for our health. [Note: This is an active area of research. Theories have been proposed for which components in animal foods may be important for our health, but they have not been confirmed.]
  • Vegan purists will tell you that you have no need for meat and dairy foods. Recent studies suggest otherwise. Here is one example.

With that as background, let’s turn our attention to nutritionism and look at some of science behind claims that certain food components are either good for us or bad for us.

Saturated Fat. Saturated fat is the poster child for nutritionism.lowfat

First, we were told by the American Heart Association and other health organizations that saturated fat was bad for us. Recently Dr. Strangelove and his friends are telling us that saturated fat is good for us. Instead of limiting saturated fat, we should be limiting carbs by cutting out fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Both cite clinical studies to support their claims. How can this be?

Perhaps a little history is in order. When the American Heart Association recommended that we decrease intake of saturated fat, they were envisioning that we would replace it with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat in the context of a healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. That never happened.

Big Food quickly realized that if the American public were to follow the AHA guidelines, it would be disastrous for their bottom line. So, they sprang into action. They mixed sugar, white flour, and a witch’s brew of chemicals to create highly processed, low fat “foods”. Then they told the American public, “Don’t worry. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods. We have created low fat alternatives.”

This is the essence of what Michael Pollan refers to as nutritionism. By marketing their fake foods as low fat Big Food created the halo of health. In fact, Big Food’s fake foods were less healthy than the foods they replaced. Americans got fatter and sicker.

Now let’s look at the conflicting claims that saturated fat is bad for us or good for us. How can clinical studies disagree on such an important question? The answer is simple. It depends on what you replace it with. You need to consider saturated fat intake in the context of the overall diet.

I discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, but let me summarize it briefly here. The American Heart Association tells us that replacing half of the saturated fat in a typical American diet with:

  • Trans fats, increases heart disease risk by 5%.
  • Refined carbohydrates and sugars (the kind of carbohydrates in the typical American Diet), slightly increases heart disease risk.
  • Complex carbohydrates (whole grains, fruits & vegetables), decreases heart disease risk by 9%.
  • Monounsaturated fats (olive oil & peanut oil), decreases heart disease risk by 15%.
  • Polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils and fish oil), decreases heart disease risk by 25%.
  • Unsaturated fats in the context of a Mediterranean diet, decreases heart disease risk by 45%.

My advice: Saturated fat is neither good for you nor bad for you. A little bit of saturated fat in the context of a healthy diet is fine. A lot of saturated fat in the context of an unhealthy diet is problematic.

fatty steakRed Meat. Is red meat bad for you? Like saturated fat, it depends on the amount of red meat and the overall diet. I covered this in detail in “Slaying The Food Myths”, but let me summarize briefly here:

According to the World Health Organization, red meat is a probable carcinogen. If we look at the postulated mechanisms by which it causes cancer, they can be mostly neutralized by components of various plant foods.

My advice: An 8-ounce steak with fries and a soda is probably bad for you. Three ounces of that same steak in a green salad or stir fry may be good for you.

I should make one other point while I am on the topic. Dr. Strangelove and his friends have been telling you that grass-fed beef is better for you than conventionally raised beef. Once again, that is nutritionism.  Grass-fed beef is lower in saturated fat and high in omega-3s than conventionally raised beef. That may be better for your heart, but it has no effect on the cancer-causing potential of red meat. It doesn’t give the license to eat 8-ounce steaks on a regular basis. You still want to aim for 3-ounces of that grass-fed beef in a green salad or stir fry. 

High-Fructose Corn Syrup. This one seems to be on everyone’s “naughty list”. You are being told to read labels, and if the food has high-fructose corn syrup on the label, put it back on the shelf. But is that good advice?

It turns out that all the studies on the bad effects of high-fructose corn syrup have been done with sodas and highly processed foods. This should be your first clue.

Of course, as soon as high-fructose corn syrup gained its “bad” reputation, Big Food started replacing it with Sugar Comparisons“heathier” sugars. Does that make those foods healthier?

The answer is a clear “No”. Both chemically and biologically, high-fructose corn syrup is identical to sucrose (table sugar), honey, molasses, maple syrup, coconut sugar, date sugar, or grape juice concentrate. Agave sugar is even higher in fructose than high-fructose corn syrup. This is your second clue.

Substituting these sugars for high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t turn sodas and processed foods into health foods. This is nutritionism at its worst.

My advice: Forget reading the label. Forget trying to avoid foods with high-fructose corn syrup. Avoid sodas and processed foods instead.

Sugar. Once the public started to realize that natural sugars in processed foods were just as bad for us as high-fructose corn syrup, sugars became “bad”. We were told to avoid all foods containing sugar in any form. In fact, we were told we needed to become “label detectives” and recognize all the deceptive ways that sugar could be hidden on the label.

Apple With Nutrition LabelI have discussed this in detail in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Let me just summarize that article with one quote, “It’s not the sugar. It’s the food. There is the same amount and same types of sugar in an 8-ounce soda and a medium apple. Sodas are bad for you, and apples are good for you.” If you are wondering why that is, I have covered it in another issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

Before leaving this subject, I should mention that nutritionism has risen its ugly head here as well. Big Food has struck again. They have replaced sugar with a variety of artificial sweeteners.

Once again, nutritionism has failed. Those artificially sweetened sodas and processed foods are no healthier and no more likely to help you keep the weight off than the sugar-sweetened foods they replace. I have covered the science behind that statement in several previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is one example.

My advice: Forget about sugar phobia. You don’t need to become a label detective. Just avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweet processed foods. Get your sugar in its natural form in fruits and other whole foods.

low carb dietCarbs. Dr. Strangelove and his friends are now telling you that you need to avoid all carbs. That is pure nutritionism. Carbs are neither good nor bad. It depends on the type of carb and what you replace it with.

Once again, clinical studies have given conflicting outcomes. Each side of the carbohydrate debate can provide clinical studies to support their position. How can that be? The answer is simple. It depends on what assumptions went into the design of the clinical studies. I have written several articles on this topic in “Health Tips From the Professor”, but let me give you one example here.

In this example, I looked at two major studies. The PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study included data from 135,000 participants in 18 countries. In this study, the death rate decreased as the % carbohydrate in the diet decreased. The low-carb enthusiasts were doing a victory dance.

However, it was followed by a second, even larger study. The ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study included 432,000 participants from even more countries. In this study, the death rate decreased as the % carbohydrate decreased to about 40%. Then a curious thing happened. As the % carbohydrate in the diet decreased further, the death rate increased.

How can you explain this discrepancy? When you examine the PURE study:

  • The % carbohydrate only ranged from 70% to 40%.
  • The data for the PURE study was obtained primarily with third world countries. That is an important distinction because:
    • In those countries, it is primarily the well to do that can afford sodas, processed foods, and meat.
    • The poor subsist on what they can grow and inexpensive staples like beans and rice.
  • Simply put, in the PURE study, the type of carbohydrate changed as well as the amount of carbohydrate.
    • At the highest carbohydrate intakes, a significant percentage of the carbohydrate came from sugar and refined grains.
    • At the lowest carbohydrate intakes, most of the carbohydrate intake came from beans, whole grains, and whatever fruits and vegetables they could grow.

When you examine the ARIC study:how much carbohydrates should we eat aric

  • The % carbohydrate ranged from 70% to 20%.
  • The ARIC study added in data from the US and European countries. That is an important distinction because:
    • Low carb diets like Atkins and Keto are popular in these countries. And those are the diets that fall into the 20-40% carbohydrate range.
    • Most people can afford diets that contain a lot of meat in those countries.
  • Simply put, at the lower end of the scale in the ARIC study, people were eating diets rich in meats and saturated fats and eliminating healthy carbohydrate-containing foods like fruits, whole grains and legumes.

My advice: The lesson here is to avoid simplistic nutritionism thinking and focus on diets rather than on foods. When you do that it is clear that carbs aren’t bad for you, it’s unhealthy carbs that are bad for you.

Which Foods Should I Avoid? By now the answer to the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” is clear. Avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods (The term processed foods includes convenience foods, junk foods, and most sweets).

What Does This Mean To You?

Questioning ManNow that we are clear on which foods you should avoid, let’s look at the flip side of the coin. Let’s ask, “Which foods should you include in your diet?

As I said at the beginning of this article, “We have 5 food groups for a reason”. We should consider whole foods from all 5 food groups as healthy.

Of course, each of us is different. We all have foods in some food groups that don’t treat us well. Some of us do better with saturated fats or carbs than others. We need to explore and find the foods and diets that work best for us.

However, whenever we assume one diet is best for everyone, we have crossed the line into nutritionism.

What Does The Bible Say?

Let me start this section by saying that I rely on the Bible for spiritual guidance rather than nutritional guidance. However, as part of our church’s Bible reading plan, I was reading 1 Timothy. A passage from 1 Timothy 4:1-5 leapt out at me. It reinforces the theme of Michael Pollan’s book and seems uniquely applicable to the times we live in.

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They…order people to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

Interesting.

The Bottom Line

In this article, I have discussed the concept of “nutritionism” introduced in Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense Of Food”. He defines nutritionism as the belief that we can understand food solely in terms of its nutritional and chemical constituents and our requirements for them.

What Michael Pollan is referring to is taking food constituents like saturated fats, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, fiber, antioxidants, and probiotics and labeling them as either “good” or “bad”. He points out that when we accept these simplistic labels, we often end up creating foods and diets that are less healthy than the ones we were trying to replace.

At the beginning of the article, I asked the question, “Which Foods Should I Avoid?” I then looked at several foods or food groups we have told to avoid, including saturated fats, red meat, high-fructose corn syrup, sugar, and carbs. When you look at the science behind these recommendations from the lens of nutritionism, you come to two conclusions:

  • We should avoid sodas, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods (The term processed foods includes convenience foods, junk foods, and most sweets).
  • Whole foods from all 5 food groups should be considered as healthy.

Of course, each of us is different. We all have foods in some food groups that don’t treat us well. Some of us do better with saturated fats or carbs than others. We need to explore and find the foods and diets that work best for us.

However, whenever we assume one diet is best for everyone, we have crossed the line into nutritionism.

For more details and a bible verse that supports the theme of Michael Pollan’s book and seems uniquely applicable to the times we live in, 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.

Diet And Cancer Risk

by

What Can You Do To Reduce Your Risk Of Cancer?

Magic WandIt seems like everyone has a magic pill, essential oil, food, or diet that prevents cancer. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that all the claims can’t be true. No wonder you are confused. You want to know:

  • Which of these claims are true?
  • What can you do to reduce your risk of cancer?

These aren’t trivial questions.

  • Cancer is the second leading cause of death in this country, and some experts predict it will surpass heart disease as the leading cause of death in the near future.
  • While cancer treatments have become much more effective in the past few decades, these treatment successes are often associated with severe side-effects, enormous expense, or both.

That is why I was intrigued by a recent study (FF Zhang et al, JNCI Cancer Spectrum (2019) 3(2): pkz034) on diet and cancer that came from the prestigious Friedman School of Nutrition and Public Policy at Tufts University. This study asked two important questions:

  • How many newly diagnosed cancer cases could have been prevented by changes in the American diet? This is something the authors referred to as the “preventable cancer burden associated with poor diet”.
  • Which foods increased or decreased the risk of cancer? This, of course, is the most useful information for you and me.

Diet And Cancer Risk

Diet And CancerThis study estimated that 80,110 new cancer cases among US adults 20 and older could be primarily attributed to poor diet. While poor diet contributes to many more cancers, the authors of this study felt 80,110 represented the number of cancer cases that were clearly preventable by some simple dietary changes.

While all cancers were affected by diet to some degree, the cancers most affected by poor diet were:

  • Colon cancer (65% of cases)
  • Mouth and throat cancer (18% of cases)
  • Endometrial cancer (4.0% of cases)
  • Breast cancer (3.8% of cases)

When the diet was broken down into individual food groups:

  • Low intake of whole grains was associated with the largest number of preventable cancer cases (35% of cases). This was followed by.
  • Low intake of dairy foods (22% of cases).
  • High intake of processed meats (18% of cases).
  • Low intake of vegetables (16% of cases).
  • Low intake of fruits (10% of cases).
  • High intake of red meat (7.1% of cases).
  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages (4.0% of cases).

Of the diet-associated cancer cases, the scientists who lead the study estimated that 84% of them represented a direct effect of diet on cancer risk. The dietary factors most likely to directly increase the risk of cancer were:

  • Low intake of whole grains.
  • Low intake of dairy foods.
  • High intake of processed meats.

The scientists estimated that 16% of diet-associated cancer cases were “mediated by obesity”. In layman’s terms, this means that diet increased the risk of obesity and obesity increased the risk of cancer. The dietary factors most likely to increase the risk of obesity-mediated cancers were:

  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages.
  • Low intake of fruits.

The authors concluded: “More than 80,000 new cancer cases [per year] are estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet among US adults…Our findings underscore the need for reducing cancer burden in the United States by improving the intake of key food groups and nutrients of Americans.”

What Does This Mean For You?

Questioning ManThese findings aren’t novel. Many previous studies have come to the same conclusions. However, many people find these recommendations to be confusing. Should they increase their intake of certain foods? Should they follow some sort of magic diet?

Perhaps we need to get away from the magic food concept. We need to understand that every time we increase one food in our diet, we exclude other foods. We need to step back and look at the overall diet.

Let me break down the recommendations from this study into three categories: foods we should eliminate from our diet, foods we should include in our diet, and foods we should balance in our diet.

Foods we should eliminate from our diet:

  • Sugar Sweetened Beverages. They provide no nutritional benefit, and the sugar in most beverages rushes into our bloodstream and overwhelms our body’s ability to utilize it in a healthy way. This leads to obesity, diabetes, and a host of other health issues.
    • Public enemy number one is sodas. However, this category also includes fruit juices, sweetened teas and energy drinks, and sugary processed foods.
    • This category also includes diet sodas. For reasons we don’t completely understand, diet sodas appear to be just as likely to lead to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease as sugar sweetened sodas. I have discussed the proposed explanations of this phenomenon in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.
    • Sugar, however, is not the enemy. Sugar found naturally in fruits and other whole foods enters the bloodstream slowly and is metabolized in healthy ways by the body. I have discussed this in another issue  of “Health Tips From the Professor”. This is what I mean by restoring balance in our diet. Decreasing the sugar intake from sugar sweetened beverages and increasing sugar intake from fruits is associated with a decreased risk of obesity and obesity-related cancers.
  • Processed Meats. The evidence is overwhelming at this point that processed meats directly increase the risk of cancer.
    • If you have trouble completely eliminating processed meats from your diet, my advice is to minimize them and consume them only in the context of an overall healthy diet. Personally, I still consume bacon occasionally as flavoring for a healthy green salad.

Whole GrainsFoods we should include in our diet. I put these in a separate category because Dr. Strangelove and his colleagues have been telling us to eliminate them from our diet, and many Americans are following those recommendations:

  • Whole grains. We can think of whole grains as the underserving victim of the low-carb craze. The low-carb craze is on the mark when it comes to eliminating added sugars and refined grains from the diet. However, eliminating whole grains from the diet may be doing more harm than good. In fact, this and other studies suggest that whole grains are the most effective foods for reducing cancer risk. Why is that?
    • If we assume whole grains are just a good source of fiber and a few vitamins and minerals, it is hard to grasp their importance. We could easily get those nutrients elsewhere.
    • However, we are beginning to realize that whole grains play a unique role in supporting certain species of gut bacteria that are very beneficial to our health. In short, whole grains may be essential for a healthy gut.
  • Dairy Foods. This is another food that has been treated as a villain by Dr. Strangelove and his many colleagues. However, for reasons we don’t completely understand, dairy foods appear to decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer.

Foods we should balance in our diet.

  • Red Meat. Diets high in red meat are consistently associated with a slight increase in cancer risk. The World Health Organization lists red meat as a probable carcinogen, but that has proven to be controversial.
    • Much of the research has centered on why red meat causes cancer. Several mechanisms have been proposed, but none of them have been proven.
    • In contrast, very little consideration has been given to what red meat is displacing from the diet. Diets high in red meat are often low in whole grains, fruits and/or vegetables.
    • Perhaps instead of eliminating red meat from our diets we should be talking about balancing red meat in our diets by consuming less red meat and more whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

What Can You Do To Reduce Cancer Risk?

American Cancer SocietyYou may have been thinking that 80,110 cases/year represents a small percentage of new cancer cases. That’s because diet is only one component of a holistic cancer prevention strategy. Here is what the American Cancer Society recommends for reducing cancer risk:

  • Avoid tobacco.
  • Limit sun exposure.
  • Achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
  • Eat a healthy diet, with an emphasis on plant foods (Their recommendations are in line with this study).
  • Be physically active.
  • Limit alcohol use.
  • Get vaccinated against HPV.
  • Get regular medical checkups.

Doing any of these things will reduce your cancer risk. But the more of these you can incorporate into your lifestyle, the lower your risk.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at diet and cancer risk. The authors reported that 80,110 new cancer cases among US adults 20 and older could be primarily attributed to poor diet.

When the diet was broken down into individual food groups:

  • Low intake of whole grains was associated with the largest number of preventable cancer cases. This was followed in descending order by.
  • Low intake of dairy foods.
  • High intake of processed meats.
  • Low intake of vegetables.
  • Low intake of fruits.
  • High intake of red meat.
  • High intake of sugar sweetened beverages.

The authors concluded: “More than 80,000 new cancer cases [per year] are estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet among US adults…Our findings underscore the need for reducing cancer burden in the United States by improving the intake of key food groups and nutrients of Americans.”

For more details, read the article above. For example, I discuss which foods we should eliminate, which foods we should eat more of, and which foods we should balance in our diet. To add a more holistic perspective, I also discuss the American Cancer Society’s recommendations for reducing cancer risk.

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

What’s Worse Saturated Fat or Sugar?

by

What Causes Fatty Liver Disease?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

what is worse saturated fats or sugarThe great American food fight continues. The low fat enthusiasts tell you saturated fat is going to kill you. The low carb enthusiasts tell you saturated fat is fine. It’s sugar that’s going to kill you.

You can find studies that support either viewpoint. And the story keeps changing. One day the headlines proclaim: “The latest study shows…” A few weeks later you see a headline saying: “Wait. That’s wrong. Science now shows…” It’s no wonder you are confused and perhaps a bit cynical.

So, what’s worse saturated fat or sugar?

Perhaps we should step back and ask how we got to this point.

 

Why Is the Saturated Fats and Sugar Dilemma So Confusing?

saturated fats or sugar dilemmaTo understand why the literature around saturated fats and sugar is so confusing, we need to go back to the 1950s. The first studies implicating saturated fats as a risk factor for heart disease replaced saturated fats with unsaturated fats. Everything else in the diet was kept the same. When you do that, the answer is clear-cut. Saturated fats increase heart disease risk and unsaturated fats decrease heart disease risk.

When the American Heart Association first recommended a low-fat diet, they had in mind replacing saturated fats with fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans. The remaining fat would be mostly unsaturated. Today, we would call that a Mediterranean diet, which, by the way, has been shown to reduce both diabetes and heart disease risk.

Big Food Inc. took one look at that and panicked. They make their money from processed foods, not from fresh fruits and vegetables. If the American people made the changes the American Heart Association recommended, Big Food Inc. would go bankrupt.

They sprang into action. They had their laboratories whip up processed foods that replaced fat with sugar, white flour, and a witch’s brew of chemicals. Then they told the American people: “Never fear. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods. We have created low fat versions of the foods you love.”

That became the diet that most Americans adopted. Even worse, most Americans continued eating foods high in saturated fats. We ended up with the worst of all possible worlds – a diet high in saturated fat and high in sugar. This became the Standard American Diet (SAD).

This shift has corrupted most of the recent research studies on saturated fat and sugar. Most of the studies on saturated fat or sugar have compared them with the Standard American Diet, not with a healthy diet. When you do that, your results are going to be skewed. Almost anything is better that the Standard American Diet.

Why Was This Study Done?

fatty liver disease causesWhen we think of obesity, we think of the excess fat we can see. But what we have learned in recent years is that the fat you can’t see is far more damaging to our health. I am talking about fat stores in the liver, something called fatty liver disease.

Fatty liver disease has serious consequences. It causes insulin resistance and inflammation, and that increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Even worse, it can lead to cirrhosis and liver failure.

Excess sugar is converted to saturated fat in the liver. Therefore, the popular literature attributes the epidemic of fatty liver disease to increased intake of simple sugars. But is it true? Saturated fats require no conversion. They can simply be deposited in the liver as is. Shouldn’t they be at least as damaging to the liver as sugar?

It turns out that no studies have actually compared the effect of excess calories in the form of saturated fat, unsaturated fat, and simple sugars on fat accumulation in the liver. This study (PK Luukkonen et al, Diabetes Care, 41: 1732-1739, 2018) was designed to fill that gap.

How Was The Study Done?

saturated fats or sugar studyThe authors enrolled 38 middle aged (average age = 48), overweight (average BMI = 31) adults for the study. The participants were divided into three groups and were fed an extra 1,000 calories per day of saturated fat (SAT group), unsaturated fat (UNSAT group), or sugar (SUGAR group) for 3 weeks. The composition of those extra 1,000 calories was as follows:

  • The SAT group ate an extra 30 g coconut oil, 40 g butter, and 100 g blue cheese
    • Macronutrient composition = 1% carbohydrate, 86% fat, 13% protein, 0% simple sugars.
    • Fat composition = 76% saturated fats, 21% monounsaturated fats, 3% polyunsaturated fats
  • The UNSAT group ate an extra 36 g olive oil, 26 g pesto, 54 g pecans, and 20 g butter
    • Macronutrient composition = 2% carbohydrate, 91% fat, 7% protein, 0% simple sugars.
    • Fat composition = 21% saturated fats, 57% monounsaturated fats, 22% polyunsaturated fats
  • The SUGAR group ate an extra 9.5 ounces of orange juice, 16 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverages, and 200 g of candy.
    • Macronutrient composition = 100% simple sugars.

Compliance to these dietary additions was confirmed by measuring the fat composition of serum triglycerides. As expected, the triglycerides were primarily composed of saturated fat in the SAT and SUGAR groups and unsaturated fats in the UNSAT group.

None of the participants had diabetes or other diseases, pre-existing liver disease, excessive consumption of alcohol (which can also lead to fatty liver disease). They were also not taking any drugs that could influence glucose or lipid metabolism.

Upon entry into the study, the three groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, BMI (a measure of obesity), amount and type of fat stores in the liver, and insulin sensitivity.

The baseline diet to which the extra calories were added was also comparable between the three groups and did not change during the study. That meant that the only difference between groups was the composition of the extra calories they consumed.

 

What Causes Fatty Liver Disease?

fatty liver disease dietsAt the end of three weeks:

  • All 3 groups gained weight, but the weight gain was slightly larger (0.6 pounds) for the SAT and SUGAR groups than for the UNSAT group (0.4 pounds).
  • Fat stores in the liver increased by 55% in the SAT group, 33% in the SUGAR group, and 15% in the UNSAT group.
  • The fat stores were primarily saturated fat in the SAT and SUGAR groups and primarily unsaturated fat in the UNSAT group.
  • Insulin resistance was increased in the SAT group, but not in the SUGAR and UNSAT groups.

Previous studies have suggested that the effect of liver fat stores on insulin resistance might be mediated by fat metabolites called ceramides. Therefore, they also measured plasma ceramide levels.

  • Plasma ceramides were increased in the SAT group, but not in the SUGAR and UNSAT groups.

Previous studies have also suggested that the effect of saturated fat on insulin resistance might be mediated by a change in gut bacteria that produce endotoxins which end up in the bloodstream.

  • A change in gut bacteria and an increase in plasma endotoxins was observed in the SAT group, but not in the SUGAR and UNSAT groups.

 

What is Worse Saturated Fat Or Sugar?

sugar cubesThe authors of this study concluded: “Saturated fat induced the greatest increase in fat stores in the liver, insulin resistance, and harmful ceramides. Decreased intakes of saturated fat could be beneficial in reducing fat stores in the liver and the associated risk of diabetes.”

Is that statement true? This study was well designed. However, this is a very small study. It needs to be replicated by larger studies. In the meantime, we can ask if the findings are consistent with previous studies.

You may have noticed, the authors included three variables in their study (saturated fats, unsaturated fats, and simple sugars), but I focused only on the comparison between saturated fats and simple sugars in this article. That is because the damage caused by saturated fats versus simple sugars is controversial in the popular literature. In contrast, most (but not all) experts agree that saturated fats are worse for you than unsaturated fats.

Let’s start with the relatively non-controversial comparison (saturated fats versus unsaturated fats) before turning to the comparison between saturated fats and simple sugars. When comparing saturated fats and unsaturated fats, the author’s conclusion that saturated fats are worse for you is probably true.

  • In this study saturated fats caused greater fat accumulation in the liver than unsaturated fats, and these differences were statistically significant.
  • The fat stores in the liver mirrored the fat composition of the diet. Saturated fat caused saturated fat stores. Unsaturated fat caused unsaturated fat stores.
  • Saturated fats increased insulin resistance while unsaturated fats did not.
  • This is consistent with several previous studies that have shown:
  • Saturated fats cause greater fat accumulation in the liver than polyunsaturated fats in younger, normal weight individuals.
  • High saturated fat intake is associated with fatty liver disease and insulin resistance.
  • Saturated fat increases heart disease risk, while unsaturated fat decreases heart disease risk.

However, the differences between saturated fats and sugar were less clear.

  • In this study saturated fats caused greater fat accumulation in the liver and more insulin resistance than simple sugars.
  • The conclusion that saturated fats are worse for you than simple sugars was strengthened by the following:
  • Saturated fat caused insulin resistance, while simple sugars did not.
  • Saturated fat caused a change to gut bacteria which resulted in increased endotoxin levels in the bloodstream, while simple sugars did not.
  • The conclusion that saturated fats are worse for you than simple sugars was weakened by the following:
  • The difference in fat accumulation in the liver was not statistically significant. A larger study may have provided a more definitive answer.
  • Previous studies have suggested that saturated fats and simple sugars may be equally bad for you. They both increase the risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Clearly, this study does not end the debate about whether saturated fats or simple sugars are worse for you. However, it does provide a new perspective.

Previous studies have not compared the effects of saturated fat and sugar on fatty liver disease when all other aspects of the diet were identical. If the observations of this study are confirmed in subsequent studies, it could influence how we evaluate the relative risks of saturated fats and sugars in the future.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

When you strip away all the noise, there are three obvious conclusions from this and most previous studies:

  • Excess calories in any form are bad for us. We don’t just store fat in the liver, and fat stores in other parts of our body have bad effects on our health as well.
  • Unsaturated fats are better for us than saturated fats. They reduce the risk of heart disease. This study suggests they also reduce the risk of fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, and possibly diabetes.
  • The jury is still out on the health consequences of saturated fats versus simple sugars. This study suggests that simple sugars may be less likely to cause fatty liver disease. While fatty liver disease can lead to diabetes and heart disease, so can fat stores anywhere else in the body. Other studies suggest that excess calories as saturated fats and simple sugars are equally likely to lead to obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

My recommendation is to avoid both saturated fats and simple sugars. Don’t focus on low fat diets or low carb diets. Instead focus on whole food diets with healthy fats and healthy carbs.

 

The Bottom Line

 

Fatty liver disease has serious consequences. It causes insulin resistance and inflammation, and that increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Even worse, it can lead to cirrhosis and liver failure.

Excess sugar is converted to saturated fat in the liver. Therefore, the popular literature attributes the epidemic of fatty liver disease to increased intake of simple sugars. But is it true? Saturated fats require no conversion. They can simply be deposited in the liver as is. Shouldn’t they be at least as damaging to the liver as sugar?

A recent study compared the effect of diets high in saturated fats (SAT group), unsaturated fats (UNSAT group), or simple sugars (SUGAR group) on fat accumulation in the liver. The results were:

  • Fat stores in the liver increased by 55% in the SAT group, 33% in the SUGAR group, and 15% in the UNSAT group.
  • The fat stores were primarily saturated fat in the SAT and SUGAR groups and primarily unsaturated fat in the UNSAT group.
  • Insulin resistance was increased in the SAT group, but not in the SUGAR and UNSAT groups.

The authors of this study concluded: “Saturated fat induced the greatest increase in fat stores in the liver and insulin resistance. Decreased intakes of saturated fat could be beneficial in reducing fat stores in the liver and the associated risk of diabetes.”

My recommendation is to avoid both saturated fats and simple sugars. Don’t focus on low fat diets or low carb diets. Instead focus on whole food diets with healthy fats and healthy carbs.

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

 

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

Should You Avoid Sugar Completely?

by

Is It The Sugar, Or Is It The Food?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Should we avoid sugar completely?  Almost every expert agrees that Americans should cut down on the amount of sugar we are consuming. However, for some people this has become a “sugar phobia”. They have sworn that “sugar shall never touch their lips”. Not only do they avoid sugar sweetened sodas and junk food, but they also have become avid label readers. They scour the label of every food they see and reject foods they find any form of sugar listed as an ingredient. Is this degree of sugar avoidance justified?

 

Should We Avoid Sugar to Keep it From Killing Us?

 

Let me add some perspective:

  • If you just take studies about the dangers of sugar at face value, sugar does, indeed, look dangerous. Excess sugar consumption is associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. However, when you look a little closer, you find that most of these studies have been done by looking at the correlation of each of these conditions with sugar sweetened beverage consumption (sodas and fruit juices).

A few studies have looked at the correlation of obesity and disease with total “added sugar” consumption. However, 71.6% of added sugar in the American diet comes from sugar sweetened beverages and junk food. None of the studies have looked at the sugar from healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. That’s because there is ample evidence that these foods decrease the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

  • For example, if apples had a nutrition label, it would list 16 grams of sugar in a medium 80 calorie apple, which corresponds to about 80% of the calories in that apple. The sugar in an apple is about the same proportion of fructose and glucose found in high fructose corn syrup. Apples are not unique. The nutrition label would read about the same on most other fruits. Does that mean you should avoid sugar from all fruits? I think not.

Avoid Sugar or Avoid Certain Foods

 

avoid sugar from junk foodsThe obvious question is: “Why are the same sugars, in about the same amounts, unhealthy in sodas and healthy in fruits?” Let’s go back to those studies I just mentioned—the ones that are often used to vilify sugars. They are all association studies, the association of sugar intake with obesity and various diseases.

The weakness of association studies is the association could be with something else that is tightly correlated with the variable (sugar intake) that you are measuring. Could it be the food that is the problem, not the sugar?

If we look at healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains) they are chock full of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, fiber, and (sometimes) protein. Fiber and protein slow the absorption of sugar into the bloodstream. As a result, blood sugar levels rise slowly and are sustained at relatively low levels for a substantial period of time.

In sodas there is nothing to slow the absorption of blood sugar. You get rapid rise in blood sugar followed by an equally rapid fall. The same is true of junk foods consisting primarily of sugar, refined flour and/or fat.  Avoid sugar from those types of foods.

Another consideration is something called caloric density. Here is a simple analogy. I used to explain the concept of caloric density to medical students in my teaching days. There are about the same number of calories in a 2-ounce candy bar and a pound of apples (around 278 in the 2-ounce candy bar and 237 in a pound of apples). You can eat a 2-ounce candy bar and still be hungry. If you eat a pound of apples you are done for a while. In this example, the 2-ounce candy bar had a high caloric density (a lot of calories in a small package). Perhaps a more familiar terminology would be the candy bar was just empty calories.

Are Sodas and Junk Foods Killing Us?

avoid sugar from candyPutting all that together, you can start to understand why the foods the sugars are in are more important than the sugars themselves. When you consume sugars in the form of sugar sweetened beverages or sugary junk foods, your appetite increases. We don’t know for sure whether it is the intense sweetness of those foods, the rapid increase and fall in blood sugar, or the high caloric density (lots of calories ina small package) that makes us hungrier. It doesn’t matter. We crave more food, and it isn’t usually fruits, vegetables, and complex carbohydrates we crave. It’s more junk. That sets in motion a predictable sequence of events.

  • We overeat. Those excess calories are stored as fat and we become obese. [Note: The low carb enthusiasts will tell you our fat stores come from carbohydrates alone. That is incorrect. All excess calories, whether from protein, fat, or carbohydrate, are stored as fat.]
  • It’s not just the fat you can see (belly fat) that is the problem. Some of that fat builds up in our liver and muscles. This sets up an unfortunate sequence of metabolic events.
  • The fat stores release inflammatory cytokines into our bloodstream. That causes inflammation. Inflammation increases the risk of many diseases including heart disease and cancer.
  • The fat stores also cause our cells to become resistant to insulin. That reduces the ability of our cells to take up glucose, which leads to hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes. [Note: The low carb enthusiasts will tell you carbohydrates cause type 2 diabetes. That is also incorrect. It is our fat stores that cause insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Our fat stores come from all excess calories, not just excess calories from carbohydrates.]
  • Insulin resistance also causes the liver to overproduce cholesterol and triglycerides and pump them into the bloodstream. That increases the risk of heart disease.
  • Sugar sweetened beverages and sugary junk foods also displace healthier foods from our diet. That leads to potential nutrient shortfalls that can increase our risk of many diseases.

However, none of this has to happen. The one thing that every successful diet has in common is the elimination of sodas, junk foods, fast foods and convenience foods. You should avoid sugar from those foods as much as possible. Once you eliminate those from your diet,you significantly enhance your chances of being at a healthy weight and being healthy long term.

 

What About Protein Supplements And Similar Foods?

Of course, the dilemma is what you, as an intrepid label reader, should do about protein supplements, meal replacement bars, or snack bars. They are supposed to be healthy, but the label lists one or more sugars. Even worse, the sugar content is higher than your favorite health guru recommends.  So, should you avoid sugar from supplements and the like?

In this case, a more useful concept is glycemic index, which is a measure of the effect of the food on your blood sugar levels. Healthy foods like apples may have a high sugar content, but they havea low glycemic index.

avoid sugar and consume protein to slow absorbptionThe same is true for the protein supplements and bars you are considering. Rather than looking at the sugar content, you should be looking for the term “low glycemic” on the label. That means there is enough fiber and protein in the food to slow the absorption of sugar into the bloodstream and stabilize your blood sugar levels.

What Does This Mean For You?

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for unlimited consumption of sugar. We should work on ways to avoid sugar or reduce the amount of sugar in our diet. On the other hand, we don’t need to become so strict that we and our family need to eat foods that taste like cardboard. We also don’t want to replace natural sugars with artificial sweeteners. I have warned about the dangers of artificial sweeteners previously.

We can go a long way towards reducing sugar by just eliminating sodas, other sugar sweetened beverages, junk foods, fast foods, convenience foods, and pastries from our diet. When considering fast foods and convenience foods, we should check the label for hidden sugar. For example, some Starbucks drinks are mostly sugar. When considering foods that are supposed to be healthy, we should look for the term “low glycemic” on the label.

So we don’t have to avoid sugar completely, but we should reduce sugar from sugar sweetened beverages and junk food.

 

The Bottom Line

 

We need to keep warnings about the dangers of sugar in perspective:

  • The studies showing that sugar consumption leads to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease have all been done with sodas and junk foods.
  • Many fruits have just as much sugar as a soda. They also contain about the same proportion of fructose and glucose as high fructose corn syrup. Yet we know fruits are good for us.
  • Diets rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains decrease our risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
  • That is because the sugar in whole foods is generally present along with fiber and protein, which slows the absorption of sugar and prevents the blood sugar spikes we get with sodas and junk foods.
  • In the case of prepared foods like protein supplements, you should look for “low glycemic” on the label rather than sugar content. Low glycemic means that there is enough fiber and protein in the product to slow the absorption of sugar and prevent blood sugar spikes.
  • Don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for unlimited consumption of sugar. We should all work on ways to avoid sugar from junk foods or to reduce the amount of sugar in our diet. On the other hand, we don’t need to become so strict that we and our family need to eat foods that taste like cardboard. We also don’t want to replace natural sugars with artificial sweeteners.
  • We can go a long way towards reducing sugar by just eliminating sodas, other sugar sweetened beverages, junk foods, fast foods, convenience foods, and pastries from our diet. When considering fast foods and convenience foods, we should check the label for hidden sugar. When considering foods that are supposed to be healthy, we should look for the term “low glycemic” on the label.

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.

Health Tips From The Professor