Uncategorized

The Estrogenic Myth

by

What Does Increase Breast Cancer Risk? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

breaking newsIt seems like every time you turn around there are new headlines warning us that a particular food or supplement increases your risk of cancer. If you believe all those headlines, there would be little you could eat. You might starve to death trying to avoid eating anything that increases your risk of cancer.

So, it’s important to ask which of those warnings are true and which are just myths.

For example, a few days ago, a friend called me and said, “I just heard that resveratrol is estrogenic and causes breast cancer. Should I read the labels of the herbal supplements I take and avoid anything with resveratrol in it.”

I assured her that this was just a myth. The likelihood that resveratrol and related polyphenols cause breast cancer is very low. And if she was concerned about breast cancer, there were much more important things to worry about.

But as I started to explain why it was a myth, I realized the explanation was complex. I was able to explain it to my friend in a 20-minute discussion. But it was then I realized I needed to write a “Health Tips From the Professor” article to help explain it to the general public.

Why Are We Concerned?

Questioning WomanYou might be asking, “Why is this such a big deal? Why do we care if something has estrogenic properties?” Let me start at the beginning.

When I first started teaching medical students in 1972, hormone replacement therapy (a combination of estrogen and progesterone) was thought to be a safe and effective treatment for menopausal symptoms and post-menopausal bone loss, and it was very widely prescribed.

That practice came to a screeching halt in 2002 when the Woman’s Health Initiative study showed that it increased the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Today,

  • The hormone composition of hormone replacement therapy has been changed.
  • It is only prescribed for severe menopausal symptoms. And drugs are the treatment of choice to reduce post-menopausal bone loss.
  • It is prescribed for the shortest possible time to limit exposure.

These simple changes in hormone replacement therapy represent the single most important intervention for reducing breast cancer risk in the past 50 years. Yes, you heard that right. These changes were more effective than any other medication or preventative strategy for reducing the number of women developing and dying from breast cancer.

This lesson made a big impression on the medical community. So, it is easy to understand why anything resembling estrogen is immediately suspected of increasing the risk of breast cancer. But the reality is far more complicated. So, it’s time for another of my “Biochemistry 101” segments.

Biochemistry 101: What Does Estrogenic Mean?

professor owlLet’s start at the beginning with what polyphenols are. They comprise a diverse group of compounds with these common features.

  • If you look at their structures, they contain multiple rings (A chemist would tell you they have more than one phenol group, hence the term polyphenol. But that terminology is only useful if you are a chemist).
  • They are found in plants. Specifically, they are found in fruits, vegetables, herbs, spices and beverages (coffee, tea, and cocoa, for example).
  • They have antioxidant properties.

Types of polyphenols include flavonoids, phenolic acids, lignans, and stilbenes. I mention this only because soy isoflavones, which I will talk about later, are flavonoids.

Some of these compounds have structures that resemble estrogen. If they bind to estrogen receptors and have the same effect as estrogen in cultured human cells, they are said to have “estrogenic properties”.

That’s why you see blogs warning about foods and herbal ingredients we should avoid because of their “estrogenic” properties. Some of these blogs are written by people with “Dr” on front of their name. But they aren’t biochemists and don’t know what biochemists know.

Let’s dig a little deeper. Here are some of the complexities that most bloggers either don’t know about or ignore.

  • There is more than one kind of estrogen receptor.
  • Different estrogen receptors have different effects in the cell. For example, some estrogen receptors activate pathways that increase cancer risk. Other receptors activate pathways that decrease cancer risk.
  • The same estrogen receptor can have different effects in different cell types. That’s why estrogen replacement therapy reduced menopausal symptoms and post-menopausal bone loss AND increased cancer risk in other tissues.

The Estrogenic Myth

breast cancerA couple of weeks ago I talked about “The Soy Myth”, specifically the myth that soy isoflavones increase breast cancer risk. That myth was based on the observation that soy isoflavones have estrogenic properties and a simplistic interpretation of what that means. But in fact, soy isoflavones:

  • Are found naturally in most soy foods unless they are highly processed.
  • Bind strongly to the estrogen receptors that decrease cancer risk.
  • Bind weakly to the estrogen receptors that increase breast cancer risk.

In contrast, estrogen:

  • Binds strongly to the estrogen receptors that increase breast cancer risk.
  • Binds weakly to the estrogen receptors that decrease breast cancer risk.
  • Soy isoflavones compete with estrogen for binding to the receptors that increase breast cancer risks. This helps protect breast cells from the cancer-promoting effects of estrogen.

So, it is true that soy isoflavones bind to estrogen receptors, but on the balance, you would predict that soy isoflavones decrease, rather than increase breast cancer risk.

The key word here is “predict” breast cancer risk. If you are a woman, you don’t want a prediction, you want to know one way or the other.

That’s why multiple human clinical studies have been conducted to determine the effect of soy foods on breast cancer risk. As I told you two weeks ago:

  • Some studies showed no effect of soy consumption on the risk of getting breast cancer or breast cancer recurrence if you have previously had breast cancer.
  • Other studies found that soy consumption reduced the risk of breast cancer occurrence and recurrence.
  • No studies found that soy consumption increased the risk of breast cancer occurrence or recurrence.

So, for soy the answers are clear.

  • Yes, soy isoflavones have estrogenic properties. That is a fact.
  • No, soy consumption is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. That is a myth.

grape polyphenolsThe situation with resveratrol is similar:

  • It is found naturally in grapes and many other fruits.
  • It has estrogenic properties.
  • Cell culture experiments show that it activates pathways that reduce cancer risk.
  • Animal studies predominantly show that it reduces cancer risk. The only exceptions are a few animal studies with very high doses of resveratrol.
  • The few clinical studies that have been done show that it either has no effect on breast cancer risk or reduces cancer risk.
  • No human clinical trials have shown that resveratrol increases cancer risk.

The take home lesson is clear. Knowing that a food or herbal ingredient has estrogenic properties is meaningless unless you have data from human clinical trials on cancer outcomes.

So, the next time you see headlines telling you that you should avoid a food or herbal ingredient because it has “estrogenic properties” treat them skeptically. Unless the claim is backed up by human clinical trials showing an increased cancer risk, the claim is probably a myth.

What Does Increase Breast Cancer Risk?

American Cancer SocietyThe take home lesson is clear. If you are concerned about your risk of breast cancer or any other form of cancer you should ignore the social media posts, podcasts, and blogs about the cancer risks of estrogenic foods and herbal ingredients.

Unless they are backed by human clinical trials showing they increase cancer risks, the claims are likely to be mythical rather than real.

If they have any effect on cancer risk, it is likely to be small. Instead, focus on the important risk factors.

According to the American Cancer Society, the top 5 risk factor for breast cancer, and most other cancers, are:

#1: Overweight and obesity. The American Cancer Society recommends that you get and stay at a healthy weight.

Let me put this in perspective for you. Even if things like soy and resveratrol increased your risk of breast cancer, their effect is very small compared to estrogen and you are only exposed to them briefly once or twice a day.

In contrast, fat cells produce estrogen, and if you are overweight, fat cells accumulate in your breasts. Those fat cells are bathing your breast cells in a bath of pure estrogen 24/7.

#2: Inactivity. The American Cancer Society recommends that adults get at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous intensity activity each week (or a combination of these), preferably spread throughout the week.

#3: Alcohol use. The American Cancer Society says it is best not to drink alcohol at all. For women who do drink, they should have no more than 1 alcoholic drink a day.

#4: Hormone use after menopause. The American Cancer Society recommends talking to your health care provider about non-hormonal options to treat menopausal symptoms.

#5: Poor diet. The American Cancer Society recommends a diet low in fat, processed and red meat, and sugary drinks, but high in fruits and vegetables.

The Bottom Line 

It seems like every day you hear about another food or supplement you should avoid because it has “estrogenic properties” and is likely to cause cancer. I call this the estrogenic myth because those claims are generally mythological rather than factual. In this article:

  • I discuss why these claims are myths rather than facts using soy isoflavones and resveratrol as examples.
  • Tell you what the American Cancer Society tells you to focus on if you want to decrease your risk of breast cancer and other cancers.

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

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

 ____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Can Vitamin C Reduce Colds In Children?

by

A Holistic Approach Is Best

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

child with fluCold and flu season is here. And if you have children, that’s not good news. Children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to respiratory infections (colds, sore throat, sinusitis, pneumonia, and bronchitis). That’s because:

  • Their immune systems are immature.
  • Their diet and sleep patterns are far from optimal.
  • Increasing environmental pollution makes the problem worse.

And that’s a problem. The WHO says:

  • Respiratory diseases are the leading cause of childhood deaths globally.
  • RSV alone results in 3.6 million hospitalizations and 100,000 deaths each year.

The death rates are not as high in the US, but every day your child is sick at home:

  • They are not in school leaning.
  • One parent has to stay home from their job to take care of them.

If you want to protect your child from respiratory infections and do it naturally, you need to strengthen their immune system. And that requires a holistic approach which I have described in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

But ever since Dr. Linus Pauling published “Vitamin C and the Common Cold” in 1970, there has been a lot of discussion about the role of vitamin C in preventing respiratory infections. I don’t need to tell you this has been a controversial topic.

Several recent studies have confirmed the role of vitamin C in preventing and shortening respiratory infections in adults, and this did not require the mega-dose levels recommended by Dr. Pauling.

However, high-quality studies on the role of preventing respiratory infections in children and adolescents are lacking. The study (C Li et al, Frontiers in Nutrition, 12:1601218, 2025) I will describe today was designed to fill this gap.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors of this study used data from the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States. The NHANES study included 8,704 people, of which 1,344 were children or adolescents aged 6-19 years old.

At the time of enrollment:

  • Serum levels of vitamin C were determined by laboratory analysis.
  • The incidence of recent (within 30 days) respiratory infections was determined from a self-reported health questionnaire. In this study the most frequent respiratory infection was the common cold. But the term respiratory infections also included sore throats, sinusitis, pneumonia, and bronchitis.

Of the 1,344 participants, 238 (17.7%) reported a respiratory infection within the past 30 days.

The participants were divided into quartiles based on serum levels of vitamin C, and the highest versus lowest quartiles were compared for the risk of developing respiratory infections.

Finally, the data were statistically corrected for confounding variables like sex, age, race, obesity, asthma, and tobacco smoke exposure.

Can Vitamin C Reduce Colds in Children? 

The results were clear cut:

  • There was a significant negative association between serum levels of vitamin C and the risk of respiratory infections (In plain English that means as serum levels of vitamin C increased, the risk of respiratory infections decreased).
  • For every 10 unit increase in serum vitamin C levels, the risk of respiratory disease decreased by 7%.
  • Children and adolescents in the top quartile of serum vitamin C were 50% less likely to develop a respiratory infection than those in the bottom quartile.

Based on previous studies, the authors said the most likely mechanisms for the effect of vitamin C on the risk of developing a respiratory disease are:

  1. Vitamin C exerts antioxidant protection against free radicals generated by immune cells, which protects the integrity of cells lining the respiratory track.

2) Vitamin C strengths the ability of neutrophils to clear pathogens (bacteria and viruses) from the blood.

3) Vitamin C inhibits pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby reducing inflammatory responses that can worsen and prolong respiratory infections.

The authors concluded,

  • “This study demonstrates a negative association between serum vitamin C and respiratory infection risk in a nationally representative sample of children and adolescents.
  • These findings highlight the protective role of vitamin C against respiratory infections and underscore the importance of maintaining optimal vitamin C levels.
  • Our findings suggest that vitamin C supplementation may be potentially used for the prevention and treatment of respiratory infections among children and adolescents.”

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Questioning WomanThis study suggests that vitamin C supplementation may help protect our children and grandchildren from respiratory infections. However, we need to acknowledge the strengths and limitations of the study.

On the positive side, this study is fully consistent with previous studies showing that vitamin C supplementation reduces the risk of getting respiratory infections in adults – and reduces the duration and severity of respiratory infections when they do occur.

On the negative side, this is a single study. It highlights the need for more studies of the effect of vitamin C on respiratory infections in children.

You also may be thinking, “This study talks in terms of serum levels of vitamin C. It doesn’t tell me how much vitamin C my children and grandchildren should be getting.”

There is a good reason this study was based on serum levels of vitamin C. It’s the most accurate measure of vitamin C status.

  • Intake of vitamin C based on dietary questionnaires is often inaccurate.
  • There is not a linear relationship between dietary vitamin C and serum levels of vitamin C.
  • Serum levels of vitamin C can be influenced by obesity and other metabolic and disease states.

So, I have done a little research to give you an approximation of what vitamin C levels are appropriate.

The average serum vitamin C levels in the highest quartile (the one with the lowest risk of respiratory infections) was 87 µmol/L. To estimate the dose of vitamin C required to reach that level I turned to the NIH “Vitamin C Fact Sheet For Health Professionals”. From that fact sheet, I estimate that the dose needed to reach 87 µmol/L is:

  • 150-200 mg/day for children.
  • 200-300 mg/day for adolescents.

This is a very rough approximation, but it provides you with guidelines you can use. And those guidelines suggest you don’t need give your child a megadose of vitamin C – a chewable vitamin C supplement in the 250 mg range should be plenty.

A Holistic Approach Is Best 

Bullets

I don’t want to give you the idea that vitamin C is a “magic bullet” that will protect your children from respiratory infections. For that, your children will need a strong immune system, and adequate vitamin C is just one component of a strong immune system.

For a strong immune system, a holistic approach is best. That includes:

  • A balanced diet composed of whole, unprocessed foods without a lot of fat and simple sugars. Unfortunately, American children currently get an average of 67% of their calories from ultra-processed foods.
  • Adequate sleep. The recommendations are 9-12 hours for children aged 6-12 and 8-10 hours for adolescents aged 13-18. Unfortunately, 30% of school-age children and 75% of adolescents don’t get enough sleep.
  • Adequate exercise. Unfortunately, children and adolescents spend far too much time on their electronic devices and too little time exercising.
  • Ideal body weight. Unfortunately, ultra-processed foods and lack of exercise are packing on the pounds. Almost 40% of American children and adolescents are overweight or obese.
  • Supplementation. Because most children eat too much ultra-processed food, I recommend a high-quality children’s multivitamin and a protein supplement to make sure they are getting the nutrients they need to build a strong immune system. That is, of course, in addition to the vitamin C supplement I mentioned above.

I recognize none of this is easy. Our son is in his 40s now, but I remember his childhood and teenage years. My only advice is to:

  • Pick your battles.
  • Be the example.

The Bottom Line 

Although several recent studies have shown that vitamin C reduces the risk of respiratory infections in adults, few studies have looked at the effects of vitamin C on respiratory infections in children.

In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I reviewed a study showing that vitamin C reduced the risk of respiratory infections by up to 50% in children and adolescents.

  • The authors concluded, “Our findings suggest that vitamin C supplementation may be potentially used for the prevention and treatment of respiratory infections among children and adolescents.”

For more information on this study, what it means for your children or grandchildren, and a holistic approach to strengthening their immune system, read the article above.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Can Cosmetics Raise Your Blood Pressure?

by

Do Phenols And Parabens Raise Blood Pressure?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

We live in a toxic world. While we are exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals, most research in recent years has focused on two classes of toxic chemicals – phenols and parabens. They are widely used as antimicrobial agents and preservatives in personal care products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and foods.

  • Almost 80% of personal care products contain parabens.
  • You find them in unexpected places like toothpaste, soap, and skin care products.
  • You won’t find them listed on the label of fragrances because fragrance ingredients are considered proprietary.

These chemicals are excreted in the urine, are incompletely removed during wastewater treatment, and end up in our drinking water.

With so many routes of exposure, it is no wonder our bodies have become toxic waste dumps.

  • Methyl and propyl parabens have been detected in the urine of 95% of adults and 99% of teenagers in this country.
  • Multiple phenols and parabens have been detected in the urine of most US adults.
  • Levels are higher in women than men because women use more personal care products.

And that is a concern because phenols and parabens:

  • Are endocrine disruptors.
  • Are associated with reproductive difficulties and developmental delays, pregnancy complications (hypertension and gestational diabetes), and birth defects.

The best evidence for these effects comes from animal studies. It has been difficult to reproduce these effects in human studies because it has been difficult to identify a large group of subjects with high enough phenol and paraben levels to give statistically significant results.

The study (JR Varshavsky et al, Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 134, Issue 8, August, 2024)  I will discuss today was designed to overcome those difficulties. It determined the effect of maternal phenol and paraben levels on blood pressure and hypertension during pregnancy in a high-risk group of women – women who live in a region of Puerto Rico with 18 Superfund sites that have high concentrations of phenols and parabens in the groundwater.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators used data from the PROTECT Center that studies exposure to environmental contamination in drinking water in Puerto Rico and its contribution to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

A total of 1,433 pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 40 (average ~25 years old) were included in the study.

  • They lived in the heavily contaminated Karst region in the northern part of Puerto Rico.
  • They were evenly split between normal and overweight + obese.
  • Most of them had household incomes <$30,000 per year.

Women were excluded from the study if they:

  • Used in vitro fertilization or oral contraceptives within 3 months of the study.
  • Had any known medical condition.
  • Were already experiencing pregnancy-related high blood pressure or gestational diabetes at the time of enrollment.

They visited clinics within the region at weeks 16-20 (visit 1) and 24-28 (visit 2) of pregnancy.

Demographic information (e.g. age, BMI, income, etc) was collected at the first visit. Blood pressure and urine samples were taken at both visits. The blood samples were analyzed for 12 phenols and parabens.

The study participants were divided into two categories according to their blood pressure.

  • The non-hypertensive group (<120-129 mmHg systolic blood pressure and <80 mmHg diastolic blood pressure.
  • The hypertensive group (130->140 mmHg systolic blood pressure and 80->90 mmHg diastolic blood pressure.

The investigators then calculated the effect of each of these phenols and parabens on the odds (risk) that the pregnant mothers would have blood pressure in the hypertensive range rather than the non-hypertensive range.

Do Phenols And Parabens Raise Blood Pressure During Pregnancy?

high blood pressureWhen the investigators combined the data from clinical visits 1 and 2, the following phenols and parabens significantly increased the odds of maternal blood pressure being in the hypertensive range:

  • M-PB (methylparaben) – found in cosmetics (foundations, concealers, blushes, eyeshadows, mascara, lip liners, and lipstick), skincare (moisturizers, lotions, creams, serums, face cleansers, facial treatments, and sunscreens), haircare (shampoos, conditioners, hair color and bleaching products, and styling gels), and other personal care products (shaving creams and gels, aftershave, deodorants, baby lotions, and diaper creams).
  • P-PB (propylparaben – found in many of the same products as M-PB (often in combination).
  • TCS (triclosan) – found in toothpaste, mouthwash, soaps, shampoos, deodorants, and skin creams.
  • TCC (triclocarban) – found in antibacterial and deodorant soaps, cosmetics, deodorants and antiperspirants.
  • 2,4-DCP (2,4-dichlorophenol) – found in personal care products from the breakdown of triclosan.
  • 2,5-DCP (2,5-dichlorophenol) – a breakdown product of 1,4-dichlorobenzene.

When the effect of these phenols and parabens on maternal hypertension was analyzed individually, the increased risk of maternal hypertension (high blood pressure) was 10-50%.

But when the combined effect of all the phenols and parabens was analyzed, the increased risk of maternal hypertension was almost double.

The authors concluded, “Our findings suggest that exposure to certain phenols, parabens, and their mixture may be related to maternal blood pressure differences during pregnancy, as well as to increased risk of hypertension, especially during the later stages of pregnancy.

This is important given the critical nature of cardiometabolic health during pregnancy on the future health of the both the mother and their children.”

Can Cosmetics Raise Your Blood Pressure?

Questioning WomanAt the beginning of this article I raised the question, “Can Cosmetics Raise Your Blood Pressure?”

The answer appears to be, “Yes, with a few caveats.”

1) It is the phenols and parabens in cosmetics that are responsible for the increase in blood pressure.

2) When you consider all the personal care products that contain phenols and parabens, cosmetics are just “the tip of the iceberg”

3) Most importantly, this study is what is called a “proof of concept study”. It simply shows that phenols and parabens can raise blood pressure in humans under the right conditions.

    • Because the investigators selected a population with very high exposure to toxic chemicals, there were enough women with high levels of polyphenols and parabens in their bodies to obtain a statistically significant association between phenols and parabens with hypertension.
    • The investigators also chose a population group (pregnant moms) that have a high risk of developing hypertension.

But what does this mean for you? That’s a hard question to answer.

  • If you are a pregnant mom with similar exposure to phenols and parabens, your risk of maternal hypertension is probably similar.
  • But if you’re not pregnant and your exposure is less, it is almost impossible to extrapolate your risk from these data. That’s what makes this field of research so difficult.

But let me just make these observations.

  • If you use personal care products, your exposure to phenols and parabens is not zero.
  • This, and other studies, show that we can’t just focus on the risks of individual toxic chemicals. In today’s world, we are exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals, and their combined effects are much greater than that of any individual toxic chemical.
  • It’s not just blood pressure that is affected. These chemicals are endocrine disruptors that negatively affect our health in multiple ways.

In short, nobody can tell you the risks you will experience from phenol and paraben exposure, but that risk is not zero. It only makes sense to proactively limit your exposure. But how do you do that in today’s world?

How Can You Reduce Your Exposure To Phenols And Parabens? 

Here are a few simple tips for reducing your exposure to phenols, parabens, and other toxic chemicals.

  • Start By Choosing Personal Care Products With EWG (Environmental Working Group) Verification: EWG verification means the products are free of over 500 chemicals of concern (including phenols and parabens), have full ingredient transparency (what’s in the product is on the label), and meet rigorous health and safety standards based on the latest scientific research.
  • Use a Water Filter: This removes contaminants, including phenols and parabens, from your tap water.
  • Avoid Non-Stick Cookware: Switch from non-stick (PFOA/PFAS-free) cookware to stainless steel or cast iron to avoid potential exposure to other harmful chemicals.
  • Keep the Air Fresh: Let in outside air to maintain good indoor air quality and reduce exposure to various environmental chemicals found in drapes, upholstery, carpets, and mattresses.
  • Shop Fresh and Organic: Choose fresh, organic foods and reduce your consumption of foods in plastic containers, as they may contain these chemicals.
  • Limit Processed Foods: Reduce or limit your intake of fast food, microwave popcorn, and takeout food.

The Bottom Line 

Phenols and parabens are widely used as preservatives in cosmetics and other personal care products. Both are known endocrine disruptors and have been linked to a wide variety of adverse health consequences.

But most of the studies linking these chemicals to adverse health effects have been done with animals. It has been difficult to confirm these effects in human studies.

In this article, I describe a study with a high-risk group of women who were exposed to high levels of phenols, parabens, and other toxic chemicals. This study showed that phenol and paraben exposure increases the risk of maternal hypertension in this group of high-risk, high-exposure women.

This is what is called a “proof of concept” study. It clearly shows that phenol and paraben exposure can have adverse health effects in humans. But it is not clear how this risk extrapolates to low-risk, low-exposure populations.

In this article I discuss what the study means for you and how you can reduce your risk of exposure to phenols, parabens, and other toxic chemicals

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and how you can reduce your exposure to toxic chemicals, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

 

Can Protein Supplements Increase GLP-1?

by

What Is GLP-1 And What Does It Do?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I don’t need to tell you that GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) drugs are all the rage. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years. There are 15 million Americans on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

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

And when you have millions of people taking a drug, you need to take a serious look at side effects. The most frequent side effects are:

  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Constipation
  • Increased heart rate.
  • Hypoglycemia
  • Allergic reactions

These are side effects that aren’t life threatening and are easily detected. When someone experiences these side effects, they usually give their doctor a call, and their doctor either takes them off the drug or modifies the dosage.

However, more recent studies have identified two additional side effects that are much more troubling.

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

And, of course, the biggest drawback of GLP-1 drugs is that they are only a temporary fix. Unless someone changes their lifestyle, the weight comes roaring back as soon as they quit using GLP-1.

So. It’s no wonder some people are asking whether it is possible to increase their GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects associated with GLP-1 drugs. I will discuss this below, but first I should review what GLP-1 is and what it does.

What Is GLP-1 And What Does It Do? 

Let me start by reviewing the hormones insulin and glucagon to create a proper perspective for understanding the role of GLP-1.

Insulin: Almost everyone has heard of insulin. It is released by the pancreas whenever we eat, and blood sugar levels start to rise. Its role is to lower blood sugar levels.

Glucagon: Glucagon is less well known, but you can think of it as the Yin to insulin’s Yang. It is released by the pancreas when blood sugar levels fall and continues to be present until the next meal. Its role is to increase blood sugar levels and make sure that our cells get the food they need until the next meal.

GLP-1: GLP-1 stands for glucagon-like peptide 1. With a name like that, you might expect GLP-1 to have significant sequence homology with glucagon, bind to the same receptors, and have a similar effect on our metabolism. You would be wrong!

Both peptide hormones are derived from a much larger peptide called proglucagon. This is the only way that GLP-1 is “like” glucagon.

One portion of proglucagon is processed to give glucagon in pancreatic alpha cells. Another portion is processed to give GLP-1 in intestinal L cells. [L cells are endocrine (hormone producing cells) found in the intestinal mucosa.] There is very little sequence or structural homology between glucagon and GLP-1.

Their function is also very different. You can think of GLP-1 as a partner to insulin. It is released by intestinal L cells in response to the presence of nutrients (primarily protein, fat, and carbohydrate) in the intestine. It binds to GLP-1 receptors on the…

  • Pancreas to stimulate insulin release and inhibit glucagon release. This is why it helps type 2 diabetics control their blood sugar levels.
  • Stomach to reduce the rate of gastric emptying. This prolongs the feeling of fullness after each meal.
  • Small intestine to reduce gut motility, which increases transit time through the small intestine. This also prolongs the feeling of fullness after a meal. But it can also lead to gastrointestinal side effects.
  • Brain to turn down your “appestat”. This reduces feelings of hunger between meals. But at high doses, it can affect the brain in negative ways (anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts).

Can Protein Supplements Increase GLP-1? 

Questioning WomanYou may be wondering, “Is it possible to increase GLP-1 levels naturally without side effects?” The answer is clearly, “Yes”. Every time you eat a meal, your GLP-1 levels increase naturally.

When you eat a meal, GLP-1 levels rise within 10 minutes and remain elevated for 1-2 hours. Then enzymes present in the bloodstream digest GLP-1 and it disappears. This is the way nature intended. There are no side effects to the natural rise and fall of GLP-1 after a meal.

And protein appears to play an important role in this process. High-protein meals result in higher and more prolonged GLP-1 levels than high-fat or high-carbohydrate meals. That’s because protein is digested to amino acids in the intestine. And some of those amino acids bind to receptors in intestinal L-cells and stimulate GLP-1 release.

You may be wondering what this has to do with protein supplements. Theoretically, protein supplements should offer the same benefit as a high-protein meal with fewer calories.

This hypothesis has been tested with a few protein supplements, and they have been shown to increase GLP-1 levels naturally. And, based on the limited data available, it appears that the increase in GLP-1 is proportional to the protein content of the supplement.

So, it appears that the answer I posed at the beginning of this article is,

  • Yes, it appears that protein supplements can increase protein levels naturally.
  • And it appears that the higher the protein content of the supplement, the greater the increase in GLP-1 levels.

However, there are many variations in the formulation of protein supplements, and we don’t know how these variations influence the effect of protein supplements on GLP-1 levels. Therefore,

  • We can’t yet say that all protein supplements increase GLP-1 levels equally.
  • When choosing a protein supplement, you should ask for clinical studies with their product showing it increases GLP-1 levels.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you can raise your GLP-1 levels naturally with high-protein meals and protein supplements, you might be asking, “What makes the GLP-1 drugs different?” To understand the answer to that question, you first need to know what GLP-1 drugs are.

  • GLP-1 drugs mimic the natural GLP-1 peptide.
  • However, GLP-1 drugs have been genetically modified to make them resistant to enzymatic digestion. They can stay in the bloodstream for up to 24 hours.

This is what makes them so effective as weight loss drugs. But it’s not nice to fool with mother nature. This is also why they have side effects.

And let’s remember that while GLP-1 drugs are effective, you will need to take them for the rest of your life unless you change your diet and lifestyle. And with long-term usage of the drugs, you are likely to experience one or more of their side effects at some point.

So, if you are willing to change your diet and lifestyle, it may be worthwhile looking at increasing your GLP-1 levels naturally. The effect may not be as strong as with the GLP-1 drugs, but it may help you suppress your appetite enough to successfully implement your lifestyle changes. You have lots of options.

  • Every time you eat a meal your GLP-1 levels increase. And the bigger the meal, the bigger the increase. But the bigger the meal, the greater the calories. So, that’s not an optimal way to increase GLP-1 levels.
  • That’s where protein supplements come in.
  • And since you are trying to maximize GLP-1 levels with the minimum calories, I recommend a 20–40-gram protein supplement with a minimum of carbohydrate and fat. Just be sure the manufacturer has done a clinical study to demonstrate their protein supplement raises GLP-1 levels.

The Bottom Line

In this article I asked the question, “Can protein supplements increase GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects of GLP-1 drugs?” The answer is, “Yes”. In this article I tell you:

  • What GLP-1 is and what it does.
  • Why GLP-1 drugs have side effects.
  • How protein supplements can raise your GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects of GLP-1 drugs.

For more details read the article above.

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

 ______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

 

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Protein – The Longevity Nutrient

by

How Much Protein Do You Need?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

breaking newsIn 2016 the New York Times ran an article with the title, “Can You Get Too Much Protein?” The article asserted that most Americans were getting too much protein in their diet and that protein supplements were useless and perhaps dangerous.

At the time I wrote a “Health Tips From the Professor” article summarizing recent research showing that many people needed more than the RDA for protein and that those people were often consuming too little, rather than too much, protein.

In the 9 years since then the evidence that many Americans may not be getting enough protein has only gotten stronger.

  • The standard for protein intake used to be a “one size fits all” recommendation of 46g gm/day for women and 56 gm/day for men with slight increases recommended for pregnant and lactating women. Today we know:
    • That standard was based on outdated methodology from the 1930’s. Recent studies suggest protein intake should be at least 50% higher.
    • That standard was based on studies with healthy, sedentary adults (the adult “couch potato” crowd). Protein requirements are significantly higher for anyone who doesn’t fit that description.
  • We used to think in terms of total daily protein intake. Today we know that:
    • Protein intake should be divided equally between the 3 primary meals.
    • Protein quality is important. Protein requirements should be increased if low-quality proteins are consumed.
  • We used to worry that high protein intake might damage your kidneys. Today we know that:
    • Protein intake does not cause kidney disease. It is not a concern as long as hydration is adequate and excess alcohol is avoided.
    • Protein intake is only a concern if someone has kidney disease.

Protein – Your Longevity Nutrient

If you want to delve into the latest protein research and what it means for you, I highly recommend the book, “Forever Strong: A New, Science-Based Strategy For Aging Well” by Dr. Gabrielle Lyon.

Her book is focused on helping each of us create adequate healthy muscle mass. She says, “Adequate muscle mass is essential for health and longevity. And muscle is the only organ over which we have voluntary and complete control.”

Of course, adequate muscle mass requires both exercise and adequate protein. Dr. Lyon covers both in her book, but exercise is not my expertise, so I will only cover adequate protein intake in this “Health Tips From the Professor” article.

In her book, Dr. Lyons details recent research on the amount of protein needed to optimize muscle mass. Dr. Lyon was the one who alerted me to the fact that the current protein RDA is based on outdated methodology from the 1930’s and that actual protein needs are much higher.

Dr. Lyon concludes that most Americans are not consuming enough protein to optimize their muscle mass and that adequate protein intake is essential for longevity, metabolic function, and quality of life. Specifically, she says that optimal muscle mass:

  • Improves strength and mobility.
  • Improves blood sugar control.
  • Decreases blood triglyceride levels.
  • Strengthens the immune system.
  • Improves bone mineral density and strength.
  • Reduces all-cause mortality (risk of dying) and morbidity (risk of disease).

I will use the latest science on protein needs described in her book and in recently published clinical studies to answer the important question, “How much protein do you need?” But first I want to help you understand the dynamics of protein metabolism.

The Dynamics Of Protein Metabolism 

ProfessorMost people associate muscle mass with strength and endurance. Many understand the important role muscle mass plays in burning off excess calories and keeping us slim. But few people understand the important role that muscle protein plays in our everyday energy metabolism.

Whenever we eat a meal containing protein, we store some of the protein we eat as increased muscle mass, especially when protein intake is coupled with exercise. But muscle protein plays other very important functions. It is a precious resource.

The synthesis of new muscle in the fed state is driven by:

  • Insulin, which is released into the blood stream whenever we eat a meal.
  • Exercise because it makes muscle more sensitive to the effects of insulin.
  • The amino acid leucine, which is most abundant in high quality protein sources.

In the fed state most of our energy is derived from blood glucose. This is primarily controlled by insulin.  As blood glucose levels fall, we move to the fasting state and start to call on our stored energy sources to keep our body functioning. This process is primarily controlled by a hormone called glucagon.

  • In the fasting state most tissues easily switch to using fat as their main energy source, but…
    • Red blood cells and a few other tissues in the body are totally dependent on glucose as an energy source.
    • Our brain is normally dependent on glucose as an energy source, and our brains use a lot of energy. [Note: Our brain can switch to ketones as an energy source with prolonged starvation or prolonged carbohydrate restriction, but that’s another story for another day.]
  • Because our brain and other tissues need glucose in the fasting state, it is important to maintain a constant blood glucose level between meals.
    • Initially, blood glucose levels are maintained by calling on carbohydrate reserves in the liver.
    • But because those reserves are limited, our body starts to break down muscle protein and convert it to glucose as well – even in the normal dinner/sleep/breakfast cycle.

Simply put, in addition to its other important roles in the body, muscle protein is also an energy store. You can think of it like a bank.

When we eat, we make a deposit to that energy store. Between meals we make a withdrawal from that energy store. When we are young the system works perfectly. Unless we fast for prolonged periods of time, we are always adding enough muscle protein in the fed state to balance out the withdrawals between meals.

But there are many physiological situations where protein metabolism becomes unbalanced, either because protein breakdown is accelerated or because protein synthesis is diminished. In each of those situations, our protein needs are increased.

I will describe each of these situations and how they affect our protein needs in the section below.

How Much Protein Do You Need? 

couch potatoThe Coach Potato Group: If this is you, I won’t be judgmental. But I highly recommend you read Dr. Lyon’s book. It may just inspire you to increase your fitness level and your protein intake.

As I said before the standard RDA recommendation for the coach potato group is 46 gm/day for women and 56 gm/day for men. That’s based on 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight and assumes that women weigh around 127 pounds and men weigh around 155 pounds.

There are two major problems with the standard protein RDAs:

1) The protein RDA should not be a “one-size-fits-all” recommendation. The standard used to calculate the RDA is based on weight. If you are a woman weighing 127 pounds or a man weighing 155 pounds, you are to be congratulated. But in today’s world the average woman weighs 170 pounds, and the average man weighs 201 pounds.

  • That means the average protein requirement should be 61 gm/day for women and 72 gm/day for men.
  • And that’s just the average. Your protein requirement is based on your weight.

2) As I mentioned earlier, the 0.36 gm/pound standard is based on outdated methodology from the 1930’s. Based on current technology, Dr. Lyon says the standard should be closer to 0.54 gm/pound.

  • If you use that standard and use the current average weight for men and women, the average protein requirement for the couch potato group is closer to 91.5 gm/day for women and 108 gm/day for men.
  • And since protein intake should be divided equally between meals, that amounts to 30 gm/meal for women and 36 gm/meal for men. If you weigh significantly more or less than the average American, you should adjust your intake accordingly.

The Over 50 Group: When we are young muscle protein deposits in the fed state and muscle protein withdrawals during the fasting state are in balance. And if we add exercise and increase our protein intake, it’s pretty easy to increase our muscle mass.

But once we reach our Golden Years things start to change. Muscle protein synthesis becomes less efficient. We need to increase the intensity of our workouts and increase our protein intake just to maintain our muscle mass.

If we fail to do that, we gradually lose muscle mass as we age, a process referred to as sarcopenia. Between 50 and 60 we lose 5-8% of our muscle mass, and the rate that we lose muscle accelerates with each subsequent decade. And that loss of muscle mass has severe consequences. For example:

  • It interferes with daily activities like playing with our grandchildren and engaging in activities we love.
  • It decreases our metabolic rate which increases our risk of obesity and obesity-related diseases.
  • It increases our risk of falls.

In short, our quality of life is diminished, and we become unhealthy and frail.

Dr. Lyon describes the training program needed to prevent sarcopenia as we age in her book Forever Strong. But we also need more protein.

On average older adults need around 35 – 45 gm of protein per meal to prevent sarcopenia. There are not enough published studies for me to provide more specific recommendations. But here are some guidelines:

  • If you are at ideal weight and in your 50’s or 60’s, you can probably do well at the lower end of the range.
  • If you are overweight or in your 70’s or 80’s, you should probably aim for the upper end of the range.
  • I recommend getting a body composition test on an annual basis and adjusting your exercise and protein intake based on your change in muscle mass. My doctor has a simple device for measuring my body composition as part of my annual physical. If your doctor doesn’t have a device like that, find out who does in your community.

Happy woman on scaleThe Weight Loss Group: If you are actively trying to lose excess weight, I congratulate you. But the sad fact is that up to 35% of weight loss on most diets comes from muscle, not fat.

That’s because your body interprets caloric restriction as starvation and increases the rate of protein breakdown.

But you can prevent that by adding resistance training to your diet plan and increasing your protein intake. By increasing your protein intake from 15% of calories (which is what most Americans get) to 30% of calories, you can rebalance muscle metabolism by increasing muscle protein synthesis. When you do this, you can reduce muscle loss to less than 10% of weight loss.

You may be wondering, “Why set the recommendation as a percentage of calories rather than gm/pound or gm/meal”. The answer is simple. Your caloric intake changes significantly you are on a diet, so expressing protein as a percentage of calories makes more sense.

For example, 30% of calories on a 1,000-calorie diet translates into 25-30 gm/meal. You might look at that recommendation and say, “That’s less than you recommended for the couch potato who is not trying to lose weight.” My answer would be, “Yes, but the couch potato is eating 2-3-times more calories.

So, the recommendation that’s easiest to understand if you are trying to lose weight is to aim for 25-30 gm of protein/meal/1,000 calories per day.  

  • Adjust your protein intake per meal based on the daily calories allowed on your diet. 
  • And if you are on a diet that restricts the kinds of food that you can eat or the amount of time you can eat, track your actual caloric intake for a few days. The “hidden secret” behind those diets is that most people eat fewer calories because of the restrictions.

Final thought: The latest data suggest that GLP-1 drugs accelerate the muscle loss associated with dieting. This is a significant concern, especially for people over 50. Some experts are recommending as much as 35-50 gm of protein/meal if you are using a GLP-1 drug to aid your weight loss.

Weight TrainingThe Fitness Group: The question I get most often from the fitness group is, “How much protein do I need after my workout to maximize recovery and muscle gain?” This has been well researched, and the answer is age dependent.

  • If you are in your 30’s, most experts recommend 15-20 grams of protein after your workout.
  • If you are in your 60s, most experts recommend 30-35 grams of protein after your workout.
  • While precise recommendations are not available for every age, you can extrapolate from these numbers.

Does Protein Quality Matter? 

I’m often asked whether all proteins are equally effective at building muscle mass or does protein quality matter? The answer is, “Yes. Protein quality matters, but not in the way that we have thought about it in the past.”

We used to think that protein quality was measured by the balance of all the essential amino acids. While balance is important, the increase in muscle mass is driven primarily by the amino acid leucine. That’s because leucine is the only amino acid that directly stimulates muscle protein synthesis.

Simply put, proteins that are high in leucine are used more efficiently by our bodies to increase muscle mass. In fact, Dr. Lyon measures protein quality solely based on its leucine content.

Many studies have looked at the optimal amount of leucine content in protein. The numbers vary somewhat from study to study, but they average around 1 gram of leucine for every 10 grams of protein.

If you look at the leucine contents of various proteins, it is clear that a 1:10 ratio is primarily found in animal proteins. Soybeans are the only vegetable protein source that comes close.However, there are many health reasons for consuming a primarily plant-based diet. Dr. Lyon doesn’t tell her patients to avoid plant proteins. But if they are consuming primarily plant proteins, she recommends that they increase their protein intake by 35-45%, so they will be getting enough leucine to maximize muscle protein synthesis.

What Role Do Protein Supplements Play? 

Protein SupplementRemember that New York Times article that said protein supplements were useless and perhaps dangerous? That’s outdated advice. In fact, you should view protein supplements as essential for reaching your protein goals.

That’s because our protein intake needs to be divided equally between our 3 major meals, but that’s not how we eat. Most of us have no trouble getting 30-40 grams of protein at dinner, but…

  • We only get around 15 grams of protein at breakfast, and…
  • 15-20 grams of protein at lunch.

But that’s assuming we eat a typical breakfast or lunch. If we eat…

  • An unhealthy breakfast of croissants and coffee or a healthy breakfast of cornflakes, skim milk, and fruit slices, we only get around 6 grams of protein.
  • A healthy green salad for lunch, we may get as little as 2 grams of protein.

A recent study has shown that adding a protein supplement to your low protein meals can help you increase your muscle mass in as little as 24 weeks.

What Does This Mean For You? 

how much protein do athletes needProtein is your longevity nutrient. My advice is:

  • Use the information in this article to set your protein goals (Talk with your doctor first if you have any health issues that may limit your protein intake).
  • Use a simple protein tracker to identify your low-protein meals.
  • Add additional protein foods or supplements to your low-protein meals to bring your protein up to recommended levels.
  • Focus on high-leucine protein foods and supplements. (If you eat more plant protein than animal protein, as I do, increase your recommended protein intake by 35-45% to make sure you are getting the leucine you need to maximize your muscle mass.)

As for what kind of protein supplement, I recommend a plant protein supplement with added leucine.

The Bottom Line 

In her book, “Forever Strong”, Dr. Gabrielle Lyon says, “Adequate muscle mass is essential for health and longevity. And muscle is the only organ over which we have voluntary and complete control.” She goes on to state that the current RDAs for protein intake are outdated. And if we look at protein needs based on the latest research, most Americans aren’t getting enough protein in their diet to achieve adequate muscle mass.

In this article, I summarize her findings. And based on the latest research, I provide protein intake recommendations for:

  • Adult couch potatoes.
  • Fitness enthusiasts.
  • People over 50.
  • People who are trying to lose weight.

I also discuss protein quality and protein supplements.

For more information on these topics and what they mean for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

Tips For Choosing The Best Multivitamin

by

Don’t Fall For Misleading Marketing Claims 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

ConfusionThere are lots of multivitamin-multimineral products in the marketplace. Every company must differentiate their product from the competition to win their market share. When that differentiation is based on quality, purity, and clinical proof the product works, I am all for it. May the best company win.

However, the pressure to win market share is intense. Quality controls and clinical studies are expensive. All too often companies try to differentiate their multivitamin-multimineral products based on marketing hype and/or worthless ingredients that subtract money from your wallet without adding anything of value to your health.

With so many claims and counter claims in the marketplace, it has become almost impossible for the average consumer to know which claims are true and which are false. Everyone wants to get the best multivitamin-multimineral for their health at the least possible cost. Perhaps that is why I am so frequently asked for guidance on how to choose the best multivitamin.

In this week’s article, I will give you 6 tips you can use to select the multivitamin-multimineral product that is best for you. I will tell you what to look for in a good multivitamin and which marketing claims you should just ignore.

But first, we need to look at how nutritional standards are set.

How Are Nutritional Standards Set?

The standards for nutritional supplements are set in a two-step process.

Step 1: In the first step, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Sciences selects a committee of experts called the Food and Nutrition Board to set standards for a specific set of nutrients. They set 3 kinds of standards:

  • Recommended Dietary Allowances or RDAs are the average daily dietary intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97-98 percent) healthy individuals in a group.
  • Adequate Intakes or AIs are established when evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and are set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy.
  • Where toxicity is a potential concern, Tolerable Upper Limits or ULs represent the maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
  • Just to confuse things, all three standards are part of what is called Dietary Reference Intakes or DRIs.

Step 2: The DRIs are specific for age, gender, pregnancy & lactation. It would be hopelessly complicated to use DRIs for nutrition labels on foods and supplements. Therefore, the FDA sets a Daily Value (DV) for the purposes of food and supplement labeling. Originally, DVs were set based on the highest DRI for a specific nutrient. However, currently the DV is an average of DRIs for adults and children 4 years and older. It is not identical to the RDA or DRI for any specific group, but it is a useful standard for supplement labels.

With this information in mind, let’s get back to the 6 tips for choosing the best multivitamin.

#1: Good Product Design Matters

nutritional supplementComparing nutrition labels on multivitamin-multimineral supplements can be tricky. Some supplements only provide 5-10% of the Daily Value (DV) for some nutrients. Are those nutrients unimportant? Some supplements provide hundreds or thousands % of the DV for other nutrients. Is more better?

Often companies will quote some random scientist or one or two clinical studies to support the mix of nutrients they include in their multivitamin-multimineral supplement. Don’t fall for their marketing hype.

The only valid nutritional standards for multivitamin-multimineral products in the United States are the DV standards set by the Food & Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. They are the standards you should look for in evaluating nutrition labels.

That’s because the National Academies of Sciences is the real deal. The National Academies represents the top 1-2% of scientists in the country. To be selected to the National Academies you must be nominated by an Academy member and voted on by the entire Academy. Selection is based on your research contributions over decades. (No, I am not a member of the Academy, but thanks for thinking that question).

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences selects the best of the best to serve on the Food and Nutrition Board. They are world renowned experts who review all the pertinent literature (not just one or two studies) They decide on which nutrients are essential and how much of them we need.

It always amazes me that some companies pretend they know more than the Food and Nutrition Board. It amazes me even more that some people believe those companies.

With that in mind, this is what to look for when comparing nutrition labels:

  • The FDA has set Daily Value (DV) recommendations for 24 vitamins and minerals (23 if the supplement is for adult men or postmenopausal women and does not contain iron). Make sure your multivitamin-multimineral has all 24. Count them. If a company leaves out an essential nutrient, they are not required to list it on the label.
  • The Food and Nutrition Board has classified several other nutrients as essential but does not feel there have been enough studies to establish a DRI. Without a DRI, the FDA cannot set a DV. Those nutrients are represented with a “dagger” symbol on the label with the footnote “Daily Value not established”. These can be useful additions to a multivitamin-multimineral supplement, provided they are not present in excess.
  • Ignore anything companies list on their nutrition labels that does not have a %DV value or a “dagger” symbol. This is often just marketing hype. In some cases, the ingredients have no proven benefit. In many other cases, it’s just not possible to put enough of them in a multivitamin-multimineral tablet to provide any real benefit.

#2: Look For Balance

balance scaleThis is another area in which we need to be guided by the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. One of the reasons many experts recommend that people get their vitamins and minerals from foods rather than from supplements is because many supplements are unbalanced. That’s a problem because there are many cases in which too much of one nutrient can interfere with the absorption or metabolism of related nutrients. For example,

  • Zinc and copper compete for absorption. For best absorption and maximal utilization by the body, the zinc to copper ratio should be close to 1:1 based on DV.
  • B vitamins should be in balance. Look for a multivitamin-multimineral supplement that provides 100-200% of the DV for all 8 essential B vitamins. (The levels can be higher in a B Complex supplement, but they should still be in balance.)

Some manufacturers will leave out the expensive B vitamins and load up on the cheap ones. This saves them money. It also allows them to use marketing terms like “mega” or “super”. A supplement that provides 50% or less of the DV for some B vitamins and 1,000% or more of the DV for others is ridiculous. There is absolutely no rationale for a ratio like that except to mislead consumers.

  • As for the other nutrients in multivitamin-multimineral supplements, they should not be significantly below 50% or significantly above 250% of the DV.
  • Calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous are a special case. They are bulky, so many manufacturers only provide 5-10% of them in their multivitamin-multimineral supplements. This is not ideal because many of the nutrients in a multivitamin-multimineral supplement are required for optimal utilization of calcium and magnesium in bone formation.

Many Americans get only 50% of the DV for calcium and magnesium in their diet. Thus, it makes good sense to provide 30-50% of the DV for calcium and magnesium in a multivitamin multimineral supplement. Most Americans get close to the DV for phosphorous from their diet, so the amount of phosphorous in a supplement is not particularly important.

#3: Don’t Fall For The Hype

companies that use deceptive food labelsIn their attempts to differentiate themselves, many companies claim that they use a more natural or a better utilized form of the vitamin or mineral than their competitors. Ignore those claims. They are just marketing hype. For example,

  • In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have debunked the claims that folate and methyl folate are more natural, safer and more effective than folic acid. The claims that alternate chemical forms of other vitamins are more natural, safer, and more effective are equally bogus.
  • The claims by some manufacturers that they use a form of calcium that is more readily absorbed are not just misleading. That is the wrong question. Calcium in our bloodstream can do bad things (like calcification and hardening of the arteries) if it is not quickly utilized for bone formation.
    • Thus, the important question is how well the calcium is utilized for bone formation. Look for clinical studies showing that the calcium in their multivitamin-multimineral supplement is efficiently utilized for bone formation rather than hype about how quickly it gets into the bloodstream.
  • There is a good reason that many supplement companies continue to use ingredients like folic acid for B9, cyanocobalamin for B12, pyridoxine for B6, etc. All of them are supported by hundreds of clinical studies showing that they are safe and effective. I have no issue with companies choosing to use different forms of these vitamins. Just don’t fall for their hype that the forms they are using are somehow more natural, safer or more effective than the traditionally used forms of the same vitamin.

#4: Don’t Fall For Buzz Words

Pinochio

Some manufacturers attempt to differentiate their products by claiming they are natural, organic, non-GMO, or are made from food. The companies are attaching buzz words to their product that they know resonate with the American people. Don’t believe them. Those claims are all bogus. They are marketing hype. For example,

  • There is no standard for “natural” so companies are not required to provide any evidence to back up their claim. If they claim that their product is natural, ask for a detailed list of the source and processing method for all their ingredients. If they are unwilling or unable to provide you with that information, don’t believe their claim of natural.
  • “Organic” certification for a supplement simply means that ingredients come from crops raised using organic methods. It is no guarantee of purity. Organically grown crops can still be contaminated if the air, soil or water is contaminated from any nearby pollution source. For example, ground water pollution is the major source of heavy metal contamination often seen in rice-derived ingredients. It is far more important to select your supplement based on rigorous quality control standards that assure it is pure than to rely on “organic” on the label.
  • A “non-GMO” designation is useful for foods and for protein, but it is meaningless for the ingredients in a multivitamin-multimineral supplement. Those ingredients have been extensively purified. They contain no genetic information. They are chemically indistinguishable from purified ingredients obtained from GMO sources. If you would like more detailed information about the GMO controversy, I have provided a balanced perspective on GMO in a video.
  • Claims by some companies that their vitamins are derived from foods are completely bogus. That is a physical impossibility. For example, let’s look at what it would take to provide the DV for just 3 of the nutrients in a single multivitamin pill, assuming they started with the best food sources of those 3 nutrients:
    • It would take 1 cup of cooked lentils, 2 cups of cooked spinach, or 4 cups of cooked broccoli to provide the DV for folic acid.
    • It would take 1 cup of sunflower seeds, 1.5 cups of pistachio nuts, or 7 ounces of cooked tuna to provide the DV for vitamin B6.
    • It would take 5 ounces of cooked chicken breast, 1 cup of peanuts, or 6 cups of green peas to provide the DV for niacin.

That’s just 3 nutrients and one multivitamin tablet. You do the math. If they lie to you about their vitamins coming from food, they will probably lie about other things as well.

#5: Don’t Fall For Scare Tactics

Darth VaderSome companies try to scare you into buying their products by claiming their competitors are using unsafe ingredients. These claims are usually bogus, but it is useful to understand where this misinformation comes from.

There is a lot of unfounded hysteria on the internet about product ingredients. Much of this hysteria has been fueled by a few well-known bloggers. I believe their intentions were pure in the beginning. They started by warning the public about truly dangerous ingredients like artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners.

However, blogging has a dark side. To capture a large audience, your blog posts need to be sensational every week. As the weeks go by it becomes harder and harder to find subject matter that is both sensational and accurate. That’s when some bloggers go over to “the dark side”.

They become more concerned about the size of their audience than the accuracy of the information they post. They start vilifying ingredients that are perfectly safe as long as the manufacturer purifies them correctly and tests them for purity. These are ingredients which might be of concern for products made by a company with poor quality controls but pose no concern for products made by a company with high quality control standards. In other words, they should not be spreading hysteria about the ingredient. They should focus on some of the real quality control issues in our industry.

To help you sort through all the hysteria about product ingredients, I have previously published a two-part series on ingredients in which I sorted through the claims and divided common ingredients into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

#6: Demand Proof

Clinically ProvenThis is the most important tip of all. Many companies make wild claims about their products but feel no need to back up their claims. Ignore their hype and demand they give proof to back up their claims.

  • If they claim their products are pure, ask how many quality control tests they run on their products.
  • If they claim their products work, ask for proof. Ask for clinical studies…
    • That have been done with people, not with animals, cell culture, or test tubes*
    • That have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
    • That have been done with their product, not studies done with another product.

*Animal, cell culture and test tube studies are valid if they are used to identify a potential mechanism of action but should not be cited as proof the product works. For ethical reasons, I prefer companies that do not use animal studies.

The Bottom Line

Everyone would like to get the best multivitamin-multimineral for their health at the least possible cost. However, there are lots of multivitamin-multimineral products in the marketplace. The pressure to win market share is intense. Quality controls and clinical studies are expensive. All too often companies try to differentiate their multivitamin-multimineral products based on marketing hype.

With so many claims and counter claims in the marketplace, it has become almost impossible for the average consumer to know how to choose the best multivitamin-multimineral product. In this week’s article, I have given you 6 tips you can use to select the multivitamin-multimineral product that is best for you. I have told you what to look for in a good multivitamin and which marketing claims you should just ignore. In summary:

  • Start with the nutrition label. A good multivitamin-multimineral supplement should contain all 24 essential nutrients recommended by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (23 if the supplement is without iron). Anything else is probably marketing hype.
  • Make sure the nutrients are in the correct balance. Again, your evaluation should be guided by the Institute of Medicine.
  • Don’t fall for the hype. Many companies claim that they use a more natural, safer, or better utilized form of certain vitamins or minerals than their competitors. Ignore those claims. They are usually just marketing hype
  • Don’t fall for buzz words. Some companies attempt to differentiate their products by claiming they are natural, organic, non-GMO, or are made from food. The companies are attaching buzz words to their product that they know resonate with the American people. Don’t believe them. Those claims are all bogus. They do nothing to improve your health. They are marketing hype.
  • Don’t fall for scare tactics. Some companies try to scare you into buying their products by claiming their competitors are using unsafe ingredients. These claims are usually bogus.
  • Demand poof. This is the most important tip of all. Many companies make wild claims about their products but feel no need to back up their claims. Ignore their hype and demand they give proof to back up their claims.
  • If they claim their products are pure, ask how many quality control tests they run on their products.
  • If they claim their products work, ask for proof. Ask for clinical studies…
    • That have been done with people, not with animals, cell culture, or test tubes.
    • That have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
    • That have been done with their product, not studies done with another product.

For more details about each of those tips, read the article above.

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

 

Are Omega-3s Needed For Strong Bones?

by

Why Are Omega-3s Needed For Strong Bones?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

fish and fish oilOsteoporosis is one of the dreaded diseases associated with aging.

  • Over 50% of women and 25% of men will develop osteoporosis in their lifetime.

And the risk of osteoporosis is highest for Caucasians.

  • Over 40% of white women and 13% of white men will develop an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime.

And osteoporotic fractures can be deadly. Bone fractures increase the risk of death 3-5-fold within the next few months. Moreover, the quality of life is diminished, and the risk of death is elevated for years after the fracture occurs.

So, if you are like many people, you are doing all you can to keep your bones strong so you will minimize your chances of developing osteoporosis. You probably even have a check list:

  • Resistance exercise (strengthens the bones you pull on)……Check
  • Walking (strengthens hip and leg bones)………………………Check
  • Adequate calcium & vitamin D (essential for strong bones)…Check
  • Magnesium & vitamin K (also important for strong bones)…..Check
  • Adequate protein (Muscle pulling on bone strengthens it)…..Check
  • Adequate omega-3s………………………………………………What!!!

You probably didn’t know about omega-3s. But recent research suggests they may also play a role in building strong bones and preventing osteoporosis. For example, studies show that omega-3s may influence bone metabolism by:

  • Enhancing absorption of calcium from the intestine.
  • Reducing the rate at which bone is broken down.
  • Increasing the rate at which new bone is built.

But large-scale population studies showing that omega-3 intake influences the risk of developing osteoporosis are lacking. The study ( Z Liu et al, Frontiers In Nutrition, 11: 1467559, 2023) I am discussing today was designed to fill that gap.

But before I describe the study, I should give you a quick review of bone metabolism.

Biochemistry 101: Bone Metabolism

bone metabolism osteoporosisTo truly understand osteoporosis and how to prevent it, you need to know a bit about bone metabolism. We tend to think of our bones as solid and unchanging, much like the steel girders supporting an office building. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our bones are dynamic organs that are in constant change throughout our lives.

Cells called osteoclasts constantly break down old bone (a process called resorption), and cells called osteoblasts replace it with new bone (a process called accretion). Without this constant renewal process our bones would quickly become old and brittle.

In short, our bones are not inert. They are in constant flux. If we exercise regularly and get enough calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, and vitamin K from our diet, bone metabolism looks like this as we age.

  • When we are young, osteoblast activity predominates, so accretion (the bone building process) exceeds bone resorption, and our bones grow in size and density.
  • When we are adults, osteoblast and osteoclast activity are in balance. Thus, bone accretion and resorption are in balance, and our bone density stays constant. The top portion of the picture above depicts what happens when osteoclast and osteoblast activity are in balance.
  • However, as we age osteoclast activity predominates, and we start to lose bone density. Eventually our bones look like Swiss cheese and break very easily. This is called osteoporosis. The bottom portion of the picture depicts this.

We should also think of our bones as calcium reservoirs.  We need calcium in our bloodstream 24 hours a day for our muscles, brain, and nerves to function properly, but we only get calcium in our diet at discrete intervals. Consequently:

  • When we eat our body tries to store as much calcium as possible in our bones.
  • Between meals, we break down bone material so that we can release the calcium into our bloodstream that our muscle, brain & nerves need to function.

If we lead a “bone healthy” lifestyle, all of this works perfectly. We build strong bones during our growing years, maintain healthy bones during our adult years, and only lose bone density slowly as we age – maybe never experiencing osteoporosis. We always accumulate enough calcium in our bones during meals to provide for the rest of our body between meals.

I should note that this is the current paradigm for bone metabolism. The study I am discussing today is asking whether omega-3 fatty acids should also be considered as part of a bone-healthy lifestyle.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators used data from NHANES (National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey), an ongoing study to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. Specifically, this study combined data from participants from the 2005-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

The participants included in the survey:

  • Were greater than 50 years old.
  • Had completed two 24-hour dietary recall surveys to determine the omega-3 content of their diet (The average omega-3 intake of the two surveys was used for this study).
  • Had a bone mineral density (BMD) test performed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Participants were excluded from the study if they had incomplete diet or bone mineral density data or if they had a disease that affects bone metabolism.

A total of 8,889 participants were included in the study. They were divided into 3 categories based on their bone density:

  • Normal bone density (4,421 participants)
  • Osteopenia (3,952 participants)
  • Osteoporosis (516 participants)

Finally, the participants were divided into quartiles based on their omega-3 intake, and omega-3 intake was correlated with bone density.

Are Omega-3s Needed For Strong Bones?

Healthy BoneThe study results were as follows:

  • Omega-3 intake was inversely related to bone density. Simply put, that means:
    • The highest intake of omega-3s was observed in the group with normal bone density, and…
    • The lowest omega-3 intake was observed in the osteoporosis group.

When the participants were divided into quartiles based on their omega-3 intake:

  • Participants with the highest omega-3 intake were 29% less likely to develop osteoporosis than participants with the lowest omega-3 intake.

When the investigators looked at subgroups, they found stronger effects of omega-3s on osteoporosis risk for women, people under 60, and non-smokers. Specifically:

  • Women with the highest omega-3 intake were 35% less likely to develop osteoporosis.
  • People under 60 were 49% less likely to develop osteoporosis.
  • Non-smokers were 36% less likely to develop osteoporosis.

The investigators concluded, “This study demonstrates a significant inverse relationship between dietary omega-3 fatty acid intake and osteoporosis risk, suggesting omega-3s play a crucial role in bone health. However, further longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these studies and refine dietary recommendations for osteoporosis prevention.”

Why Are Omega-3s Needed For Strong Bones?

QuestionsYou are probably thinking,

  • “Calcium and magnesium are part of bone structure. Vitamin D and vitamin K facilitate the incorporation of calcium into bone. So, it is logical that these nutrients would be important for strong bones.”
  • “But what role do omega-3s play? They aren’t incorporated into bone, and they don’t affect calcium metabolism.”

Here is what the authors said about that:

  • Omega-3s are anti-inflammatory. They decrease production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines that stimulate osteoclasts – the cells that break down bone.
  • EPA and DHA are also converted to prostaglandins that stimulate osteoblasts – the cells that build new bone.
  • Finally, the authors said, “Omega-3 fatty acids, especially EPA and DHA, have been shown to enhance calcium absorption in the gut – a process crucial for maintaining optimal bone mineral density…Omega-3s …do this by altering the lipid composition of cell membranes, thereby affecting calcium channels and enhancing calcium availability for bone tissue.”

Let me help you understand that statement.

  • While we might think of our cell membranes as rigid structures, they are quite fluid. The closest analogy I can think of is a large lake. You may not see any waves or ripples, but if a leaf drops on the surface it doesn’t stay in one place. It moves. We can think of calcium channels in our membrane like leaves on the water. They move across the cell membrane.
  • How fast they move depends on the fluidity of the cell membrane. This is determined by the lipids (fats) in the cell membrane, which in turn is determined by the fats in our diet. This is the one case where it is literally true that we are what we eat.
    • When we have lots of saturated fats in our cell membranes, fluidity is low, and calcium channels move slowly across the membrane.
    • When we have omega-3 fats in our cell membrane, fluidity is high, and calcium channels move quickly across the cell membrane.
  • Calcium channels work best when they cluster together, and this works best with highly fluid, omega-3-rich cell membranes.

What Does This Mean For You?

Question MarkThis study strongly suggests that omega-3s play a role in bone health, and they may be important for reducing our risk of osteoporosis. The authors concluded, “The findings suggest that omega-3 fatty acids play a critical role in bone health, supporting the need for dietary recommendations that encourage omega-3 consumption as a preventative measure against osteoporosis.”

However, this is the first study of its kind, which is why the authors said, “Further longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.”

However, my biggest concern with the study is that it did not include information on the intake of the other nutrients essential for bone health (calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, and vitamin K). We don’t know at present the importance of omega-3s for preventing osteoporosis relative to dietary intake of other bone-healthy nutrients. For example:

  • Are omega-3s important for bone health when intake of calcium and/or the other bone-healthy nutrients are low?
  • Or are omega-3s equally important for bone health under all conditions?

However, the good news is that omega-3s have many proven health benefits such as heart health, controlling blood pressure, and reducing inflammation. If they are also important for bone health, we can consider it an unexpected benefit.

With that in mind, there are two important takeaways for you:

  • Omega-3s were most effective at preventing osteoporosis in people under 60. That is entirely consistent with what we know about preventing osteoporosis. The best prevention strategy is to build strong bones while you are young and maintain strong bones as long as possible in your adult years.
  • The optimal reduction of osteoporosis risk in this study was seen with an omega-3 intake of 1.86 g/d. While more studies are needed to define the optimal dose of omega-3s for reducing osteoporosis risk, this dose is within the “sweet spot” for the other omega-3 benefits I mentioned.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study asked whether omega-3 fatty acids reduce the risk of osteoporosis.

The study found:

  • Omega-3 intake was inversely related to bone density.
  • When the participants were divided into quartiles based on their omega-3 intake:
  • Participants with the highest omega-3 intake were 29% less likely to develop osteoporosis than participants with the lowest omega-3 intake.
  • When the investigators looked at subgroups, they found stronger effects of omega-3s on osteoporosis risk for women, people under 60, and non-smokers.

The investigators concluded, “This study demonstrates a significant inverse relationship between dietary omega-3 fatty acid intake and osteoporosis risk, suggesting omega-3s play a crucial role in bone health. This supports the need for dietary recommendations that encourage omega-3 consumption as a preventative measure against osteoporosis.”

For more information on this study, why omega-3s reduce osteoporosis risk, and what this study means for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

The Alcohol Myth

by

How Were We Led Astray?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Were We Led Astray?

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

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

1) Most scientific studies are designed to disprove existing scientific paradigms. This is such a study.

  • In the scientific world, there is no glory in being the 10th person to prove that a scientific paradigm is correct. The glory comes from being the first person to disprove a scientific paradigm and create a new paradigm in the process.
  • This constant testing of existing paradigms is one of the most important strengths of the scientific method.

2) There is no perfect study. Every study has its flaws.

  • “Confounding variables” are flaws that can be the Achilles Heel of any association study.

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

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

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

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

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

Could The Current Paradigm Be Incorrect?

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

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

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

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

How Was This Study Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Alcohol Myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

For women:

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

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the current CDC guidelines are:

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Increasing GLP-1 Levels Naturally

by

What Is GLP-1 And What Does It Do?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

I don’t need to tell you that GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) drugs are all the rage. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years. There are 15 million Americans on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

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

And when you have millions of people taking a drug, you need to take a serious look at side effects. The most frequent side effects are:

  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Constipation
  • Increased heart rate.
  • Hypoglycemia
  • Allergic reactions

These are side effects that aren’t life threatening and are easily detected. When someone experiences these side effects, they usually give their doctor a call, and their doctor either takes them off the drug or modifies the dosage.

However, more recent studies have identified two additional side effects that are much more troubling.

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

And, of course, the biggest drawback of GLP-1 drugs is that they are only a temporary fix. Unless someone changes their lifestyle, the weight comes roaring back as soon as they quit using GLP-1.

So. It’s no wonder some people are asking whether it is possible to increase their GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects associated with GLP-1 drugs. I will discuss this below, but first I should review what GLP-1 is and what it does.

What Is GLP-1 And What Does It Do? 

ProfessorLet me start by reviewing the hormones insulin and glucagon to create a proper perspective for understanding the role of GLP-1.

Insulin: Almost everyone has heard of insulin. It is released by the pancreas whenever we eat, and blood sugar levels start to rise. Its role is to lower blood sugar levels. It does this by:

  • Increasing glucose uptake by our cells. In the fed state almost all our cells use glucose as an energy source.
  • Converting any glucose in excess of immediate energy needs to storage forms.
    • In the muscle and liver, it is converted to a glucose polymer called glycogen. Our ability to create glycogen stores is limited.
    • In muscle it is also converted to amino acids, and it stimulates the use of those amino acids to make new protein. Our ability to increase muscle stores is also limited, but it can be increased by exercise.
    • In adipose tissue, it is converted to fat. As you may have noticed, our ability to create fat stores is unlimited. Even worse, when we become obese, fat starts accumulating in muscle and liver, which has severe health consequences.

Glucagon: Glucagon is less well known, but you can think of it as the Yin to insulin’s Yang. It is released by the pancreas when blood sugar levels fall and continues to be present until the next meal. Its role is to increase blood sugar levels and make sure that our cells get the food they need until the next meal.

Most tissues in our bodies switch to fat as an energy source in the fasting state. However, our red blood cells, kidney medulla, and brain continue to require glucose [Note: The brain can adapt to ketone bodies as an energy source after several days of glucose deprivation, but that’s another discussion for another time.] Glucagon supports our tissues by:

  • Signaling the liver to break down its glycogen stores and release glucose into the bloodstream. These stores are limited, but they can supply enough glucose to keep blood sugar levels constant for a few hours.
  • However, the brain uses lots of glucose, so the glycogen stores are rapidly depleted. When this happens, glucagon signals our muscles to break down muscle protein and convert the amino acids to glucose. We have enough muscle tissue to supply our brain with glucose for weeks. But we are using that muscle protein for other important things.
  • Finally, glucagon signals adipose tissue to break down its fat stores and release fat into the bloodstream to feed all our tissues that no longer depend on glucose.

GLP-1: GLP-1 stands for glucagon-like peptide 1. With a name like that, you might expect GLP-1 to have significant sequence homology with glucagon, bind to the same receptors, and have a similar effect on our metabolism. You would be wrong!

Both peptide hormones are derived from a much larger peptide called proglucagon. This is the only way that GLP-1 is “like” glucagon.

One portion of proglucagon is processed to give glucagon in pancreatic alpha cells. Another portion is processed to give GLP-1 in intestinal L cells. [L cells are endocrine (hormone producing cells) found in the intestinal mucosa.] There is very little sequence or structural homology between glucagon and GLP-1.

Their function is also very different. You can think of GLP-1 as a partner to insulin. It is released by intestinal L cells in response to the presence of nutrients (primarily protein, fat, and carbohydrate) in the intestine. It binds to GLP-1 receptors on the…

  • Pancreas to stimulate insulin release and inhibit glucagon release. This is why it helps type 2 diabetics control their blood sugar levels.
  • Stomach and reduces the rate of gastric emptying. This prolongs the feeling of fullness after each meal.
  • Small intestine and reduces gut motility, which increases transit time through the small intestine. This prolongs the feeling of fullness after a meal. But it can also lead to gastrointestinal side effects.
  • Brain and turns down your “appestat”. This reduces feelings of hunger between meals. But at high doses, it can affect the brain in negative ways (anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts).

Increasing GLP-1 Levels Naturally 

At the beginning of this article, I asked the question, “Is it possible to increase GLP-1 levels naturally without side effects?” The answer is clearly, “Yes”. Every time you eat a meal, your GLP-1 levels increase naturally.

GLP-1 levels rise within 10 minutes after consuming a meal and remain elevated for 1-2 hours. Then enzymes present in the bloodstream digest GLP-1 and it disappears. This is the way nature intended. There are no side effects to the natural rise and fall of GLP-1 after a meal.

“What makes the GLP-1 drugs different?”, you might ask.

  • In the first place significantly higher doses of GLP-1 are used.
  • More importantly, GLP-1 drugs have been genetically modified to make them resistant to enzymatic digestion. They can stay in the bloodstream for up to 24 hours.

This is what makes them so effective as weight loss drugs. But it’s not nice to fool with mother nature. This is also why they have side effects.

What Does This Mean For You?

Questioning WomanLet’s start by remembering that while GLP-1 drugs are effective, you will need to take them for the rest of your life unless you change your diet and lifestyle. And with long-term usage of the drugs, you are likely to experience one or more of their side effects at some point.

So, if you are willing to change your diet and lifestyle, it may be worthwhile looking at increasing your GLP-1 levels naturally. You have lots of options.

  • Every time you eat a meal your GLP-1 levels increase. And the bigger the meal, the bigger the increase. But the bigger the meal, the greater the calories. So, that’s not an optimal way to increase GLP-1 levels.
  • The macronutrients fat, carbohydrate, and protein all increase GLP-1 levels.
    • But if you are trying to lose weight, you want the greatest increase in GLP-1 with the fewest calories. That leaves out fatty foods.
    • You could try high carbohydrate meals, but there are lots of reasons why that’s not a good choice.
    • That leaves protein. And since you are trying to maximize GLP-1 levels with the minimum calories, I recommend a 20–40-gram protein supplement with a minimum of carbohydrate and fat. Just be sure the manufacturer has done a clinical study to demonstrate their protein supplement raises GLP-1 levels.

The Bottom Line

In this article I asked the question, “Is it possible to increase GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects of GLP-1 drugs?” The answer is, “Yes”. In this article I tell you:

  • What GLP-1 is and what it does.
  • Why GLP-1 drugs have side effects.
  • How to raise your GLP-1 levels naturally without the side effects of GLP-1 drugs.

For more details read the article above.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

Are GLP-1 Users Getting Enough Nutrients?

by

What Does This Mean For Your Future Health?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Most people want to lose weight so they can get trimmer and healthier. I don’t know of anyone who wants to be leaner and less healthy. But if they are not getting the essential nutrients their body needs while they are losing weight, they may well end up both lean and unhealthy.

I don’t need to tell you that GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) drugs are all the rage. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years. There are 15 million Americans on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

GLP-1 drugs do work. They target the intestine and the brain, increasing satiety (feeling of fullness) and decreasing appetite.

However, like any other drug, they have side effects. The most frequent are:

  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Constipation
  • Increased heart rate.
  • Hypoglycemia
  • Allergic reactions

In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I discussed a serious side effect that is often overlooked, namely increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. My recommendations were:

  • If you suffer from depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts, GLP-1 drugs may not be the best choice for you. At the very least you should discuss the risks and benefits with your doctor before using them.
  • If you are using GLP-1 drugs and experience an increase in depression, anxiety, or suicidal tendencies, you should discontinue the drug immediately and report your side effects to your doctor.

Another question that has not been addressed previously is whether people using GLP-1 drugs are getting the essential nutrients their bodies need for optimal health. Today’s study (B Johnson et al, Frontiers in Nutrition, published online in April 2025) was designed to measure the nutritional adequacy of GLP-1 user’s diets.

How Was This Study Done? 

clinical studyThe investigators enrolled 69 people who had been using a GLP-1 drug for at least a month in their study using an online research platform through the University of Turin in Italy.

The characteristics of the study participants were:

  • Weight:
    • 5% normal weight
    • 27% overweight
    • 18% Obese Class I
    • 20% Obese Class II
    • 30% Morbidly Obese
  • Age = 49.6 ± 12.3
  • Ethnicity:
    • 82% Caucasian
    • 6% Hispanic
    • 8% African American
    • 1% Asian
    • This is similar to the ethnic distribution of GLP-1 users in this region.
  • Length of GLP-1 use:
    • 7% <3 months
    • 29% 4-6 months
    • 25% 7-12 months
    • 39% >1 year

The participants were trained on how to use an online dietary recall instrument and then recorded their dietary intake for 3 consecutive days.

Are GLP-1 Users Getting Enough Nutrients?

Question MarkThe results of the 3-day dietary recalls from the GLP-1 users were:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.
  • Their diets were low in fiber (14 grams). This is half the recommended intake of fiber.
  • Their diets were sufficient for B-vitamins, copper, phosphorous, selenium, and zinc.
  • Their diets were deficient for calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, choline, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin D, vitamin E, and fiber. For example:
    • 99% of participants were not getting enough Vitamins D and K from their diet.
    • 94% weren’t getting enough choline.
    • 90% weren’t getting enough magnesium.
    • 88% weren’t getting enough iron.

The study did not report the intake of omega-3 fats, but the participants were likely deficient in that as well.

The study participants averaged 0.8 gm/kg of protein, which is the recommended intake for sedentary adults who are not on a weight loss diet. However, 0.8 gm/kg of protein is not sufficient for maintaining muscle mass on weight loss diets, especially weight loss diets aided by GLP-1 drugs. Most experts recommend 1.2gm/kg to 1.6 gm/kg to prevent loss of muscle mass, with a few recommending as high as 2 gm/kg.

Most of the participants in this study did not meet the increased protein recommendations for weight loss.

  • Only 43% consumed at least 1.2 gm/kg of protein.
  • Only 10% consumed at least 1.6 gm/kg of protein.
  • Only 5% consumed at least 2.0 gm/kg of protein.

The authors concluded, “Participants on a GLP-1 drug are not meeting the DRI [daily recommended intake] for several vital nutrients through their diet or the higher protein needs during weight loss. Patient-centered nutritional guidance is essential to optimize health outcomes and prevent unintended health consequences.

What Does This Mean For Your Future Health?

QuestionsThe results of this study are both appalling and expected. Weight loss diets often result in nutritional insufficiencies. However, GLP-1-aided weight loss is worse.

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

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

The results were predictable:

From a medical point of view the results were a big success:

  • The participants in the study reduced their caloric intake by 20%.
  • Most of the participants in the study felt the GLP-1 drug was helping them lose weight.

But from a nutritional point of view the study raises a red flag. Most of the participants were not told to change their diet or lifestyle, and they didn’t. Their diet was still:

  • High in total fat and saturated fat and probably low in healthy fats, although that was not assessed.
  • Low in fruits, vegetables, grain, dairy, and fiber.

The typical American diet is bad enough as it is. But when you eat the same diet and decrease calories, the nutritional inadequacies of the American diet are magnified. That is why the diets of the GLP-1 users were deficient in fiber plus 10 essential vitamins and minerals and did not contain enough protein to prevent loss of muscle mass.

Most (52%) of the participants were planning to be on GLP-1 drugs for a short period of time – just long enough to reach their weight loss goals. But the reality is far different.

Studies show that when people lose weight on GLP-1 drugs without changing their diet and lifestyle, the weight comes roaring back as soon as they get off the drugs. The reality is that those people will need to stay on GLP-1 drugs for a lifetime if they want to keep the weight off.

That’s when the nutritional inadequacies shown in this study start to have real health consequences. For example,

  • Long term inadequacies of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D increase the risk of osteoporosis.
  • Long term muscle loss due to inadequate protein intake leads to frailty and metabolic diseases as we age.

I could go on, but you get the point. GLP-1 drugs are not a panacea. Without diet and lifestyle change, they are just a temporary and expensive solution to weight loss.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the nutritional intake of GLP-1 users. It found:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.They were deficient in fiber plus 10 essential vitamins and minerals.

 

  • They were not getting enough protein to prevent the loss of muscle mass associated with GLP-1 use for weight loss.

The authors concluded, “Participants on a GLP-1 drug are not meeting the DRI [recommended intake] for several vital nutrients through their diet or the higher protein needs during weight loss. Patient-centered nutritional guidance is essential to optimize health outcomes and prevent unintended health consequences.

For details about the study and the health consequences of these nutrient deficiencies, read the article above.

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Health Tips From The Professor