Uncategorized Archives - Health Tips From The Professor

Do Eggs Prevent Cognitive Decline?

March 3, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are Eggs Brain Food?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

But in recent years, the ground has shifted.

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

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

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

Diet context is very important. The AHA recommends:

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

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

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

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

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

Are Eggs Brain Food?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Eggs Prevent Cognitive Decline?

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

This is what the authors reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Be designed to test the dose-response relationship.

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

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Here are my thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

What Does A Brain-Healthy Diet Look Like?

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

MIND diet (The MIND diet combines the best of the Mediterranean and DASH diets with an emphasis on brain healthy foods such as berries.)

Mediterranean diet.

Flexitarian diet (a flexible version of a semi-vegetarian diet).

DASH diet.

My Comments:

All four diets are whole food, primarily plant-based diets.

Although the MIND diet was specifically designed for brain health, it does not perform significantly better than the Mediterranean and DASH diets in slowing cognitive decline.

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

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

My Comment:

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

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

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

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

Is Margarine More Heart-Healthy Than Butter?

February 24, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The Checkered History Of Margarine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Margarine More Heart-Healthy Than Butter?

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

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

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

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

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

Next, we should look at the labels.

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

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

Some margarine products are made with natural ingredients.

However, many margarine products contain preservatives and artificial flavors.

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

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

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

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

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

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

Avocado is another excellent choice.

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

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

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

But that is just part of the story:

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

There are also labels to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, read the article above.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

Give Your Heart A Valentine

February 10, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Can You Give Your Heart A Valentine?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give Your Heart A Valentine

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

The overall summary was that for a healthy adult population:

Low consumption of salt and foods of animal origin…

…and increased intake of plant foods…

…are associated with reduced heart disease risk.

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

Foods Of Animal Origin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, there were a couple of caveats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cereals (grains) were divided into 3 categories:

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Foods:

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

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

Summary of Heart Health Recommendations

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

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

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

Four servings per week of legumes and fish.

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

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

Only occasional consumption of processed meats.

How Can You Give Your Heart A Valentine?

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

If you want to give your heart a valentine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- You should eat processed meats seldom or never.

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

For more details about this study and what a heart-healthy diet might look like for you, read the article above.

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

Is The New Food Guide Pyramid Healthy?

January 27, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Brief History Of USDA Food Guides

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And our deteriorating health is costly.

90% of our health care spending is for preventable diseases

A Brief History Of USDA Food Guides

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

2-3 servings of dairy, preferably low fat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1: Eat Real Food

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2: Prioritize Protein Foods at Every Meal

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

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

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

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

The main criticisms about the new protein recommendations are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People who have been diagnosed with kidney disease.

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

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

What About Red Meat?

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

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

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

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

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

#3: Consume Dairy

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

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

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

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

The old guidelines recommended choosing low fat dairy foods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#4: Eat Vegetables & Fruits Throughout The Day

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

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

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

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

These recommendations are not controversial. They are universally accepted.

#5: Incorporate Healthy Fats

The new dietary guidelines are:

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

- This recommendation is not controversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#6: Focus On Whole Grains

The new dietary guidelines are:

“Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains.”

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

These guidelines are unchanged from previous versions of the guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

Avoid highly processed foods with added sugar and sodium.

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

Avoid sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#8: Limit Alcoholic Beverages

The guidelines:

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

List people who should completely avoid alcohol.

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

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

What Does This Mean For You?

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

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

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

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

Eat real food

Eat vegetables and fruits throughout the day.

Focus on whole grains.

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

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

Increasing the daily protein recommendations.

Including full-fat dairy as a healthy dairy food.

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

Including red meat in the protein recommendations.

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

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

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

More emphasis on plant proteins.

Elimination of lard from the “healthy fat” category.

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

They are clearly an improvement over the previous guideline.

They are accepted by almost everyone.

The criticism is a “tempest in a teapot”.

The criticism is at least partially accurate.

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

For the past 55 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

The Breakfast Cereal Scandal

December 15, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Race To The Bottom Continues

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Big Food Inc is not your friend. Big Food Inc follows the latest trends and is only too happy to give consumers what they want.

You want low-fat? No problem. You want low-carb, natural, organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, Paleo, Keto? No problem. However, their motive is a healthy bottom line, not your health.

They know humans are hardwired to desire sugar, salt, and fat. Foods with those ingredients sell. Convenience sells. At the end of the day, they are more interested in sales than they are in your health.

They don’t want you to buy whole foods and cook them from scratch. They don’t make money from whole foods. They want you to buy their pre-packaged convenience foods instead.

A prime example of how Big Food Inc of how Big Food takes a healthy food and turns it into a nutrition disaster is what I call “The Breakfast Cereal Scandal”.

The Great Breakfast Cereal Scandal

It’s hard to believe that breakfast cereals started as health food, but they did. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was a Seventh-day Adventist who took over the Western Reform Health Institute in 1877 and renamed it the Battle Creek Sanitarium.

It gained prominence as a health resort where people went to be healed through a combination of physical activity and healthy eating.

Dr. Kellogg invented Corn Flakes in 1878 as a healthier alternative to the high-fat breakfasts most Americans were consuming at that time. Corn Flakes had less than 5% sugar. It was a great idea for its time, but what happened next is nothing short of appalling.

It is a perfect example of how Big Food Inc leads us astray. The graphic above that I created illustrates what the major food companies have done to breakfast cereals over the decades since then.

It all started with Corn Flakes. Then other food companies started bringing out competing products. Cereals like Wheaties and Rice Krispies were still pretty healthy, but they had a bit more sugar, which gave them better consumer appeal.

As soon as the food companies ﬁgured out that sugar increased their sales, the race was on. The percentage sugar increased to 40%, then to 50%, and now to almost 60%.

No sane parent would ﬁll their child’s cereal bowl half full of sugar, but that is exactly what they are doing when they feed them some of today’s breakfast cereals. The food companies are hiding the outrageous sugar content of their cereals with slogans like “Just a touch of honey.”

Speaking of deception, can anyone tell me how you label a product with 20% sugar 100% Bran Flakes?

I created the graphic above in the 1990’s. At that time, I assumed breakfast cereals couldn’t get much worse. But I was wrong. Big Food’s “race to the bottom” continues.

A recent study (A Zhao et al, JAMA Network Open, 8(5): e2511699, 2025) examined the nutritional content of children’s cereals introduced to the US market between 2010 and 2023.

How Was This Study Done?

The investigators used data from the Mintel Global New Products Database, which tracks new product launches for foods and beverages. From this database they identified 1,200 new children’s cereals introduced in the US market from 2010 through 2023.

Children’s cereals were defined as breakfast cereal products explicitly marketed (through packaging or branding) to children between 5 and 12 years old.

Using product label information, they compared the total fat, sodium, total carbohydrate, sugar, protein, and dietary fiber per serving and analyzed the trends between 2010 and 2023.

The Race To The Bottom Continues

If the previous decline in nutritional value of breakfast cereals between the 1870s and 1970s can be described can be described as “appalling”, the latest results can only be described as scandalous.

For newly introduced children’s breakfast cereals in the 13 years between 2010 and 2023,

Fat content increased 34%.

Sodium (salt) content increased 32%.

Sugar content increased by 11%.

Protein content decreased by 11%.

Fiber content decreased by 30%.

The authors of the study concluded, “Analysis of newly launched children’s RTE (ready to eat) cereals from 2010 to 2023 revealed concerning nutritional shifts: notable increases in fat, sodium, and sugar along decreases in protein and fiber.

Children’s cereals contain high levels of added sugar, with a single serving exceeding 45% of the American Heart Association’s daily recommended limit for children.

These trends suggest a potential prioritization of taste over nutritional quality in product development, contributing to childhood obesity and long-term cardiovascular health risks.”

In short, despite the American public’s increasing interest in a healthy diet, Big Food is still prioritizing sales over healthy foods. The race to the bottom continues.

What Does This Mean For You?

The take home lesson is clear. Don’t trust Big Food with your health. Their priority is sales, not your health.

Even when they claim their processed foods are healthy because they have removed fat or sugar, they have simply replaced them with a witch’s brew of chemicals so they look, taste, and smell delicious.

And breakfast cereals are just the tip of the iceberg. For most Americans 60-70% of their diet comes from highly processed foods.

If you value health, the choice is clear. Choose whole, unprocessed food whenever possible.

The Bottom Line

The dramatic decline in the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals between the 1870s and 1970s is well documented. By the turn of the century most breakfast cereals had gotten so bad, you might assume they couldn’t get any worse. You would be wrong. Big Food’s race to the bottom continues.

A recent study evaluated the nutritional value of newly introduced children’s breakfast cereals between 2010 and 2023. In those 13 years,

Fat content increased 34%.

Sodium (salt) content increased 32%.

Sugar content increased by 11%.

Protein content decreased by 11%.

Fiber content decreased by 30%.

The authors of the study said, “These trends suggest a potential prioritization of taste over nutritional quality in product development, contributing to childhood obesity and long-term cardiovascular health risks.”

I agree. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For most Americans 60-70% of their diet comes from highly processed foods.

If you value health, the choice is clear. Choose whole, unprocessed food whenever possible.

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

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 Estrogenic Myth

November 23, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Does Increase Breast Cancer Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It 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?

You 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?

Let’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

A 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.

The 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?

The 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

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

Can Vitamin C Reduce Colds In Children?

November 4, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

A Holistic Approach Is Best

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Cold 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?

The 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:

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?

This 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

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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

Can Cosmetics Raise Your Blood Pressure?

October 21, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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?

The 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?

When 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?

At 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

Can Protein Supplements Increase GLP-1?

October 14, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

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?

You 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.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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

Protein – The Longevity Nutrient

October 7, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

How Much Protein Do You Need?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In 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

Most 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?

The 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.

The 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.

The 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?

Remember 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?

Protein 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

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