Uncategorized

Can You Build Muscle in Your Golden Years?

by

What Does It Take to Build Muscle in Your 80s?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

As we age it becomes harder to build muscle, so we start to lose muscle mass and strength, a physiological process called sarcopenia. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared studies showing it is possible to slow, and even reverse, age-related loss of muscle mass in our 60’s and 70’s with the correct combination of resistance exercise, protein, and leucine.

But what about those of us in our 80s? Here recent studies have not been as reassuring. The results have been mixed, with some studies suggesting it is impossible to maintain muscle mass in our 80s.

But we know that it is possible for some people to maintain their muscle mass and accomplish incredible physical feats in their 80s. For example, those of you who are my age or older may remember Jack LaLanne, the so-called “Father of the Fitness Movement” who had a popular fitness show on TV from 1953 to 1985. He celebrated his 80th birthday by swimming one and a half miles in the Long Beach harbor towing 80 rowboats with 80 people in them.

Was Jack LaLanne a “freak of nature” or was it his incredible dedication and focus that allowed him to perform incredible physical feats in his 80’s? After all:

  • He ate only whole, unprocessed foods. He did not allow processed foods, fast foods, or convenience foods to cross his lips.
  • He did two hours of high-intensity workouts every day until the day before he died at age 96 in 2011.

More important is the question of what his physical feats mean for us. Does his example hold out hopes for all of us who wish to maintain our strength and vigor until the Lord calls us home? Or did he set a standard too high for mere mortals like us to achieve?

That is essentially the question that today’s study (GN Marzuca-Nassr et al, International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 34: 11-19, 2024) set out to answer.

The authors postulated that previous studies with subjects in their 80s came up short because they included infirm subjects in their studies and/or the intensity of exercise was too low. This study was designed to overcome those shortcomings.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators recruited 29 healthy, elderly adults (9 men and 20 women) who were either 65-75 (average age = 68) or over 85 (average age = 87) who were still living in the community rather than being institutionalized for health reasons. The average BMI was 26.4 (moderately overweight) for both groups.

The participants selected for the study had not engaged in any kind of regular resistance training in the previous 6 months. The study excluded individuals with any kind of heart disease, health conditions, or physical limitations that would prevent them from participating in the resistance exercise training program associated with this study.

Participants were asked to fill in a three-day dietary recall at the beginning and end of the study. They were asked not to change their habitual dietary intake or physical activity during the study The diet recall at the end of the study showed compliance with this request. Their dietary intake was calculated based on the average of the two diet recalls.

No significant difference in macronutrient content of the diet was found between groups. For example, the 65-75 group consumed 1.1 g of protein/kg of body weight/day, and the over 85 group consumed 1.2 g of protein/kg of body weight/day.

Both groups were enrolled in a 3-times/week resistance exercise program for 12 weeks. The exercise training program was designed as follows:

  • Warm up consisted of 5-minutes on a cycle ergometer followed by full range of motion upper limb movements and one warm up set on both leg press and leg extension machines.
  • This was followed by 4 sets on the leg press and leg extension machines and 2 sets of upper body exercises (chest press, lat pulldown, and horizontal row).
  • Cool-down consisted of 5 minutes of stretching exercises.

Just prior to the study, the maximum strength on each exercise machine was determined for each participant. The intensity of their workouts was increased from 60% to 80% of that maximum over the 12 weeks of exercise training.

The outcomes of the study were as follows:

  • Quadriceps (the muscles on the front of the thigh) cross-sectional area was measured at the beginning and end of the study.
  • Whole body lean mass and appendicular lean mass (The lean mass in legs and arms) were measured at the beginning and end of the study.
  • The maximum strength for one repetition on each exercise machine was measured at the beginning and end of the study.

The increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area, lean mass, and strength was compared for the 65-75 group and the over 85 group.

Can You Build Muscle In Your Golden Years? 

Frail ElderlyAt the beginning of the study, the over 85 age group scored lower in every category measured in this study. For example:

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area was 7% less in the over 85 age group than in the 65-75 age group.
  • Leg extension strength was 10% less in the over 85 age group than in the 65-75 age group.

This loss of muscle mass and strength is to be expected. Although the over 85 age group was consuming enough protein, they were not exercising on a regular basis. Consequently, they were experiencing sarcopenia, age-related loss of muscle mass.

The results of this 12-week resistance exercise intervention were impressive.

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 10% in the 65-75 age group and by 11% in the over 85 age group.
    • Quadriceps cross sectional area increased for everyone in the study, but the increase varied widely from individual to individual.
    • The increase varied from 1% to 18% in the 65-75 age group and from 6% to 21% in the over 85 age group.
  • Whole body lean muscle mass increased by 2% in both the 65-75 and over 85 age groups.
  • Appendicular lean muscle mass (lean muscle mass in the arms and legs) also increased by 2% in both groups.
  • Leg extension strength increased by 38% in the 65-75 age group and by 46% in the over 85 age group.
    • Once again, the increase in leg extension strength varied considerably from individual to individual. The increase varied from 5% to 76% in the 65-75 age group and from 26% to 70% in the over 85 age group.
  • Similar results were seen for leg press, lat pull down, chest press, horizontal row, and grip strength.

The authors concluded, “Prolonged [12 week] high intensity resistance exercise training increases muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in the aging population, with no differences between 65-75 and 85+ adults. The skeletal muscle adaptive response to resistance exercise training is preserved even in male and female adults older than 85 years.”

What Does It Take To Build Muscle In Your 80s?

Why did this study show the benefit of resistance exercise for building muscle mass in octogenarians when previous studies have come up short? The authors postulated this was due to differences in the subjects included in the study and the intensity, frequency, and duration of resistance exercise.

  • This study included only healthy, community dwelling seniors who could engage in a rigorous training program. Some previous studies included institutionalized seniors who may have been less healthy and frailer.
  • The resistance exercise training used in this study involved multiple sets on exercise machines three times a week at 60-80% of maximum intensity for a total of 12 weeks. Previous studies included 1-2 sets, once or twice a week, at lower intensity, and for a shorter duration.

Much more research needs to be done, but the take-home lessons appear to be:

  • It is possible to increase muscle mass in your 80s with sufficient protein and a sufficiently intense resistance exercise program.
  • Not every 80-year-old adult will be able to increase their muscle mass. At the very least, this and previous studies suggest that frail, institutionalized men and women in their 80s may not be able to increase their muscle mass.
    • Whether this is because their health conditions interfere with their muscle’s ability to build muscle, or they are simply unable to perform the high intensity exercises required to build muscle mass in their 80’s is unclear. More research is needed.
    • While everyone in this study increased muscle mass and strength, the increase varied widely from individual to individual (see above).

My guess is that some of the people in the study did not get enough protein in their diet to support an increase in muscle mass at 85 and older. The over 85 group averaged 1.2 gm of protein/kg body weight/day, but their intake ranged from 0.8gm/kg/day to 1.6 gm/kg/day.

However, the difference in gain of muscle mass and strength could have been due to almost anything. Unfortunately, this study was too small to reliably determine what caused the differences in response to the resistance training.

  • It may require a high intensity resistance exercise program to increase muscle mass in your 80s. Unfortunately, there are very few studies like this for people in their 80s. All we know is that this was a high intensity, high frequency, and long duration resistance exercise program, and it worked. Studies with lower intensity exercise programs have not worked. But nobody has done a study comparing the effectiveness of different intensity exercise programs for people in their 80s.
  • There are too few studies on what it takes for people in their 80s and beyond to stay fit and healthy. The authors of this report argued that this information is vital for guiding government programs designed to support an aging population. It is equally important for all of us who want to remain fit and healthy in our 80s and beyond.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

good news bad newsIn my previous “Health Tips From the Professor” I have discussed multiple studies looking at sarcopenia or age-related muscle loss.

The bad news is that we start losing muscle mass and strength around age 50, and the rate of decline starts to accelerate in our 60s and beyond. This is a normal part of aging. It affects all of us. And if left unchecked, it can have devastating effects on our quality of life in our golden years.

The good news is that we can slow and even reverse the age-related loss of muscle mass by a combination of adequate intake of protein, adequate intake of the essential amino acid leucine, and resistance exercise. Leucine intake is usually adequate when we rely on animal proteins as our main protein source but may be a concern if we rely primarily on plant proteins. So, let’s take a deeper look at protein and exercise requirements.

1) We need more protein to build muscle in our golden years than we did in our 30s. If you want more information on the studies supporting that statement, go to https://chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and type sarcopenia in the search box. Most experts in this field of study recommend around 1.2 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day rather than the RDA of 0.8 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day for people 65 or older who wish to maintain or increase muscle mass. This study suggests that 1.2 gm/kg/day is also sufficient for people who are 85 and older. 

Previous studies have shown that the protein is best utilized to preserve muscle mass when it is spread evenly throughout the day. That is a concern because many seniors get most of their protein in the evening meal. An article I shared recently showed that adding 20 grams of supplemental protein to the low-protein meals (typically breakfast and/or lunch) was sufficient to balance protein intake and minimize age-related muscle loss.

[Note: To help you with the calculations, 1.2 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day is equal to 0.54 gm of protein/pound of body weight/day. Some quick calculations show that amounts to 78 grams if you weigh 140, 95 grams if you weigh 170, and 112 grams if you weigh 200. Or to simplify, that amounts to 25-30 grams of protein/meal for most people – more if you weigh above 170 pounds.]

2) We need a higher intensity of resistance exercise to build muscle in our golden years than we did in our 30s. Several previous studies have hinted at that possibility. This study shows that a high intensity resistance exercise program is effective at building muscle mass for people 85 and above. Previous studies suggest that lower intensity exercise programs are not effective in this age group. 

This is an important finding because it is opposite to the usual recommendations for this age group. In the words of the authors, “At an advanced age, people are generally recommended to partake in low-intensive physical activities. We strongly advocate that resistance exercise should be promoted without restriction to support more active, healthy aging.”

Of course, the caveat is that this study excluded frail, institutionalized adults and people with health or physical limitations that would prevent them from participating in a high-intensity resistance exercise program.

So, here are my recommendations:

  • Discuss your desire to implement a high intensity resistance exercise program with your health professional. Ask them about any health issues or physical limitations that would affect the exercises you choose.
  • Ask your health professional to refer you to a physical therapist or personal trainer to design a high-intensity exercise program you can do at home that is appropriate to your health and physical condition. If the referral comes from your health professional, these sessions may be covered by insurance.
  • If you want to utilize the exercise equipment in a gym, start by having a personal trainer knowledgeable about working with people like you design a workout program for you. My personal preference is to continue working with a personal trainer who challenges me to maximize the intensity of my training while taking into account any temporary physical limitations I may be experiencing.

Finally, I recognize that the exercise program described in this study may be too intense for many of my readers. But I also suspect that none of you want to become so frail you can’t enjoy your golden years. So, do what you can. But do something.

The Bottom Line

Most Americans lose lean muscle mass as they age, a physiological process called sarcopenia. This loss of muscle mass leads to reduced mobility, a tendency to fall (which often leads to debilitating bone fractures) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all the illnesses that go along with obesity.

Fortunately, sarcopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. There are 3 things we can do to prevent it.

  • Optimize resistance exercise training.
  • Optimize protein intake.
  • Optimize leucine intake.

This week I reviewed an article that compared the effectiveness of a 12-week high intensity resistance exercise program for increasing muscle mass and strength with people in the 65-75 age group with those who were age 85 and above.

The results of this 12-week resistance exercise intervention were impressive.

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 10% in the 65-75 age group and by 11% in the over 85 age group.
  • Whole body lean muscle mass increased by 2% in both the 65-75 and over 85 age groups.
  • Leg extension strength increased by 38% in the 65-75 age group and by 46% in the over 85 age group.
  • Similar results were seen for leg press, lat pull down, chest press, horizontal row, and grip strength.

The authors concluded, “Prolonged [12 week] high intensity resistance exercise training increases muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in the aging population, with no differences between 65-75 and 85+ adults. The skeletal muscle adaptive response to resistance exercise training is preserved even in male and female adults older than 65 years.”

“At an advanced age, people are generally recommended to partake in low-intensive physical activities. We strongly advocate that resistance exercise should be promoted without restriction to support more active, healthy aging.”

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

Is Creatine Better Than Coffee For Sleep Deprivation?

by

The Effect Of Creatine On The Sleep-Deprived Brain 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

The role of creatine for muscle metabolism is well established. It has been used by athletes for years to optimize their exercise. It is both safe and effective for this purpose.

However, it’s use for optimizing brain function is more controversial. Clinical studies on this topic are conflicting. The problem is 3-fold:

  • Creatine does not cross the blood-brain barrier easily. So, the brain takes up creatine less efficiently than muscle.
  • Some people don’t need extra brain creatine. They make all they need.
  • There appears to be significant individual differences in the uptake of creatine into the brain and/or the effectiveness of creatine at improving brain function.

The authors of the article I am going to review summed up the existing research on creatine and brain function by saying:

  • Most healthy adults do not need extra creatine for brain function. Studies on healthy, non-stressed adults have typically shown no benefit of creatine supplementation.
  • However, there are several conditions that decrease brain creatine levels and/or increase brain energy needs, which creates a need for higher brain creatine levels. These conditions are:
    • Concussions and other forms of traumatic brain injury.
    • Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.
    • Hypoxia (reduced oxygen flow to the brain) caused by atherosclerotic narrowing of the carotid arteries, asthma, and COPD.
    • Depression.
    • Sleep deprivation.
  • Under these conditions, uptake of creatine into the brain appears to be enhanced, and creatine supplementation appears to improve brain function.

The authors of this study focused on sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation differs from the other conditions listed above in that it is episodic rather than chronic. So, rather than using smaller doses daily, they tested the effect of a single, high dose administered during the sleep deprivation.

In a previous study they had shown that a very high dose of creatine was effective at increasing brain creatine levels by 5% and reducing the symptoms of sleep deprivation by 10-25%.

For this study (A Gordji-Nejad et al, Nutrients, 18: 192, 2026) they repeated their experiments using a lower dosage to determine whether the brain benefits of creatine during sleep deprivation are dose dependent.

What Is Creatine And What Does It Do?

confusionI have discussed this topic at depth in an article from a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, so I will give the Cliff Notes version here.

Creatine is a storage form of cellular energy.

  • In muscle the best analogy would be a car battery. When we start the car, the battery provides the initial energy to get the engine going. Then, when we are cruising down the highway the kinetic energy generated by the turning of the driveshaft is stored in the battery, so it is fully charged the next time we need to start the car.
  • In our muscles, creatine is the “battery” that provides the initial energy to get our muscles going. And when we are at rest, we recharge our creatine “battery”, so we are ready the next time we need to spring into action.
  • In our brain, our creatine “battery” provides the extra energy our brain needs when it is under stress due to any of the conditions listed above – including sleep deprivation.

In our car, eventually the battery wears out and needs to be replaced. Here the analogy breaks down. Creatine is constantly being converted to creatinine and flushed out of the body, so we need a constant supply of new creatine to keep our cellular creatine “batteries” charged.

  • Our muscles can’t make creatine, so they rely on creatine made by other tissues in the body, diets high in animal protein, and/or creatine supplements. And because it is dependent on exogenous creatine sources, it is very efficient at taking up creatine from the bloodstream. That is why creatine supplements are so effective at improving muscle function.
  • Our brain normally makes all the creatine it needs, so it is inefficient at taking creatine from the bloodstream. However, when the brain is under stress due to traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative diseases, hypoxia, and sleep deprivation, its need for creatine is increased, and the efficiency of creatine uptake appears to be enhanced. Under these conditions, creatine supplements do appear to improve brain function.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors recruited 29 healthy subjects age 20-40 (average = 29) for the study.

  • 17 were female, 12 were male.
  • None of them reported sleep disorders, psychiatric or neurological conditions, or alcohol or drug abuse.
  • None of them smoked or took medication.

Consumption of caffeine and alcohol were prohibited for 48 hours prior to the study.

They were all well rested prior to the study. They were required to sleep for at least 7 hours every night for the previous two weeks and to record all sleep and awake times. The night before the study they were asked to go to bed by 11 PM and wake up at 7 AM.

The sleep-deprivation occurred over the next 21 hours. During this period the subjects were continuously observed to make sure they didn’t fall asleep. No exercise or cognitively stressful activity was allowed. The subjects were only allowed to drink water and eat non-protein snacks during the deprivation study.

The study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a crossover design. In a crossover study each subject serves as their own control. In the first phase of the study each patient was given 0.09 g of creatine per pound of body weight or a placebo in a double-blind manner (neither the patient nor the investigators knew who got the creatine and who got the placebo). After two weeks at least 7 hours of sleep a night, the deprivation portion of the study was repeated except that what the subjects took was reversed (those who received creatine the first time received the placebo the second time and vice versa).

The subjects were given a battery of tests four times during sleep deprivation. At each occurrence the subjects completed self-assessments for sleepiness and fatigue. They then were given tests to measure the speed and accuracy of seven different measures of mental acuity. The design of the sleep deprivation portion of the study was as follows:

  • Sleep deprivation started at 7 AM.
  • Baseline assessment occurred at 6:30 PM (11.5 hours without sleep).
  • The subjects were given creatine or a placebo at 9 PM (14 hours without sleep).
  • Testing was repeated at 12 PM, 2 AM, and 4 AM (17, 19, and 21 hours without sleep).

The Effect Of Creatine On The Sleep-Deprived Brain

Safe and effective creatine intake is proportional to our body weight. That’s why the authors of this study reported creation dose as grams of creatine per pound of body weight. However, you are not used to seeing it expressed that way, so let me give you a table to help you understand what these numbers mean.

Creatine g/lb to grams per serving
g/lb 120 lb 140 lb 200 lb Comments
0.045g/lb 5 gm 7 gm 9 gm This is the daily intake range you see recommended most often.
0.09 g/lb 10 gm 14 gm 18 gm The amount used in this study. It has been shown to be safe and effective for muscle gain.
0.16 g/lb 19 gm 25 gm 30 gm The amount used in their previous study. Some athletes use this much, but it is not widely studied.

With that in mind, here are the results of the study.

  • Creatine supplementation at this dose was well tolerated. There were no reports of gastrointestinal distress or other adverse physical effects.
  • Creatine supplementation had no significant effect on self-reported sleepiness or fatigue.
  • Creatine improved several measures of cognitive performance during sleep deprivation by 6-12%.
    • The cognitive benefits were most evident for logic, numerical ability, processing speed in language tasks, and psychomotor vigilance.
      • Psychomotor vigilance is how well an individual can maintain attention over time. It is assessed by measuring how long it takes subjects to respond to visual stimuli at random intervals. It is an important cognitive function for activities like driving a car.
  • Women and vegetarians benefitted more than men.

The authors concluded, “Our results show a dose of 0.09g/lb creatine is associated with reduced deterioration in cognitive performance during sleep deprivation. Although the effect is less pronounced than with a high dose of 0.16 g/lb, there is still an improvement of up to 12%…

The decrease in improvement compared to high dose shows that cerebral cellular creatine uptake and the improvement effect during sleep deprivation are dose-dependent.

As the administered dose of 0.09 g/lb is [known to be] safe, future studies could focus on adding additional components or making modifications to increase cellular uptake and enhance the effect. Furthermore, the findings of our study provide a basis for further research to determine the specific dosage for different population groups.”

Is Creatine Better Than Coffee For Sleep Deprivation?

Question MarkLet’s return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article. You didn’t sleep a wink last night. Your brain is fuzzy. Should you reach for a cup of coffee? Or is creatine better than coffee for sleep deprivation?

There are two answers to this question.

The first answer is, “We don’t know”. Coffee has been around forever. Everyone “knows” it helps when we are sleep deprived. But it has never gone through the kind of rigorous testing that creatine was given in this study. And it has never been compared in head-to-head testing with creatine.

The cognitive benefits from creatine were modest, so it is likely that coffee is more effective – but we don’t know for sure.

The second answer is, “It depends”. There are many people who can’t or prefer not to drink coffee.

  • For some people coffee causes jitters, anxiety, and heart palpitations.
  • For others it causes gastrointestinal disturbances.
  • Some people prefer to avoid stimulants of any kind.
  • For many people coffee causes insomnia. And if you have had a sleepless night, the thing you want the most is restful sleep, not more insomnia.

And, if we are sleep deprived, it’s usually not just one cup of coffee. It’s several cups of coffee or one of those “monster drinks” with tons of caffeine. And regular consumption of these high-caffeine drinks is linked to all the issues listed above plus:

  • High blood pressure, cardiac events, severe headaches, and even kidney issues.

If you are someone with any of these concerns, it is useful to know that there is a non-stimulant alternative that can help you think more clearly when you are sleep deprived.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Simply put, this study suggests that creatine may be an alternative to coffee and other caffeinated beverages when you are sleep deprived.

This study shows that a single dose of 10-20 grams of creatine, depending on your body weight, can give you a modest increase in mental clarity if taken while you are severely sleep deprived. While somewhat higher than the dosages most supplement companies recommend, this is well within the dose range that has been shown to be safe and effective for enhancing muscle function.

The authors of the study said that “Future studies could focus on adding additional components or making modifications to increase cellular uptake and enhance the effectiveness of creatine.

For muscle cells, insulin enhances the uptake of creatine. So, if creatine is taken with a meal that is high in carbohydrate, uptake may be increased by up to 60%. We don’t know whether insulin also increases creatine uptake in the brain, but until further research comes along it is worth a try.

Note: Studies also show that combining creatine with a shake that is high in both carbohydrate and protein after a workout optimizes both creatine uptake and muscle repair. In today’s world of low-carbohydrate protein shakes that is a paradigm shift!

In a previous study, the same authors showed that a single dose of 20-30 grams of creatine, depending on body weight, was even more effective at enhancing mental clarity during severe sleep deprivation. That is a dosage that has not been extensively tested.

Many athletes consume creatine dosages in that range with no apparent ill effects. However, athletes aren’t always the best examples of safe supplement use.

Whichever dose of creatine you choose, there are some cautions you should be aware of.

  • Creatinine, the breakdown product of creatine metabolism, puts some stress on the kidneys.
    • While this is not a problem if your kidneys are healthy, you should consult with your health professional about taking creatine if you have any indications of impaired kidney function.
  • Adequate hydration (preferably with water) is important because creatine pulls water with it as it enters your muscle cells.
    • This plumps up your muscles, which is great if you are a body builder.
    • This dehydrates you, which can cause side effects like muscle cramps, headaches, nausea, stomach cramps, and diarrhea.
    • These side effects are usually transitory and can be avoided or reduced by adequate hydration. If symptoms continue despite adequate hydration, you should lower the dose or discontinue creatine supplementation.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at whether a creatine supplement could help prevent the loss of cognitive function associated with severe sleep deprivation. The study showed:

  • Creatine improved several measures of cognitive performance during sleep deprivation.
  • The cognitive benefits were most evident for logic, numerical ability, processing speed in language tasks, and psychomotor vigilance.
  • Women and vegetarians benefitted more than men.
  • The effect was dose dependent.

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 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.

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

by

What Is The Truth About Meat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Vegans will tell you that any meat is bad for you. Keto enthusiasts haven’t found a meat they don’t like. To them grains and most fruits and vegetables are the problem.

But what about those of us who aren’t at either extreme? Which meat, if any, should be part of a healthy diet? And how much of them should we eat?

For years the paradigm had been clear:

  • Fish was best, especially fish rich in omega-3s. They were good for your heart and your brain. And some studies suggested that high intake of omega-3-rich fish might help you live longer.
  • Poultry and other white meats were neutral.
  • Red meat was probably bad for you. It was high in saturated fat and cholesterol, and some studies linked it to an increased risk of heart disease. Plus, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, listed it as a probable carcinogen. [Note: Recent studies have questioned concerns about red meat. I will discuss this below.]
  • Processed meats were considered a “no-no” The IARC listed processed meat as a definite carcinogen for humans based on studies linking it to colon, stomach, lung, and pancreatic cancers. It is also linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

However, most of these studies were done in the United States. And our diet is very different from that of many other countries.

That’s why a recent study (R Iqbal et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 114:1049-1058, 2021) caught my eye. The study was designed to measure the association between unprocessed red meat & poultry and processed meat intake with the risk both mortality and major cardiovascular disease with cancer as a secondary end point. And the study used data from 21 countries around the world except the United States.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe authors used data from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The study is a large-scale (164,007 individuals), prospective (meaning it follows the individuals over time rather than taking measurements from them at a single time) study. The individuals in the study were aged 35-70 years and were followed for an average of 9.5 years.

The individuals came from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

  • The low-income countries included Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.
  • The middle-income countries included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Iran, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey.
  • The high-income countries included Canada, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates. [Note: The United States was not included in the study.]

At the beginning of the study and at 3, 6, and 9 years the following data were collected from everyone enrolled in the study.

  • Demographic information (age, sex, location, education, wealth index, and smoking status).
  • Lifestyle information (diet and physical activity).
  • Health history.
  • Medication use.
  • Cardiovascular events and mortality.

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

The authors compared high intake of processed meats (5 ounces per week, the equivalent of two sausages/week) with zero intake of processed meats. They reported that high intake of processed meats increased the risk of:

  • Mortality by 51%.
  • Major cardiovascular disease by 46%.
  • Non-cardiovascular mortality by 50%
  • Cancer by 84%.
  • Heart attack by 62%.
  • Stroke by 56%.

Furthermore, even as little as 1.5 ounces of processed meat per week significantly increased the risk of mortality.

For red meat and poultry, the authors compared high intake (9 ounces per week) with low intake (2 ounces per week). For both red meat and poultry they did not find any association between high weekly intake and any of the health outcomes.

[I would note however, that many Americans consume 4 ounces of chicken or an 8-ounce steak at dinner – that’s one meal on one day. The corresponding weekly intake would be 28 ounces of chicken or 56 ounces of red meat. That’s significantly higher than the highest weekly intake used in this study.]

The authors concluded, “We observed no significant association between the consumption of unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and health outcomes. And higher intake of processed meat was associated with higher risks of mortality and cardiovascular disease. These findings may indicate that limiting the intake of processed meat should be encouraged.”

In my opinion, there are so many studies linking the consumption of processed meat with heart disease, cancer, and premature death that the last sentence of their conclusion should have said, “These findings unambiguously confirm that limiting the intake of processed meats should be encouraged.”

What Is The Truth About Meat? 

truthRed Meat:

Yes, there is a lot of confusion about red meat. Many studies, like this one, find no adverse health effects associated with red meat consumption. That has led many experts to conclude that the dangers of red meat have been greatly exaggerated.

I think we should dig a little deeper. Most of the studies showing that red meat consumption increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and mortality have been done in this country. So, perhaps we should be asking what is different about red meat consumption in our country.

There are several factors to consider:

  • Cooking Methods: The authors of this article pointed out that we often grill our meat at high temperatures which causes the formation of cancer-causing chemicals, while many of the countries in the PURE database stew their red meat at much lower temperatures.
  • Diet Context: As I have explained in a previous article of Health Tips From the Professor, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are the antidotes to the cancer-causing chemicals formed when we cook red meat. And they bind to cholesterol in the intestine and flush it out of the body. Finally, they dilute the saturated fat in red meat with polyunsaturated fats, which helps create a healthier balance of fats.

In this country we often pair our steaks with French fries or a baked potato loaded with butter and sour cream. However, in low- and middle-income countries red meat is an expensive luxury and is often used as a garnish to dishes containing lots of vegetables and whole grains.

  • Amount Consumed: As a mentioned above, the amount of red meat most Americans consume in a week far exceeds the highest weekly intake of red meat in this study. The highest weekly consumption of red meat in this study is more consistent with using red meat as a garnish than as a main course.

Poultry:

For poultry, there is no confusion. Studies done in this country also find no association between poultry consumption and cardiovascular disease, cancer, or mortality. That may be due to a healthier fat profile and the ways in which poultry is usually cooked.

Processed Meat:

For processed meat, there is also no confusion. Virtually every published study from across the world agrees that it increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, and premature death. And the effect is not trivial. This study suggests that just 2 sausages a week is enough to increase your risk of premature death by 50%! So, the answer to the question, “Will processed meat kill you?” appears to be, “Yes”.

The authors of this article pointed out that the saturated fat and cholesterol in processed meat and red meat were very similar. They didn’t mention it, but the cooking techniques are also similar. So, neither of these explain why processed meat is so bad for us.

However, the amounts of preservatives and food additives in processed and unprocessed meats differ greatly. Based on this, the authors of the study and many other experts postulate that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks of processed meats.

What Does this Mean For You? 

This study agrees with many other studies showing that processed meats are bad for us. The authors recommend limiting your intake of processed meats.

However, their data show that as little as two strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half a large sausage per week significantly increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death. Based on that, my advice would be to avoid processed meats as much as possible.

As I described above, most experts feel that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks associated with processed meats.

Some studies suggest that nitrates in processed meats may be the main culprit. Based on that belief, some food companies are offering nitrate-free processed meats as a healthier option.

However, there still may be some additives in nitrate-free processed meats (read the label carefully), and we have no clinical studies showing that the nitrate-free processed meats in the marketplace are good for us.

Red meat is more confusing. This study and others suggest it poses no health hazards. And many experts are telling you that the warnings about consuming red meat were overblown. They are telling you that red meat is good for you.

However, some studies suggest that red meat increases your risk of heart disease, cancer and premature death. When you examine the data behind the studies, I think that better advice would be that red meat can be good for you or bad for you depending on three factors:

  • Portion size: We should think of red meat as a garnish rather than a main course – 3-4 ounces is a healthy portion size. 8-12 ounces may be too much.
  • Cooking method: Many of the bad things associated with red meat are the result of high temperature cooking, especially over a flame or on a grill. Choose low temperature cooking methods whenever possible.
  • Diet context: Whole fruits, vegetables and whole grains are the antidotes to all the bad things associated with red meat. 3-4 ounces of red meat in a vegetable stir fry or green salad is likely to be much better for you than an 8-ounce steak with French fries.

Also, red meat already has more than enough saturated fat and cholesterol. Adding foods or sauces high in fat and cholesterol may overload the body’s ability to safely process them. But adding vegetables or vegetable oils helps to restore a better balance between good and bad fats.

Finally, this and other studies agree that white meat is healthy. My only advice is:

  • Avoid white meat that has been fried (especially by fast food restaurants that only change their oil every 20,000 miles) or cooked with fatty sauces.
  • Think of the whole diet rather than just the protein source. White meat will be the healthiest as part of a whole food, primarily plant-based diet.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study reported that eating as 5 ounces of processed foods per week increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death by 50%. That is equivalent to two sausages per week!) The authors of the study recommended that you limit your intake of processed meats.

However, the study showed that even as little as 1.5 ounces (2 strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half of a large sausage) per week significantly increases your risk of all three. Based on that data, my recommendation is to consider avoiding processed meat altogether.

The study reported that unprocessed red and white meat are not associated with increased health risks. I put those findings into the context of other published studies on the topic. I discuss my recommendations for unprocessed red and white meat in the article above.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 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.

Are GLP-1 Drugs Just A Temporary Fix?

by

Why Does The Weight Come Back?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

It is no secret that obesity has become an epidemic in this country. According to the CDC:

  • The prevalence of obesity topped 40% in 2023.
    • This represents a 3-fold increase over the past 60 years. [Note: Genetics doesn’t change that fast. This is a lifestyle disease.]
    • Severe obesity has increased by 26% in just the last 9 years!

And obesity is deadly:

  • It significantly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and several types of cancer.
  • Severe obesity reduces life expectancy by 10-14 years!

It is no wonder that GLP-1 drugs have been hailed as a medical miracle.

  • Participants in clinical trials of GLP-1 drugs lose 15-20% of their body within 15-18 months.
  • Because GLP-1 drugs affect appetite, they don’t require participants to make any hard lifestyle changes [Hint: This is part of the problem.]

But studies show that most people stay on GLP-1 drugs for 12 months or less.

  • In some cases, that is because minor side effects (nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and stomach pain) become too much of an annoyance over time.
  • In other cases, the cost of GLP-1 drugs becomes too much of a burden over time.
  • And weight loss often plateaus at around 12 months, reducing the incentive to stay on the drug.

It is probably a good thing that most people don’t stay on GLP-1 drugs long term because the risk of serious side effects (severe muscle loss, depression, suicidal thoughts) is cumulative. Those risks increase with long-term drug usage.

But what happens when someone discontinues a GLP-1 drug. Does the weight stay off, or does it come roaring back. In short, are GLP-1 drugs just another “yo-yo” diet fad?

In this article, I will address four questions:

#1: Are GLP-1 drugs just a temporary fix?

#2: Why does the weight come back?

#3: Would supplementation make a difference?

#4: What does this mean for you?

I will answer the first question by reviewing a recently published study. For questions 2 and 3 I will refer to studies I reviewed in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Question 4 will represent my best advice to anyone who wants to lose significant weight and keep it off.

Are GLP-1 Drugs A Temporary Fix?

This study (S West et al, The British Medical Journal, 392:e085304, 2026) was a systematic review of 37 studies with 9,341 participants that looked at weight regain following weight loss with GLP-1 and similar drugs. The average length of weight-loss treatment in these studies was 39 (11-176) weeks followed by an average follow-up period of 32 (4-104) weeks.

The data were compared with data obtained from a previous study by the same authors of weight regain following behavioral (diet and exercise) change weight management programs.

What the authors found was:

  • Weight regain following GLP-1-aided weight loss was almost a pound per month, which is 4 times faster than weight regain following weight loss for patients on behavioral management programs.
    • Based on these numbers, weight was projected to return to the starting point within 1.5 years for the GLP-1-aided weight loss compared to 3.9 years following behavioral change programs.
  • Markers of disease risk (hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and triglycerides) were projected to return to the starting level within 1.4 years for GLP-1-aided weight loss compared to 5 years following behavioral change programs.
  • Weight regain was faster following GLP-1-aided weight loss than following behavioral modification, independent of the extent of initial weight loss.

The authors concluded, “This review found that cessation of WMM (weight management medications) is followed by rapid regain and reversal of beneficial effects on cardiovascular markers. Regain after WMM was faster than after BWMP (behavioral weight management programs). These findings suggest caution in…use of these drugs without a more comprehensive approach to weight management.”

The authors went on to say, “This evidence suggests that despite their success in achieving initial weight loss, these drugs alone may not be sufficient for long term weight control.”

Why Does The Weight Come Back?

Confused DoctorI addressed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Here is an excerpt from that article:

The miracle of GLP-1 drugs is that they suppress appetite, which makes it much easier to lose weight.

  • Snacks are no longer appealing.
  • Large portion sizes leave you feeling bloated.
  • It’s easy to skip meals because you just aren’t hungry.

You no longer have to struggle to eat less. It just comes naturally. But this miracle is also a snare.

Because GLP-1 is a drug, not a diet plan, it’s dispensed like any other drug.

  • Your doctor gives you a GLP-1 prescription. If you are lucky, they may give you a “one-size-fits-all” handout on how to lose weight while you are using it. For example, in a recent study:
    • Only 20% of patients were referred by their doctor to a dietitian. The other 80% received little or no information on how to change their diet and lifestyle.
  • When you pick up the drug from the pharmacy, you get a package insert listing the side effects but no information on how to change your diet.
  • And GLP-1 drugs are increasingly sold online where you are given even less information about diet and lifestyle change.

The results are predictable:

A recent study (S Hrisakeva et al, Journal of Marketing Research, December 18, 2025) looked at the grocery buying habits of GLP-1 users.

The study found that:

  • The initial change in food purchases was positive.
    • By 6 months of GLP-1 use, grocery spending fell 5.3%, with a notable decrease of snack, sweet, and fast-food purchases.
  • But the improved eating habits were short-lived.
    • After stopping GLP-1 use, 33% of former GLP-1 users reverted to their previous food purchase habits.
    • Even worse, many of them ended up with less healthy food purchases than before they started.
    • For example, spending on candy and chocolate increased, suggesting that their cravings came back stronger than before they started on GLP-1 drugs.

Would Supplementation Help?

MultivitaminsWhenever you significantly decrease caloric intake, you increase the risk of nutritional deficiencies.

Simply put, every bite counts. When you cut calories, you need to select nutrient dense foods. But that is advice no one is giving GLP-1 users. Again, the results are predictable.

In a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, I reviewed a recent study on the nutritional adequacy of the diets of GLP-1 users.

That study found that:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.
  • Their diets were low in fiber (14 grams). This is half the recommended intake of fiber.
  • Their diets were deficient for calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, choline, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin D, and vitamin E.
    • Long term suboptimal nutrient intakes can have health consequences, but these are deficiencies that can easily be prevented by taking a high-quality multivitamin/multimineral supplement.
  • Only 10% were consuming enough protein to prevent the loss of muscle mass associated with GLP-1 use for weight loss, and loss of muscle is a concerning issue.
    • Most seniors are already struggling to maintain muscle mass.
    • Loss of muscle mass decreases basal metabolic rate (the rate at which your body burns calories 24 hours a day). This may help explain the rapid weight gain following discontinuation of GLP-1 drugs.

What Does This Mean For You?

QuestionsGLP-1 drugs may seem like a modern medical miracle. You can effortlessly lose significant weight (15-20% of your starting weight) within a year and a half. But there are two important questions you face.

#1: When you discontinue the GLP-1 drug, what happens next?

  • If you stay on the drug, your cumulative risk of serious side effects increases over time – plus you are saddled with burdensome costs for a lifetime.
  • If you discontinue the drug without a commitment to permanent lifestyle change (both diet and exercise), your weight will come back – along with the weight-associated risk of serious diseases.

So, my recommendations are obvious. Either:

  • Choose programs that include lifestyle change along with GLP-1 drugs, or…
  • Enroll in a lifestyle change program and add GLP-1 for additional weight loss once you have become comfortable with your new lifestyle.

And, of course, you should commit to permanent lifestyle change, so you can successfully maintain your new, healthy weight once you have discontinued the GLP-1 drug,

#2: What should you do while on GLP-1 drugs? There are two major concerns to consider:

  • Whenever you severely restrict caloric intake, you may have trouble achieving the recommended intake of essential vitamins and minerals.
    • This is why it is important to select nutrient-dense foods while on GLP-1 drugs – another way of saying the lifestyle change should go hand in hand with GLP-1 drug use.
    • This is also why a well-designed multivitamin/multimineral supplement is especially important while on GLP-1 drugs.
  • Whenever you lose weight quickly, you tend to lose muscle mass – and GLP-1 drugs seem to increase the rate of muscle loss.
    • Most experts recommend 60-90 grams of protein per day to minimize muscle loss while on GLP-1 drugs. That protein should be spread evenly across meals to maximize absorption and utilization of the protein – which amounts to 20-30 grams of protein per meal. So, my recommendations are:
      • Focus on high-protein foods like lean meats, eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, tofu, and legumes. Once again, you need to make every bite count.
      • Because GLP-1 drugs significantly reduce your appetite, getting all the protein you need high-protein foods will be difficult. This is where protein supplements can play an important role. Choose supplements that are high in protein and low in calories without relying on artificial ingredients.
      • And, of course, don’t forget the exercise component. Remember the simple equation: Adequate protein + exercise = muscle

The Bottom Line

GLP-1 drugs seem like a modern medical miracle. They allow you to effortlessly lose significant weight and reduce the disease risks associated with obesity.

But does that weight stay off once you discontinue using the GLP-1 drugs? The drug companies would like you to think so. But a recent study suggests that it isn’t true.

The study shows that most people regain the weight, and the associated health risks, within a year and a half of discontinuing GLP-1 drugs. In other words, this study suggests that GLP-1 weight loss is no different than the yo-yo diets of the past.

In this article I review the study and discuss why the weight returns, what role supplements may play, and what this means for you if you are considering a GLP-1 drug for weight loss.

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

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

 ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 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.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

by

Eating For A Healthy Planet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Earth DayEarth Day is tomorrow. So, it is time for my annual reminder that what you eat affects a lot more than just your health. It also affects the health of our planet. Once again, it’s time to ask yourself, “Could what you eat save the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment?

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can The Foods You Eat Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Factory FarmWhen they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
    • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
    • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
    • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
    • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
    • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

Food ChoicesWhen they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
    • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.
    • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. 

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.] 

    • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eating For A Healthy Planet

Planetary DietIn the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Did The Commission Recommend About Food Production?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.

2) Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.

3) Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would           be two-fold:

  • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
  • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

The short answer is, “Yes, what we eat can go a long way towards protecting the health of our planet.”

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak on occasion, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Could what you eat save the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

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

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 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.

Can Folate Prevent Obesity In Adolescents?

by

When Pigs Fly

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

obesity is toxicThe obesity epidemic has reached our children!

  • The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has increased 3-fold in the past 30 years.

According to the CDC:

  • In 2023 almost 20% of US children and adolescents (ages 6-17) were obese.
    • And if you expand the category to overweight AND obese the percentage is over 30%.
  • The medical costs for treating obese children and adolescents in 2023 was $1.3 billion. That’s:
    • $116 higher per person for obese children than children of normal weight.
    • $310 higher per person for severely obese children than children of normal weight.

In the short-term, obesity in children and adolescents affects:

  • Growth
  • Hormone balance.
  • Self-image and psychological wellness.

Longer term, obesity in children and adolescents increases the risk of:

  • Heart Disease.
  • Diabetes and other metabolic disorders.
  • Certain cancers.
  • Premature death.

That’s why recent headlines suggesting that folate decreases the risk of obesity in children and adolescents were so intriguing.

  • We know that around 13% of boys and 40% of girls aged 12-15 have inadequate folate intake.
  • Could something as simple as a folate supplement decrease the risk of your child or teenager becoming obese?

Maybe. But before you rush out and buy folate supplements for your children, perhaps we should examine the study (F Yan et al. BMC Pediatrics, 26: 141, 2026) behind the headlines and see if there is a simpler explanation of the data.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThis study utilized data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) that is conducted by the CDC on a continuous basis. This particular study utilized data collected from 49,693 Americans of all ages and ethnicities between 2009 and 2018.

For this study, children were classified as ages 6-11 years (4458 individuals) and adolescents as ages 12-19 years (4946 individuals).

Dietary folate intake was calculated from two 24-hour dietary recalls spaced 3-10 days apart.

  • The data only included folates from food sources and did not include any dietary supplements.
  • The first dietary recall interview was conducted in person and the second by phone.
  • Daily folate intake was calculated as folate intake in mcg per 1,000 calories of food (mcg/1,000 calories).
  • Finally, the participants were divided into quartiles: Q1 <143, Q2 143-182, Q3 182-235, Q4 ≥235, all in units of mcg/1,000 calories.

The study correlated folate intake with both overall overweight/obesity and central obesity.

  • Overweight/obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ than the sex- and age-specific 85Th percentile for BMI.
  • Central obesity was defined as a waist circumference ≥ than the sex- and age-specific 90th percentile corrected for height.

Can Folate Prevent Obesity In Adolescents?

folic acidThe data appeared to be convincing. For example:

In the total population of children plus adolescents (9,405 individuals):

  • Folate intake was negatively corelated with obesity.
  • When folate intake was analyzed as a continuous variable, for every unit increase of dietary folate intake:
    • The percentage of overweight/obese children and adolescents decreased by 11%.
    • The percentage of children and adolescents with central obesity decreased by 13%.
  • When folate intake was analyzed by quartiles.
    • When quartile 2 (folate intake of 143-182) was compared to quartile 1 (folate intake <143), overweight/obesity decreased by 26% and central obesity by 23%.
    • When quartile 3 (folate intake of 182-235) was compared to quartile 1, overweight/obesity decreased by 29% and central obesity by 26%.
    • When quartile 4 (folate intake ≥235) was compared to quartile 1, overweight/obesity decreased by 35% and central obesity decreased by 36%.

As you might have guessed from the previous data, the effect of folate on the risk of obesity/overweight and central obesity was non-linear. There was an inflection point around 192 mcg/1,000 calories.

    • When folate intake was below 192 mcg/1,000 calories, an increase of 100 mcg/1,000 calories decreased the risk of overweight/obesity and central obesity by 35%.
    • When folate intake was above 192 mcg/1,000 calories, the effect of additional folate intake was not statistically significant.

When they broke down the data by age and gender:

  • The effect of folate intake on overweight/obesity and central obesity was not significant in children.
  • However, the effect of folate intake on overweight/obesity and central obesity was highly significant in adolescents and the effect was gender specific.
    • When comparing folate intake in the Q4 range (≥235 mcg/1,000 calories) to the Q1 range (<143 mcg/1,000 calories) overweight/obesity:
      • Was reduced by 47% in men and 50% in women.
    • When comparing folate intake in the Q4 range to the Q1 range central obesity:
      • Was reduced by 58% in women, but no statistically significant decrease was seen in men.

The authors concluded, “This cross-sectional study indicates that higher dietary folate is associated with lower odds of overweight/obesity and central obesity in children and adolescents in the United States. The association exhibits non-linear characteristics with potential thresholds of 190 mcg/1,000 calories and 195 mcg/1,000 calories, respectively. It is worth noting that this association is mainly significant in the adolescent population. This study reveals a possible dose-response relationship between dietary folate and obesity in children and adolescents.”

When Pigs Fly

If Pigs Could FlyIt would be easy to accept the conclusions of these authors at face value. After all, the statistical correlation between higher folate intake and the risk of obesity in adolescents was very strong.

And the authors invoked a lot of impressive sounding metabolic mumbo-jumbo to explain how folate could affect appetite and body weight. [I’m qualified to call it mumbo-jumbo because I taught human metabolism to medical students for 40 years.]

You might be tempted to rush out and buy a folate supplement for your teenager, especially if they are starting to get a bit plump. But then, you might think, “Wait. It couldn’t be that simple. It just doesn’t sound plausible that folate intake has anything to do with obesity”.

The 16th century English and Scotts had a phrase for impossible events. They were things that only happened “When pigs fly”. The original version of the saying was, “When pigs fly with their tails forward.” In other words, the pigs were not only flying. They were flying backwards.

What Could Go Wrong?

SkepticAs I said above, the inverse association between folate intake and obesity in adolescents was very strong. What could go wrong? As Mark Twain said years ago, “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics.” Let me explain.

This was an association study. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (folate intake) and an outcome (obesity). But, for the results to be reliable they need to be corrected for other variables that affect the same outcome. There are two kinds of variables – known variables and confounding variables.

  • The known variables for this study were age, sex, race, poverty level, physical activity, and total energy intake. They were all corrected for in this study.
  • “Confounding variables” are unknown variables that also affect the outcome of the study. But since they are unknown, they are not corrected for.

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

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

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

In this study there was an inverse correlation between folate consumption and energy intake (calories consumed per day). The authors focused on the decreased energy intake associated with high folate intake. They postulated several mechanisms to explain this correlation, but their arguments were weak.

They should have been focusing on the other end of the spectrum. Adolescents in the lowest quartile of folate intake were consuming 10% more calories than those in the top quartile, yet their folate intake was 65% less.

The authors should have been asking, “How do you consume 10% more calories and end up with 65% less folate?” The answer is obvious.

  • The adolescents in the lowest quartile must be consuming a lot more highly processed foods – otherwise know as junk and convenience foods.

So, let’s ask what else we know about the situation:

  • Adolescents like to eat junk food.
  • There is strong correlation between consumption of highly processed foods and obesity.
  • The mechanisms underlying the correlation between highly processed foods and obesity have been well defined, and they have nothing to do with folate intake.
  • Highly processed food consumption was an obvious confounding variable, but the authors never asked what foods the adolescents in each folate quartile were eating.

This is sounding a lot like the correlation between ice cream consumption and death. The pigs are flying.

So, if you want your teens to be slim and healing, don’t reach for a folate supplement. Instead, try to convince your teens to cut back on their junk food consumption.

The Bottom Line

A recent study found a strong inverse association between folate intake and obesity in adolescents. For example:

  • When the highest folate intake was compared to the lowest, the risk of overweight and obesity was decreased by 35%.

However, you can’t believe every published study. In this case, the authors made a critical mistake in interpreting their data. The actual interpretation of their data should have been much different.

For more details about this study, what the study should have concluded, and what the study means for you, read the article above.

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

 

Can You Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease By 90%?

by

The Effect Of Ultra-Processed Foods On Heart Disease Risk
 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

strong heartHeart disease is a killer. It continues to be the leading cause of death – both worldwide and in industrialized countries like the United States and the European Union. When we look at heart disease trends, it is a good news – bad news situation.

  • The good news is that heart disease deaths are continuing to decline in adults over 70.
    • The decline among senior citizens is attributed to improved treatment of heart disease and more seniors following heart-healthy diets.
  • The bad news is that heart disease deaths are starting to increase in younger adults, something I reported in an earlier issue of “Health Tips From the Professor.”
    • The reason for the rise in heart disease deaths in young people is less clear. However, the obesity epidemic, junk and convenience foods, and the popularity of fad diets all likely play a role.

Everyone has a magic diet to reduce the risk of heart disease. The American Heart Association tells us to avoid fats, especially saturated fats. Vegans tell us to avoid animal protein. Paleo and Keto enthusiasts tell us carbs are the problem.

But what if we eliminated junk and convenience food AND switched to a really healthy diet? How much would that reduce heart disease risk? A recent study (Y Willett et al, The American Journal of Medicine, in press, 2026) looked at the first part of that question. It looked at the effect of ultra-processed food (what we call junk and convenience foods) consumption on the risk of developing heart disease.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe scientists analyzed data from 4787 participants in the most recently published (2021 to 2023) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The average age of participants in the survey was 55 years, with 56% of them being women.

All the participants in this study had completed a dietary survey of everything they ate over the last two days. They also reported whether they had ever experienced a heart attack or stroke.

Ultra-processed foods were defined as foods that are industrially modified and loaded with added fats, sugars, starches, salts, and chemical additives.

The percentage of ultra-processed foods in their diet was calculated, and the participants were divided into quartiles based on the percentage of ultra-processed foods they consumed.

Participants with the highest quartile of ultra-processed food consumption were compared to those in the lowest quartile with respect to the risk of cardiovascular disease (self-reported heart attack or stroke). The data were corrected for age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and income.

The Effect Of Ultra-Processed Foods On Heart Disease Risk

Fast Food DangersThe results were striking:

  • The participants in the highest quartile for ultra-processed food consumption had a 47% higher risk of heart disease compared to those in the lowest quartile for ultra-processed food consumption.

The authors concluded, “Adults who consumed the highest amount of ultra-processed foods had a statistically significant 47% increased risk of heart disease. Large scale randomized trials are needed, but in the meantime, health care providers should advise patients to decrease consumption of ultra-processed foods in addition to adopting other therapeutic lifestyle changes and adjunctive drug therapies of proven benefit.”

The authors recognized the difficulty of making those changes in a world where ultra-processed foods are ubiquitous and cheap.

However, they drew parallels to tobacco use in this country. They said, “Just as it took decades for the dangers of smoking to become widely accepted, reducing reliance on ultra-processed foods may take time. This is partly due to the influence of large multinational companies that dominate the food market. In addition, many people face limited access to healthier food options.”

They went on to say, “Addressing ultra-processed foods isn’t just about individual choices – it’s about creating environments where the healthy option is the easy option.”

Can You Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease By 90%?

The short answer is, “probably not”. But you can reduce the risk of heart disease by a lot – and probably by a lot more than 47%.

That’s because this study did not look at what the participants were replacing the ultra-processed foods with. Some participants may have replaced them with whole food, primarily plant-based diets. Others may have replaced ultra-processed foods with whole food, meat-based diets high in saturated fats.

So, let’s look at the other side of the equation – how much you can reduce your risk of heart disease by eating a healthier diet. In a recent issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, I reviewed a meta-analysis published in 2022 that looked at 99 clinical studies with tens of thousands of participants that measured the associations between foods or food groups and heart disease risk.

That study reported that:

  • Processed Meat: A single serving of processed meat increased heart disease risk by 27% to 44%.
  • Red Meat: Unprocessed red meat increased heart disease risk by as much as 27% – but only at ≥3 servings per day. The results with lower intakes were inconsistent – some studies showed increased risk, but others did not.
  • Poultry, Eggs, and Dairy Foods: They did not appear to affect heart disease risk.
  • Fish: Two to four servings per week of fatty fish decreased heart disease risk by around 12%.
  • Fruit: Two servings per day of fruit reduced heart disease risk by 21-32%.Vegan Foods
  • Vegetables: Two servings of vegetables per day reduced heart disease risk by 18-21%.
  • Legumes (beans and peas): Four servings per week reduced the risk of heart disease by around 14%.
  • Nuts: One serving (a handful) per day reduced the risk of heart disease by around 25%. 
  • Whole Grains: Two servings of whole grains per day reduced the risk of heart disease by 25%-34%.
  • Overall: When heart-healthy foods were consumed as part of the Mediterranean diet heart disease risk was reduced by 47%. Similar overall reductions in heart disease risk are likely with other heart-healthy diets like DASH, MIND, Flexitarian (flexible semi-vegetarian), and vegan diets.

In summary:

  • The first study shows that eliminating ultra-processed foods (junk and convenience foods) from your diet can decrease heart disease risk by 47% – but doesn’t tell us what the ultra-processed foods were replaced with. And it would take a much larger study to determine which food swaps were most effective at reducing heart disease risk.
  • The second study was a meta-analysis that told us that eating more fish and plant foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet can decrease your risk of heart disease by 47% – but doesn’t tell us what those healthy foods were replacing. And many of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis were conducted when ultra-processed food consumption was much less than it is today.

It would be tempting to add 47% plus 47% and conclude that eliminating ultra-processed food consumption and replacing ultra-processed foods with heart-healthy foods could decrease your risk of heart disease by 94%. But it’s not that simple. There are too many unanswered questions from these studies.

But it is safe to say that if we eliminated ultra-processed foods AND replaced them with heart-healthy foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet, we should be able to reduce our heart disease risk by more than 47% – perhaps much more.

What Do These Studies Mean For You?

There are two important lessons from these studies:

#1: Eliminating ultra-processed foods from your diet will significantly decrease your risk of heart disease.

And it isn’t just heart disease. Other recent studies have shown that eliminating ultra-processed foods from your diet helps you:

  • Control your weight (It is perhaps the most important lifestyle change to make if you want to maintain GLP-1-aided weight loss).
  • Reduce your risk of cancer.
  • Reduce your risk of diabetes.
  • Reduce your risk of inflammatory diseases.
  • Reduce anxiety and depression.
  • Increase your healthspan (your healthy years).

In short, ultra-processed foods are killers.

#2: Replacing ultra-processed foods with heart-healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and fish) in the context of a healthy diet (Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, Flexitarian, and vegan, for example) is likely to decrease your risk of heart disease even more.

  • And if your diet consists of mostly heart-healthy foods, you can add moderate amounts of heart-neutral foods (poultry, eggs, and dairy).
  • And the latest evidence suggests that you can even add small amounts of red meat in the context of a heart-healthy diet (As I have said in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, plant foods contain the antidotes to all the bad things about red meat.)

Finally, you might ask why I emphasize both heart-healthy foods and heart-healthy diets. There are two reasons:

  • Most of us think in terms of foods rather than diets.
  • The food industry is only too happy to provide us with ultra-processed foods for “heart-healthy” diets like the vegan and Mediterranean diet.

The Bottom Line

Two recent studies have shown how each of us can dramatically reduce our risk of heart disease.

  • The first study showed that eliminating ultra-processed foods from our diet can significantly decrease our heart disease risk – but didn’t tell us what the ultra-processed foods were replaced with.
  • The second study showed that eating more heart-healthy foods in the context of a heart-healthy diet can significantly decrease our risk of heart disease – but didn’t tell us what those healthy foods were replacing.

Taken together, those studies show us a clear path for dramatically decreasing our heart disease risk.

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

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

 _____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

 

What Your Doctor Didn’t Tell You About GLP-1 Drugs

by

Will You Get Scurvy If You Use A GLP-1 Drug?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

GLP-1 drugs have revolutionized the weight loss industry. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years.

Currently, there are around 33 million Americans (12% of the adult population) on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

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

And when you have millions of people taking a drug, you need to take a serious look at side effects. I have covered these in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

In that article I emphasized two side effects that I thought had not received sufficient attention:

  • 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 because they 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.

However, since I wrote that article these side effects have received more attention. Your doctor may have warned you about them.

But there is another concern about GLP-1 drug use that your doctor has probably not told you about.

What Your Doctor Didn’t Tell You About GLP-1 Drugs

Closeup portrait clueless senior health care professional doctor with stethoscope, has no answer, doesn’t know right diagnosis standing in hospital hallway isolated clinic office windows background.

The miracle of GLP-1 drugs is that they suppress appetite, which makes it much easier to lose weight.

  • Snacks are no longer appealing.
  • Large portion sizes leave you feeling bloated.
  • It’s tempting to skip meals because you just aren’t hungry.

You no longer have to struggle to eat less. It just comes naturally. But this miracle is also a snare. The issue becomes not how much you eat, but what you eat. The issue becomes not how many calories you eat, but how many nutrients you eat. And your doctor probably hasn’t talked to you about that.

Weight loss diets often result in nutritional insufficiencies. However, GLP-1-aided weight loss is worse.

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

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

The results are predictable:

  • As I discussed in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, a recent study found that the diets of the GLP-1 users were deficient in fiber, healthy fats, 10 essential vitamins and minerals and did not contain enough protein to prevent loss of muscle mass.

It’s All About Nutrient Density

healthy foodsYears ago, when I was researching the adequacy of the American diet I was surprised to discover that the USDA statistics showed that the diets of teenage women were suboptimal for many nutrients, while the diets of teenage boys were suboptimal for only a few.

You might ask, “What was the difference?”

  • It wasn’t that teenage boys ate a better diet.
  • If you have raised a teenage boy, you probably already know the answer. They have bigger appetites.

The message is clear, even with a lousy diet you can meet the recommended intake of most nutrients if you eat enough calories.

So, the analogy I will use is that going on GLP-1 drugs is like going from the caloric intake of a teenage boy to that of a teenage girl. Your diet will become nutritionally insufficient unless you change it.

This is where the concept of nutrient density comes in. You need to change your focus from how many calories there are in each serving of food you eat to how many nutrients there are in each serving of food you eat. You need to make every bite count.

And, just in case you were wondering where to find high nutrient density, low calorie foods:

  • Whole, unprocessed foods with no added fat or sugar are high in nutrient density and low in calories.
  • On the other hand, highly processed foods are low in nutrient density and high in calories.

The problem is that highly processed foods account for 60-70% of the calories in the typical American diet. So, if you are like most Americans GLP-1 use will result in nutritional insufficiencies unless you change your diets to focus on nutrient dense foods.

And the bonus is that that same focus on nutrient dense foods will help you keep the weight off once you quit the GLP-1 drug.

But your doctor probably hasn’t told you this.

Will You Get Scurvy If You Use A GLP-1 Drug?

Question MarkThe short answer is, “No”. It’s highly unlikely that you will ever develop scurvy while on GLP-1 drugs. You would need to have a truly horrible diet and never take multivitamins to develop a nutritional deficiency disease like scurvy.

Headlines like that are simply meant to draw you in, so you will read the article. But there are real concerns about the long-term effects of nutritional insufficiencies. For example:

  • Long term inadequacies of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D increase the risk of osteoporosis.
  • Long term inadequacies of healthy fats, magnesium, vitamin D, and antioxidants may increase the risk of heart disease.
  • Long term inadequacies of antioxidants and phytonutrients can accelerate cellular aging.
  • Long term muscle loss due to inadequate protein intake leads to frailty and metabolic diseases as we age.

You get the point. GLP-1 drugs are not a panacea for weight loss. Unless you switch to a whole food, nutrient dense diet you may end up leaner and sicker – not healthier.

What Does This Mean For You?

The take-home message is clear. GLP-1 drugs may seem like a weight loss miracle. Your appetite decreases. You eat less. And the pounds just melt away. But the health benefits of losing weight with GLP-1 drugs may be a mirage rather than a miracle.

That is because what you eat is critical. If you just eat less of what you were eating before, you may end up leaner and sicker.

Forget calories. Instead, focus on the nutrient density of the foods you are eating. And that means eating whole, unprocessed foods that are low in fat and added sugar.

But the ads don’t tell you that. The drug labels won’t tell you that. And chances are that your doctor won’t tell you that either.

The Bottom Line

GLP-1 drugs may seem like a weight loss miracle. Your appetite decreases. You eat less. And the pounds just melt away. But the health benefits of losing weight with GLP-1 drugs may be a mirage rather than a miracle.

That’s because what you eat while you are on GLP-1 drugs may be critical to your long-term health. And your doctor probably didn’t tell you about that when they were prescribing GLP-1.

For more details about the dangers of GLP-1 drugs, read the article above.

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

 ____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

For the past 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.

 

 

 

Do Eggs Prevent Cognitive Decline?

by

Are Eggs Brain Food?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

VillainFor 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?

clinical studyThe 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? 

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

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

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

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

For the past 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?

by

What Should You Put On Your Toast?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The Checkered History Of Margarine

MargarineMany 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? 

Margarine-Versus-ButterThe 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?

Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich on Whole WheatOnce 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

For the past 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.

 

Health Tips From The Professor